The Steady Drip

OBAMA ELIGIBILITY CHALLENGES SPREAD TO 6 STATES

2012-01-31T01:15:00.000-05:00

OBAMA ELIGIBILITY CHALLENGES SPREAD TO 6 STATES

Decision in Georgia case expected soon, but ballot concerns going viral

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-eligibility-challenges-spread-to-6-states/

GEORGIA HEARINGS – Two Base Hits and One Foul Ball - TWO OUT OF THREE AIN'T BAD -

2012-01-30T15:24:00.000-05:00

GEORGIA HEARINGS – TWO OUT OF THREE AIN'T BAD

Posted by: Dean C. Haskins
dean@birthersummit.org
202.241.3648
Posted: January 30, 2012
© 2012 The Birther Summit

Download a PDF

Author's Request: If you are not going to read the conclusion of this article, please do not read any of it. Those whose critical thinking skills are limited, either genetically, or willfully, are required to read the conclusion at least three times before sending me your zombie hate mail.

Once again, in the days following the hearings that were conducted in Georgia on January 26, there has been a lot of spin and misinformation coming from our side; while much of it comes from simply being overzealous about the hearings, we must be vigilant to stay on the side of truth.

But, before I get into that, I want to explain some things about the issues that we faced with the live video streaming. I was brought into the live streaming process pretty late in the game, and while my background and experience are in studio audio, before this past week, I had never been involved in any live streaming video project. We did visit the courtroom on Wednesday to assess the layout, but the facility had no wireless internet available, and our wireless card that had been shipped to Atlanta had not yet arrived; so, we were not able to test the live streaming in the courtroom. Moreover, the Media was relegated to the rear of the courtroom, and there was no allowance for placing any microphones at the front.

Ultimately, we gained a mountain of experiential knowledge through this first attempt, and will use what we learned to perfect our future live video streaming projects.

The First Two Cases Heard

The courtroom was packed and hot, and there was a constant flurry of activity throughout the morning. Things were said, and half-explained, in the midst of the surrounding confusion, so I want to take a moment to clarify the essence of what happened, now that there's been some time to accurately recount the events of the day.

Just as we witnessed internet postings falsely proclaiming that many individuals had been “subpoenaed” or “ordered by a judge” to appear in Atlanta, as well as repeated claims of there being a “trial” (instead of what they were—administrative hearings), that same kind of self-serving, inaccurate headline-manufacturing has resulted in claims that a “judge has ordered that Obama will not appear on the Georgia ballot.” Folks, not only has that not happened, Judge Malihi will not be issuing any such “order.” He will only be issuing a recommendation to Secretary of State Kemp, who will ultimately decide.

Prior to the start of the hearings on Thursday, the judge called the three attorneys who were present into his chambers and said that he could award them a default order because the defendant did not show up, but the attorneys stated that they would prefer to present abbreviated versions of their arguments so that they would be on the record, in case there were any appeals.

Their having chosen to present evidence, therefore, precluded a default order, as such an order is awarded in the absence of any evidence being presented. The fact that evidence was presented means that Judge Malihi must make his recommendation based upon that evidence. It is the understanding of the first two attorneys to present their cases that, whichever way the judge decides will ultimately result in an appeal, and with their evidence being presented, they have prepared their cases to proceed to the highest court in the land, if necessary. The third case, as presented, didn't, and won't, go anywhere.

The cases presented by attorneys Irion and Hatfield had nothing to do with any claims regarding Obama's birthplace or his birth certificate. In fact, Van Irion's plaintiff stipulated to the birth certificate that had been posted online, which means that, for the purposes of his case, his plaintiff accepted its validity as part of the court record. He merely used what is claimed to be a valid birth certificate to establish the fact that Obama's father was a foreign national, and never a US citizen. Mark Hatfield's plaintiffs relied on parental divorce records to establish the same fact. Neither attorney was concerned with anything other than arguing that Barack Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be president because of his father's lack of US citizenship.

At this point in the proceedings, and in light of the basis of much of the third case, I believe an attorney who either understood the law, or who had an actual interest in succeeding with that case, would have at least voiced an objection to attorney Irion's stipulation of the birth certificate, even if, for no other reason, than to have the objection entered into the record. However, the third attorney made no such objection.

Having quickly presented their evidence, the judge called for a brief recess, at which time, Irion and Hatfield asked for the record to be closed in their cases. While speculation resulted that they requested the closing of their cases to prevent the defendant from providing evidence, I do not believe that was their purpose, as was evidenced in their open, and calculated, exit from the courtroom before the beginning of the third hearing, and not returning. They wanted it understood that they would have nothing to do with the third case, and closed the record on their cases to keep the third case from diluting theirs.

Now, before proceeding with my report, let me say that, before Thursday, I had never personally met Orly Taitz. After she entered the courtroom, she approached the Media area, where I was standing with our live streaming equipment, and she asked, “Are you Dean Haskins?” I extended my hand and said, “Yes, how are you doing, Orly?” Without reciprocating the handshake, she stated, “I think it is about time for an apology,” to which I replied, “You can apologize to me anytime you want.” Through clenched teeth, Orly quietly seethed, “You're a piece of sh*t. You shouldn't even be here.” Classy.

It is not really necessary to go into a detailed analysis of Orly's presentation of her case, as there was little proffered that could be viewed as proper construction of a legal argument, or even a coherent presentation of evidence, but there are some points I believe need to be made.

As I have stated, Orly has grossly misrepresented the facts in her part of these cases, and, as I had previously remarked, any of the subpoenas she simply mailed to people who reside outside the state of Georgia weren't worth the paper on which the blank subpoena forms were downloaded and printed. Judge Malihi neither issued them, nor personally signed them. But, that's not what Orly stated to her faithful followers. Before the day of the hearings, jbjd came to the same conclusion. In fact, as many times as it has been pointed out that these were “administrative hearings” and not “trials,” Orly is still claiming her hearing was a trial. I have also recently read that Orly was “the principal attorney,” and that she “was the one responsible for these cases being heard.” That is an outright lie, as she injected herself into these cases very late in the process, and at the probable dismay of the other plaintiffs. It was the work of Swensson, Powell, Irion, Hatfield, and Weldon, which had been ongoing for more than two years, that brought these hearings to fruition.

As to my previous explanation that Orly's subpoena to Loretta Fuddy, which included a demand for certain documents of identification pertaining to Barack Obama, was completely unenforceable since Hawaii law prohibits the release of those documents to someone without a direct and tangible interest, and that a Georgia ALJ has no jurisdiction over Hawaii (something first-year law students would readily understand), Judge Malihi denied her request for that reason (although, as of this writing, Orly has chosen not to post that denial). Additionally, it appears that Orly may have knowingly gone outside the bounds of the law in a statement she made trying to coerce a Hawaiian court to provide certain documents to her.

On January 19, 2012, Orly filed an Ex Parte Amended Motion for Reconsideration under 60B in Honolulu, which was denied by Judge Nishamura. On page 5 of that motion is the following language: “I, Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ, declare under penalty of perjury, that I was given commission and subpoena (attached) to conduct deposition and examination of records of witness Loretta Fuddy, Director of Health.” Interestingly, what she stated “under penalty of perjury” never happened. It was a lie. Not only did she never go before Judge Malihi to obtain a commission prior to January 26, on January 27 Judge Malihi denied her request for such commission due to lack of jurisdiction (precisely as predicted). I would be surprised if this little tidbit doesn't get included in whatever Deputy AG Nagamine files with Judge Nishamura concerning Taitz.

If there were any questions regarding whether or not Orly is truly interested in proving anything in a courtroom about Barack Obama, those questions were finally put to rest last Thursday. Putting aside the abysmal legal performance we have all come to expect (which was certainly replayed on Thursday), and seeing the constant shameless appeals for donations (since her expenses to conduct her HEARING were so great), why would Orly have spent the money to hire apersonal professional videographer to capture her every move in the courtroom? If Orly's case wasn't all about Orly (rather than proving anything about Barack Obama), what possible motivation could she have had for such an extravagance? And, I'm not quite sure how she plans to use the footage of her transitioning from a closing argument, to taking the stand and testifying, and then back to a closing argument (at Judge Malihi's insistence), but it would probably be very useful in a “How-Not-To” video somewhere.

And, to what did she “testify”? While “testifying” about Barack Obama's Illinois Bar Application, Judge Malihi asked Orly what “personal knowledge” she had about the document (this is a common “legal” question), and Orly's response was that she had downloaded the image from the internet herself. Really? Did an attorney actually say that to a judge? I don't know if I could have been more embarrassed.

But, far and above the horrendous incompetence, unmerited self-promotion, and inexplicably inaccurate self-image, is Orly's proclivity still to throw people under the bus in an effort to provide cover for her ineptitude. While most everything about Orly's public persona is deplorable, this must be her most depraved character flaw.

In a ridiculous posting in which Orly spoke dishonestly about Sheriff Joe, she included abhorrent and wholly undeserved comments about Mara Zebest and Tom Harrigan (although, she didn't even get Mara's name correct). In essence, she stated that, if Zebest and Harrigan wouldn't agree to be a part of her absurd circus, then they are “totally worthless,” and “their opinion is of no value.” But, the fact that there was even a posting about Sheriff Joe in the first place should indicate to any sane individual that Orly is singularly the most damaging element of the entire eligibility movement (more on that in a minute).

It is clear that Orly does not want Sheriff Joe to garner any possible limelight for the efforts that he and his Cold Case Posse have expended, and her fake subpoena to him was an attempt to have that evidence presented as part of HER hearing (for then, she could somehow claim the evidence as her own). It needs to be understood that this is truly reprehensible behavior. To the one and only law enforcement official in the country who has stepped up to the plate and is conducting a thoroughly professional investigation, he deserves our utmost gratitude; but, after Sheriff Joe rightfully and commendably ignored Orly's downloaded unenforceable “subpoena,” Orly tried to elevate herself by diminishing him. That is censurable conduct, folks!

How can I assert that this was Orly's attempt to steal Sheriff Joe's evidence, and claim it as her own? From her website:

“Arpaio’s unwillingness to testify tells me that:

a. he does not have any new evidence aside from what I provided him.”

I have spoken several times with the Posse's lead investigator, and that statement couldn't be further from the truth. For those Orlyites out there, that is what is technically called a “lie.”

Also, Orly has been repeatedly vocal against proactive groups in our movement, such as Article2SuperPAC,ObamaReleaseYourRecords, Obama State Ballot Challenge, and GiveUsLiberty1776, but those entities deserve our full gratitude and support, as they are truly working for the benefit of our cause, and are not daily sabotaging it. Short of libel, I couldn't care less what Orly, or anyone else, says about me, but I will not stand idly by while she calls into question the characters and motivations of these good people.

I also commend jbjd.org as trustworthy commentary that cuts through the deceptive hype many in our movement have blindly accepted at face value.

Conclusion

Before sending me any hate emails like the ones I've already received, there are now ground rules involved. You must include this statement: “I, (state your name), declare under penalty of perjury, that I have read this conclusion at least three times.” Additionally, such hate mail must be constrained to refuting what I have stated. Personal attacks devoid of such refutation will demonstrate a lack of critical thinking skills on the part of the sender, and relegate such hate mail to the insignificant and unworthy of consideration.

Folks, I'm angry; not in a personal way, but fundamentally in regards to our cause. I have poured my time and energy into this issue as a quest for truth . . . nothing more, nothing less. When I see us publicly lauding disgraceful behavior, and honoring deception, then I fear we have lost our way in what we are doing. Such blanket approval of that is indicative of abject hatred overruling thoughtful objectivity. If we are willing to disregard truth and decency in our quest toward a goal, then we should re-examine our motivation for that goal.

On any given day, I can scroll through the headlines on Orly's website, and it literally turns my stomach. The contents are typically morally and ethically questionable; thus, I have a hard time believing that those who openly and totally support such, are not also lacking in morals and ethics—and I, personally, do not want to believe that! But, the tension that such an inconsistency produces in my conscience is the reason I believe I must speak up. I refuse to sear my conscience through my silence.

I am aware that most of those who are actually working in this movement do not disagree with me; however, there is a remnant who have not yet figured it out for themselves. To those who would accuse me of being “divisive,” or “hurting our cause,” if being truthful is divisive to a cause, then there's either something wrong with the cause, or the people within the cause. I cannot, in good conscience, tolerate aberrant behavior simply as a way to further the cause—and what some have not yet learned is that, as long as we do accept it, our cause will continue to be severely handicapped.

We have gained a toehold in Georgia (Orly had absolutely nothing to do with that, regardless of what she claims), and we owe a debt of gratitude to the plaintiffs and attorneys in the first two cases that were heard. However, if we continue to allow ourselves to be equated with the preposterous antics of the third case, we are doomed. The Media will always gravitate to that which makes it easiest to ridicule and vilify us—and, we saw that again this past week.

For those who are still unconvinced, take a few days and actually investigate the facts—and ignore every single word Orly says about Orly, or against anyone else. Obama himself could not have set into action a more brilliant ploy to keep him safe in the White House. If one forces himself to research and study the facts, apart from the repeatedly baseless claims, he will necessarily come to the same conclusion, for the facts themselves do not lie.

I am aware of so much more that I cannot divulge, as it would not be fair to those who have shared those things with me. If they want to come forward with such information, that will be up to them—I will not betray their confidence.

In the end, the hate emails I have received have been from those who are not aware of the truth (from a lack of real research, and reliance on the constant deception), cannot understand the truth, or who know the truth, but choose to ignore it. The last group are the ones I most fear regarding our cause, as they will ultimately be the “divisive” ones, and will be the ones who keep us relegated to the circus sideshow.

Again, if I must be hated for speaking the truth, then so be it. But, if you're going to send me a message to let me know just how much you hate me, it had better be because you can refute what I've said, and not because you just don't like it. I am completely open to being proved wrong where the facts are concerned—and, if you want to share your hatred with me, I hope you DO try to refute the facts, because then you will at least have to face them.

Peace, if possible, but the truth at any rate. - Martin Luther

###

If you would like more information about the Birther Summit, please visit our website often at www.birthersummit.org or contact Dean Haskins at dean@birthersummit.org.

Voting for Faith, Reason, and Heart - I therefore state my intention to vote in the Florida Primary for Rick Santorum

2012-01-29T17:18:00.000-05:00

Voting for Faith, Reason, and Heart

I have a favorite film about sports. It is entitled “Miracle.” It is about the miraculous 1980 US Olympic Hockey Team. This young team of college lads clawed its way to the Gold Medal round, defeating the Swedes, the East Germans, the Czechs, the Finns, and most dramatically, the Soviet Union. Even knowing the outcome of the movie, I sit on the edge of my seat and cheer out loud [maybe you wouldn’t, but I do] for the unabashedly patriotic themes about competition, faith, and family. Kurt Russell is fantastic in the Role of Coach Herb Brooks [who sadly passed away just before the movie screened].

This ‘got me to thinkin’. The great uplifting Olympic victory, against all odds, happened when we needed a big lift. It happened during the disastrous Presidency that was Jimmy Carter. The Iranians had destroyed our Embassy and had taken hostages. The Soviet Union had invaded

Afghanistan

in a take-over bid.

So, I have done a bit of reading, thinking, apologizing [in the argumentative sense] lately about Conservatism and I have a few thoughts about Newt Gingrich, Romney, Paul and Santorum. The first thought is that Party Nominations are to be earned, not bestowed. Santorum, Paul, Romney and Gingrich should contest this every step of the way. I am prepared to support the nominee even if I must hold my nose when voting, but for the sake of the American People, let this play out.

Lincoln asked and answered rhetorically, “What is Conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?” I think that this does not say, as Liberals would maintain, that Conservatives have no new ideas. It, instead, praises hanging onto that which works, and implies that we must build on lessons learned. Too many ideas unconnected and without a platform are a strategy that results in political death ... look to the decayed Federalist and impotent Whig Parties for historical proof. Is Conservatism now wallowing and foundering on a political sandbar? Does it help that Romney and Gingrich are doing their [unintentional] best to give Obama a free pass as they indulge their egos with personal potshots?

Newt Gingrich has this tendency to use historical example, but without a roadmap. He thereby later is often caricatured as a snake oil salesman or the Mad Hatter. He fails to explain his out-loud thinking in proper context. As an example: If I were to speak about Sherman and Grant, I would say that they were great generals and they certainly took Napoleon’s Mass War concepts to new levels, but they’ll have few fans here in the South. I would be certain to explain their greatness within historical context, and also contrast it with the greatness of Generals Lee and Jackson, and their war-fighting theories and practice. Statements require support.

I understand a context of greatness as regards FDR. I think I know what Gingrich was getting at when he praised FDR as a politician. I personally think FDR was a collectivist skunk, politically. But, it is also hard not to like a spunky, ebullient, wheelchair-bound President who, when asked where Doolittle’s planes launched from, said, “Shangri-La.” FDR also allowed his Admirals and Generals great leeway in waging war against the evils of Japanese Feudalist Imperialism and German National Socialism.

Still, one must then also criticize FDR’s his failure to act against the Nazi Death Camps, or his failure to recognize, as late as the Yalta Conference, that Josef Stalin was totally evil, and not “Uncle Joe.” [Yalta’s outcomes essentially handed over Eastern Europe to almost 50 years of Soviet domination and Cold War conflict.] Gingrich may be just a bit too much like FDR in Liberal spirit and method, if not philosophy and leader consistency. Gingrich: Populist, yes, but a true conservative?... You judge.

I understand the importance, in a greater sense, of Newt suggesting a Moon Colony, but it is a knock-off of a Kennedy vision past with no funding possibilities, zero, leastwise at taxpayer expense. It becomes perhaps a worthy goal, once Obama-care is repealed and the debt is paid down. Also required: Americans must be re-trained in self-reliance, less materialism, and loving thy neighbor [especially the ones in the womb or the nursing home]. To be balanced, Romney has not exactly been full of vision for saving

America

. Americans are not the Olympics or Bain Capital acquisitions, and I certainly would not brag about my time as the Massachusetts Governor if I were he.

As for true fire in the belly, I would say look to Rick Santorum, or even to 76-year-old Ron Paul. You must respect their passion and genuine love of country and family first. They display it unpretentiously. I do not like to see family used as props, nor do I like to see vainglorious posturing by those who want to be President ... just so they can be President. Gingrich and Romney both strike me in this fashion. Romney seems to disappear when you take away his resume; you must look hard to find anything beyond business there.

Gingrich seems to disappear if you look deeper into his resume and behaviors; then you must search for where he went. Mind you, I do not discount the possibilities of earnest repentance and redemption, nor do I discount the possibility of political growth, evolution, and change of mind on key moral and political issues by either Romney or Gingrich, but I simply do not discern “genuine” in either man. I know I am on sound ground here because my wife agrees ... and she is always right!

I see a continuation of the GOP primary battle overall as a good process. This may all come down to a brokered convention with many ballots. We could even see a surprise ... like a Draft Palin movement. However it turns out, it will be an opportunity to roar out of that convention with a full head of steam and a solid platform. Look out, Obama!

Conscience is a nagging thing. If Rick Perry’s name is still on the Florida ballot Tuesday, I would be sorely tempted to vote for him despite Perry’s withdrawal from the race; this would be unproductive. I therefore state my intention to vote in the Florida Primary for Rick Santorum. He may not be a lovely giant like Ronald Reagan, or the consummate politician, but, Rick Santorum has, in my estimation, many good solid qualities, among them; he speaks from Reason and Faith [ratio et fides], and has the Heart of a Lincoln.

Most importantly, I am setting aside my desires and wants here and I am trusting in God. If God is with us, after all, who can be against us. I believe in miracles.

William R. Mann
Most recent columns

William R. Mann, is a retired Lt. Colonel, US Army. He is a now a political observer, analyst, activist and writer for Conservative causes. He was educated at West Point [Bachelor of Science, 1971 ]and the Naval Postgraduate School [Masters, National Security Affairs, 1982]. He currently resides with his wife in Pensacola, Florida. William can be reached at:letters@canadafreepress.com

Georgia Ballot Challenge: Obama Walks On By

2012-01-29T01:06:00.002-05:00

Georgia Ballot Challenge: Obama Walks On By

By Cindy Simpson and Alan P. Halbert

Two AT writers attended yesterday's hearing in Georgia over President Obama's eligibility for the presidential ballot. Cindy Simpson writes:
President Obama has a habit of turning his back and walking away from those with whom he disagrees, as recently discovered by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. Professor John Lott, in an interview with Teri O'Brien, recalled similar experiences with Obama while at the University of Chicago.
Ms. O'Brien commented to Professor Lott: "Gods don't debate. They just issue decrees."
And apparently they also tend to place themselves above the law.
On January 26, I was in Atlanta to observe the hearings on the challenges to Obama's eligibility to appear on Georgia's 2012 ballot. In two previous American Thinker blog posts, "The Birthers Went Down to Georgia" and "Georgia on Obama's Mind," I described the content and history of the cases.
The courtroom was crowded to maximum capacity; however, the table for the defense was notably vacant. The defendant, Obama himself, was also not in attendance, even though the judge last week refused to quash the subpoena requesting his presence. Judge Michael Malihi, in his denial, stated:

...Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend. Defendant's motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority...evidencing why his attendance is "unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony... [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary..."

Obama's attorney, Michael Jablonski, had warned of his absence in a defiant and last-minute move on the afternoon of January 25, via a letter he sent to Georgia's Secretary of State Brian Kemp. He requested that Kemp "bring an end to this baseless, costly and unproductive hearing by withdrawing the original hearing request as improvidently issued." Jablonski's letter concluded: "We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26."
A few hours later, the blogosphere lit up with the news that Secretary Kemp had responded with a letter stating that the hearings would continue on the 26^th as scheduled, and concluded with the warning: "...if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril."

And the hearings did proceed, although approximately 20 minutes late, after Judge Malihi requested a pre-hearing conference with all of the attorneys in his chambers.
Van Irion of the Liberty Legal Foundation presented his case first, followed by J. Mark Hatfield and Orly Taitz. Irion's argument focused on the definition of "natural born" citizen in the holding of Minor v Happersett and the principle of "statutory construction" in the interpretation of the 14^th amendment. Hatfield added the fact that the Interpretations of the Immigration and Naturalization Service recognize the delineation between "natural born" and "native-born" citizenship.
Orly Taitz also ably presented her evidence regarding the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate and questions surrounding his Social Security number, even though she was rushed by the judge on several occasions, shortening her planned two-hour presentation by half.
After only two hours for three hearings that most spectators had expected to take several, Judge Malihi asked the attorneys to file briefs by February 5 and dismissed the courtroom. No date has been set for his decision.
Rumors began flying around the blogosphere almost immediately -- primarily one that the judge had informed the attorneys, in the pre-hearing conference, that he intended to enter a default judgment against Obama. If true, that would essentially mean that yet another action against Obama's eligibility has resulted in no decision on the merits.
Under Georgia law, the Secretary of State had properly deferred the ballot challenges to the OSAH for the court's opinion, and the determination of whether or not Obama's name will appear on the Georgia ballot ultimately rests with the Secretary.
Regardless of the outcome in Georgia, it appears that Obama has openly shown his disregard for the laws of that state. According to Irion, Obama has also "decided that he is above the Courts, the law, and the Constitution. He has just indicated...that he is not subject to their authority. This is the true story from today, yet almost no one will report it."
Obama has deliberately turned his back, and walked on by.
And most of the media has followed along right behind him.
Alan P. Halbert also attended the hearing and writes:

Obama Declares he is Above Georgia's Election Laws
Several back-to-back hearings were held on Thursday the 26^th of January 2012 on the status of whether President Obama is Constitutionally eligible under Article II Sec 1 requirements as a "Natural Born Citizen" and appear on the Georgia primary presidential ballot. This came about by several Citizens filing challenges to Obama being placed on primary ballot with the Georgia Secretary of State Mr. Brian P. Kemp in accordance with Georgia election law. Obama had been given an Order to appear along with the production of documents by the presiding Administrative Law Judge assigned to hear the matter, the Honorable Michael Malihi. Obama and his Attorney chose not to comply with the Court's Order, provide the documents, present a defense or attend the hearing. Obama's attorney Mr. Jablonski chose instead to send a letter to Mr. Kemp requesting that the hearing be dismissed, as they claimed the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter and that they would not attend if it was held as scheduled.   Mr. Kemp responded with his regrets that they decided to forgo the Hearing and warned them "they did so at their own peril" if they failed to offer evidence disputing the allegation of the Citizens complaints.
The election of a President is done through the compilation and aggregation of the individual State Election returns which have the responsibility under the Constitution to conduct Elections. It most assuredly is a Citizen's Right to inquire into the Constitutional qualification of any Candidate to hold any elected office in Georgia whether it is a State or Federal Office which includes the office of President. This is also the case with the other forty nine States as well which have similar Statutes.
The evidence that was presented was varied and ran the gamut of the factual legal arguments to evidence of a personal nature attributed personally to Obama. Mr. Van Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation presented the facts of Minor V. Happersett and portrayed it front and center as to the definition of a "Natural Born Citizen" and as definitive from a unanimous ruling by SCOTUS in 1875 -- the legal heart of the matter. An Amicus Brief was filed in the case by Leo Donofrio Esq. and would be considered an authoritative discussion of the natural born citizen issue and its common law lineage. Each attorney (three in all) in due course presented their cases then rested as the next one presented the case; it appeared well coordinated among all attorneys.
Most all of the testimony was given by expert witnesses, except for the foundation testimony of the citizens that brought the actions; document experts on the authenticity of Obama's Birth Certificate, the Social Security number he uses (used on tax returns) and his and his mother's passport records. A private investigator testified that his Social Security Number (SSN) was originally issued to a deceased individual born in 1890, and was issued from Connecticut a State he is never been known to inhabit.
Orly Taitz, the last attorney to present her case, has been the subject of considerable criticism of her character by various persons during her four year ordeal stretching back to 2008 when she started down this road with Obama. She drew considerable ire and vitriol from Mr. Jablonski, in his letter to Mr. Kemp requesting the dismissal of the hearing.   Her case was developed with credible skill however lacked the polish of an experienced litigator. Though appeared solid in evidentiary value and her presentation of the facts were damning. It was probably for the personal nature of her inquiry of Obama and his credentials which drew such criticism from others along the way and Obama's attorney in particular.
She presented through direct testimony the opinions of several document experts that declared the Birth Certificate presented by Obama last April as having the hallmarks of an assembled or false document, as it was layered similar to what would be produced with modern computer software, and not a simple copy of an official record from 1961. He also discussed anomalies of certain character spacing which would not have been present or possible with the typewriters of the 1960's. This layering issue was further verified by another expert witness for document scanning technology and his conclusion was that his long form birth certificate appeared to be falsified as well by certain abnormal patterns appearing in his Birth Certificate.
The compilation of this information was then verified by another expert witness, a retired Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) investigator. He testified that the anomalies seen on Obama's records, Social Security Number and birth certificate which had different Registrars for similar certificates that were issued within days of one another was difficult to explain. The out of Sequence birth certificate issuance numbers which were lower than Obama's, though issued several days after his birth, was difficult to explain as these numbers are issued sequentially. There were issues with the official embossed seal that were not accurate for similar records issued during this time period in Hawaii, his birthplace. He testified that these anomalies rose to the level that would require further investigation, possible arrest and prosecution for documents that had the cumulative defects that Obama's exhibited in similar investigation of false documents.
However, what I find most baffling was the decision of Obama and his Attorney choosing to be absent from the proceedings. However, Judge Malihi conducted the hearing in a manner of decorum and was an honest presentation of the facts. Though was hard to guard against the bias of the parties without Obama and his Council being present.
Many people who are unfamiliar with the Legal System do not know that the hearing or trial level is known as the "trier of the facts". Only matters of Law can be appealed, not the facts that are developed, presented or testified to in any hearing or trial. Only when there is overwhelming evidence of malfeasance, gross perjury or the denial of the admissibility of probative evidence is a new trial or hearing ordered when a mistake of law has been found on appeal. As a practical matter appellate courts rarely order such remedy, when ordered it is believed that the defendant did not have his constitutional right to face his accusers at the trier of the facts level!
Since Obama and his attorney chose not to be present a defense and dispute the evidence that was presented, this can be taken as an admission that all of the evidence admitted were indeed facts and may not be disputed at a later time on appeal!   The irony of this course is that Obama is declaring that the court has no Jurisdiction in this matter and will appeal as a matter of law though these damning facts may very well stand! It also gives the impression that he considers himself above the law -- Georgia's. We have a plethora of data points on the sequestering of all of Obama's records and bona fides which he has spent millions of dollars to keep out the public's hands for the last four years. After this hearing we may eventually know why.
________________________________________________________________________
Below is a summary list of the physical evidence introduced in yesterday's hearing in GA.
P2. Affidavit of Senior Deportation Officer with the Department of Homeland Security John Sampson, showing that Obama is using Connecticut SSN 042-68-4425
p3. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing Obama's alleged true and correct copy of his birth certificate to be a computer generated forgery
P4. Affidavit of witness Linda Jordan, attesting to the fact, that SSN 042-68-4425, used by Obama, does not pass E-Verify
p6. Selective service certificate showing Obama using SSN 042-68-4425 and official printout from Social Security Number Verification Services, showing that 042-68-4425 was never issued to Barack Obama, attached e-mail from Colonel Gregory Hollister
p7. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing that Obama is using CT SSN 042-68-4425 on his 2009 tax returns
p9. Hawaiian birth certificate 61-00637 of Susan Nordyke, born a few hours after Obama in Kapiolani Hospital, looks completely different from alleged copy of birth certificate of Obama
p10. Passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, mother of Barack Obama, showing Obama listed in her passport under the name Barack Obama Soebarkah, attached affidavit by Chris Strunk, recipient of Obama's passport records under FOIA
p11. Barack Obama's Indonesian school registration card #203, date accepted January 1, 1968, released by the Associated Press in Indonesia, showing him using last name Soetoro and listing citizenship -Indonesia....
Amicus Brief. Mr. Leo Donofrio, Esq.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/01/georgia_ballot_challenge_obama_walks_on_by.html

Here's your change! - In just three years Obama accomplished all this - Wow, what a guy!

2012-01-28T22:46:00.000-05:00

Here's your change!

	January 2009	TODAY	*% chg*	^Source
Avg. Retail price/gallon gas in U.S.	$1.83	$3.44	84%	¹
Crude oil, European Brent (barrel)	$43..48	$99..02	127.7%	²
Crude oil, West TX Inter. (barrel)	$38..74	$91..38	135.9%	²

Corn, No.2 yellow, Central IL	$3.56	$6.33	78.1%	²
Soybeans, No. 1 yellow, IL	$9.66	$13..75	42.3%	²
Sugar, cane, raw, world, lb. Fob	$13..37	$35..39	164.7%	²
Unemployment rate, non-farm, overall	7.6%	9.4%	23.7%	³
Unemployment rate, blacks	12.6%	15.8%	25.4%	³
Number of unemployed	11,616,000	14,485,000	24.7%	³
Number of fed. Employees	2,779,000	2,840,000	2.2%	³
Real median household income	$50,112	$49,777	-0.7%	⁴
Number of food stamp recipients	31,983,716	43,200,878	35.1%	⁵
Number of unemployment benefit recipients	7,526,598	9,193,838	22.2%	⁶
Number of long-term unemployed	2,600,000	6,400,000	146.2%	³
Poverty rate, individuals	13.2%	14.3%	8.3%	⁴
People in poverty in U.S.	39,800,000	43,600,000	9.5%	⁴
U.S. Rank in Economic Freedom World Rankings	5	9	n/a	¹⁰
Present Situation Index	29.9	23.5	-21.4%	¹¹
Failed banks	140	164	17.1%	¹²
U.S. Dollar versus Japanese yen exchange rate	89.76	82.03	-8.6%	²
U.S. Money supply, M1, in billions	1,575.1	1,865.7	18.4%	¹³
U.S. Money supply, M2, in billions	8,310.9	8,852.3	6.5%	¹³
National debt, in trillions	$10..627	$14..052	32.2%	¹⁴

Just take this last item: In the last two years we have accumulated national debt at a rate more than 27 times as fast as during the rest of our entire nation's history.

Sources:
(1) U.S. Energy Information Administration; (2) Wall Street Journal; (3) Bureau of Labor Statistics; (4) Census Bureau; (5) USDA; (6) U.S. Dept. Of Labor;
(7) FHFA; (8) Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller; (9) RealtyTrac; (10) Heritage Foundation and WSJ; (11) The Conference Board; (12) FDIC;
(13) Federal Reserve; (14) U.S. Treasury

I wouldn't call this an endorsement! - I have decided who I will vote for in the Florida GOP primary.

2012-01-28T19:43:00.002-05:00

10 videos of Ricks speech in Naples FL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz5xKF1vpDA&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

I have decided who I will vote for in the Florida GOP primary.

There is less wrong and more right with Rick Santorum than the other candidates.

VIDEO OF RICK IN NAPLES FL

This is the Beginning of the End for Barack Hussein Obama

2012-01-28T13:16:00.000-05:00

This is the Beginning of the End for Barack Hussein Obama

CNN Tries To Whitewash Obama's Radical Past

2012-01-28T02:19:00.002-05:00

CNN Tries To Whitewash Obama's Radical Past

IBD Editorials.com

As the president launches his re-election bid by striking a more centrist tone, the partisan press is helping him whitewash his radical past. Teamwork or not, it'll be hard to bleach. Exhibit A is CNN's Soledad O'Brien. Earlier this week, she hosted a segment that tried to de-link Obama from Chicago socialist Saul Alinsky. The late Alinsky is the father of community organizing and the author of the far-left bible "Rules for Radicals."
O'Brien opened her piece by scolding GOP front-runner Newt Gingrich for warning Obama "will represent Saul Alinsky (and) European socialism" in a second term. "President Obama has never said that he was influenced by Alinsky," O'Brien insisted.
Of course he hasn't. He's not stupid enough to publicly link himself to a socialist. But the record is clear that he was in fact influenced by Alinsky, if only CNN's "journalists" would do their homework. Allow us to do it for them:
• Obama first learned Alinsky's rules in the 1980s, when Alinskyite radicals with the Chicago-based Alinsky group Gamaliel Foundation recruited, hired, trained and paid him as a community organizer in South Side Chicago. (Gamaliel's website expressly states it grew out of the Alinsky movement.)
• In 1988, Obama even wrote a chapter for the book "After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois," in which he lamented organizers' "lack of power" in implementing change.
• Gamaliel board member John McKnight, a hard-core student of Alinsky, penned a letter for Obama to help him get into Harvard Law School.
• Obama took a break from his Harvard studies to travel to Los Angeles for eight days of intense training at Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation, a station of the cross for acolytes.
• In turn, he trained other community organizers in Alinsky agitation tactics.
• Obama also taught Alinsky's "Power Analysis" methods at the University of Chicago.
• During the presidential campaign, Obama hired one of his Gamaliel mentors, Mike Kruglik, to train young campaign workers in Alinsky tactics at "Camp Obama," a school set up at Obama headquarters in Chicago. The tactics helped Obama capture the youth vote like no other president before him.
• Power would no longer be an issue, as Obama infiltrated the highest echelon of the political establishment — the White House — fulfilling Alinsky's vision of a new "vanguard" of coat-and-tie radicals who "work inside the system" to change the system.
• After the election, his other Gamaliel mentor, Jerry Kellman (who hired him and whose identity Obama disguised in his memoir), helped the Obama administration establish Organizing for America, which mobilizes young supporters to agitate for Obama's legislative agenda using "Rules for Radicals."
• Obama's favorite rule is No. 13: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." You see that in his attacks on "fat cat bankers," "greedy health insurers" and "millionaires and billionaires." He also readily applies Alinsky's fifth rule of "ridiculing" the opposition.
"Obama learned his lesson well," said David Alinsky, son of the late socialist. "I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing."
Bizarrely, O'Brien was more than willing to connect Alinsky with the Tea Party, without citing a shred of real evidence to back up the silly claim. The CNN anchor closed her segment by saying she would pin Gingrich down on his supposedly misleading claims. "We will be sure to ask the former speaker the next time we get a chance to talk to him about that," she said.
Wouldn't it make more sense to just ask Obama? You know, "Mr. President, have you ever read Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals'"? Or "Have your ever trained at organizations founded by Alinsky?"
Is she really this clueless? Or is she covering for Obama? Either way, it does not reflect well on a journalist of her stature and influence.
It's plain CNN plans to gloss over the president's radical past in this campaign, just like it did in 2008.

Why Isn't Orly mentioned? - GEORGIA JUDGE CONSIDERED 'DEFAULT' AGAINST OBAMA

2012-01-28T01:40:00.000-05:00

GEORGIA JUDGE CONSIDERED 'DEFAULT' AGAINST OBAMA

Ruling could have brought immediate recommendation to remove name from ballot

Attorneys who argued in a Georgia court this week that Barack Obama isn’t eligible to be president say Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi considered granting a default judgment before they even argued the case.

That presumably could have recommended that Obama failed to prove his eligibility and therefore should not be on the 2012 ballot, since he and his lawyer snubbed the hearing, for which Obama was subpoenaed.

But the attorneys argued against such an easy victory on the point of the single hearing, expressing instead their desire to get the evidence concerning Obama’s eligibility or lack of it in the record, so that it would be there should the case elevate to an appellate level.

The attorneys also said the strategy decision by Obama to simply ignore the subpoena and the hearing may ultimately backfire, because judges typically aren’t pleased to listen to arguments from someone who wants to introduce evidence during an appeal.

Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

Both attorneys, J. Mark Hatfield and Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation told WND they felt comfortable discussing the situation as the judge had imposed no ban on communicating what happened.

“The judge … was considering just entering a default judgment against Obama,” Hatfield said today. “The plaintiffs’ attorneys uniformly did not want the judge to do that because there wouldn’t be any evidence in the record at all.”

In Georgia, state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.

That’s exactly what several groups of individuals did. Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell,represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.

Hatfield and Irion told WND the expected process is that Malihi will make a decision over the course of the next week whether Obama, without appearing or being represented at the hearing, documented his eligibility to the court’s satisfaction.

That recommendation then goes to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, to whom Obama’s lawyer, Michael Jablonski, earlier had complained that Malihi was letting the attorneys “run amok” since the issue of Obama’s “citizenship” had been resolved.

But in fact the U.S. Constitution demands a different status for presidents, that of a “natural born citizen,” which Founders likely considered to be the offspring of two citizen parents. If that is the case, Obama could not be eligible as his father was a Kenyan national subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.

At the time Jablonski complained to Kemp and told him he should simply cancel the hearing, Kemp warned Jablonski that he ultimately would be reviewing the hearing result, and to not participate would be at Obama’s “peril.”

Both lawyers, whose cases in fact are separate from each other as well as from the Taitz’ case, said it was important for them to be able to introduce evidence and build a court record.

Hatfield said the goal ultimately is to have a court rule on the substance of the controversy: Is it necessary to have citizen parents to be a “natural born citizen” or will that definition evolve as America ages?

Hatfield told WND that he specifically asked the judge at the end of the hearing to close the record, and he did that. Hatfield said that should make it clear that as the decision is made, and any challenges progress, no new information can be added to the evidence already submitted.

He said it’s very clear that the court had jurisdiction to take the case and accept evidence, since the ballot at issue is a ballot with which the state election in 2012 will be conducted.

And Hatfield noted that although Obama’s lawyer at least made a motion to quash the subpoena from Taitz for his testimony and records, Obama’s attorneys never even bothered to respond to his own motion to produce records.

Obama’s campaign declined to respond to WND emails and messages inquiring about a comment on the situation.

Irion told WND the default is a typical result when one side fails to appear for a dispute that’s being adjudicated in court, but in this case, that would have left it wide open for arguments on appeal that had nothing to do with the issue.

He said he explained to the judge that awarding a default judgment actually would have been rewarding Obama for failing to respond to the subpoena.

The attorneys said they would be watching for Obama’s next move in the contest. And they said they believe there is a possibility that because of the dispute, Obama may end up not being on the Georgia ballot in the fall.

Obama lost the state in the 2008 election to John McCain.

Earlier, several attorneys who previously took cases challenging Obama’s eligibility as high as the U.S. Supreme Court said Obama’s refusal to participate in the hearing was a travesty.

“That President Obama’s attorneys didn’t show respect for the court, the citizens, the secretary of state, and the statutes of Georgia reveals the true character of the administration as being completely and utterly against state’s rights,” said attorney Leo Donofrio. “The federal government is growing out of control with every administration and this action today is a loud announcement that this administration is going to do what it likes, and you can imagine that their response to this judiciary would be exactly the same if this had been the U.S. Supreme Court.”

He said if Georgia does decide to keep Obama off its state election ballots, he won’t appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, “because if he were to lose there, his entire administration would be void, including his appointments to the Supreme Court.”

“If Obama were to appeal in Georgia, only this election is in play, and only as to Georgia’s ballots, but if he loses in Georgia, appealing to the SCOTUS brings in his entire eligibility, and the legitimacy of his current administration,” Donofrio warned.

“My personal belief is that if the U.S. Supreme Court held that he was ineligible, he might simply ignore the ruling, and test the will of the nation, just as he is testing the will of the state of Georgia,” he said.

“If the judge’s recommendation – and I’ve been told that it’s going to be to disqualify Mr. Obama as a candidate – is followed by the secretary of state, Mr. Obama has got a real problem,” said Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.

His organization pursued several of the lawsuits over Obama’s occupancy of the Oval Office to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not accepted any eligibility cases.

“He’s thumbed his nose at the court. He’s thumbed his nose at the secretary of state in Georgia. He’s thumbed his nose at the people and said, ‘I’m above it all. I’m above the law,’” Kreep said.

Mario Apuzzo, who also shepherded a case to the Supreme Court, said Obama, by not showing, “actually failed to meet his burden of proof, to show that he is eligible and should be placed on the ballot.”

“For him to just ignore due process here is really telling a lot,” he said, noting, “This decision will have a ripple effect.”

“He’s not above the law. That’s a very important thing here. He’s a private person running for office, so he had no business not showing up. So the court can enter the judgment, and then the secretary of state does what he wants with it. And this will have a ripple effect for other secretaries of state, for other states, for the public. Also for any case that could be pending in the Supreme Court, where the issue of Mr. Obama’s eligibility is implicated,” he said.

Links to stories about the most important issue for our nation - Obama's Ineligibility

2012-01-28T01:32:00.000-05:00

From: To: The National MiddleClass Network & Tea Parties

"Regardless of your party, everyone needs to know what's being reported..."

And...Thank you all for your kind comments on our fairness in both sides of reports. As you know, we are having IP issues. So, if you too will be forwarding this email, thank you for deleting our email address, personal information, etc. from it. This helps prevent the proliferation of spam. Also should anyone no longer choose to receive our "NewsMail", please let us know. Thanks.

----- Original Message -----

From: To: Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 3:43 PM

Subject: RE: MUST SEE: Carl Swensson Takes Obama To Court For Real ! 22 min

Carl Swenson with Pastor Manning, interview yesterday

OBAMA TO PROVE HE IS NATURAL BORN CITIZEN; NOT FOR PLAINTIFFS TO PROVE HE IS NOT!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hxx33V4WuY&feature=youtu.be

http://www.riseupforamerica.com/

----- Original Message -----

From: JigsawTo:Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 9:18 PM

Subject: The most important issue of the nation

The most important issue of the nation and no media orginazation covers this at all. However they do cover his campaign trip, figure that if you can.

Incredible day at Obama-no-show eligibility trial ...

Incredible day at Obama-no-show eligibility trial ...
Finally, sworn testimony about Barack Obama's lack of eligibility and his possibly fraudulent Social Security Number gets heard in an American court of law. Find out the juicy details right now at WND. Click here to read the full article

CERTIFIGATE

Obama accused of disrespecting court, state, Americans

'My belief is if Supreme Court held he was ineligible, he might simply ignore the ruling'

Plus.......................

What happened at Obama-no-show trial

Constitutional expert says arguments over Barack…

What eligibility doubters think

----- Original Message -----

From: C. & B Hockenbury

To: undisclosed-recipients@blu0-omc2-s16.blu0.hotmail.com

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:21 PM

Subject: A Must Read - OBAMA ELIGIBILITY COURT CASE. BLOW BY BLOW

http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138

What Really Happened In A Georgia Courtroom On January 26, 2012?

2012-01-27T19:14:00.000-05:00

What Really Happened In A Georgia Courtroom On January 26, 2012?

JANUARY 27, 2012 BY MIKI BOOTh

Wednesday, January 25, 2012 was the longest day I would never want to re-live but feel it necessary to document for posterity. The day had its ups and downs and ins and outs and Article II, Section 1.5 Constitutionalist, also known as “birthers,” “racists,” “wing-nuts” and “fringe” were holding our collective breaths and praying like never before.

The day actually began much earlier when, for the first time in over three years, a judge had agreed to hear a lawsuit that would require Barack Obama, leader of the free world and most powerful man on earth, to appear in a Georgia courtroom. This time it was not a federal case as in many challenges brought by attorney Orly Taitz and others, but instead, an administrative judge for the state of Georgia would hear the case. Judge Michael Malihi scheduled the hearing and issued subpoenas. Obama’s Atlanta lawyer, Michael Jablonski, quickly issued a Motion to Dismiss. Of course we expected this. Obama’s dream team of Perkins Coie and his stable of attorneys across the United States and under the auspices of Eric Holder’s DOJ and Elena Kagan, Obama’s pre-election counsel and now sitting Supreme Court Justice would come down on Orly Taitz like an iron fist. But on January 3, their Motion to Dismiss was DENIED.

This was big. Would we really have our day in court? It was almost too good to be true. Dozens of lawsuits over Obama’s eligibility had been dismissed for “lack of standing,” “wrong jurisdiction” or “procedural errors.” But this time a judge actually moved our case forward because he read the Georgia law correctly in that it explicitly gives Georgia residents the right to challenge candidates wanting to be on the state ballot.

We blogged, we called, we emailed and got the word out to as many people as we could. We anxiously monitored the mainstream news but again, nothing except a small mention on FOX Brett Baier’s “Grapevine,” where he tossed in the “birther” epithet meant to discredit us. We were used to that. The lawsuit moved forward.

Obama’s lawyer, Jablonski, spoke to reporters saying the lawsuit would be dismissed just as every challenge has been defeated and Obama would not be going to Georgia. Of course the traditional media carried his story to the ends of the earth. But we moved on Orly would line up her witnesses and arrange to pay their way to Georgia. We had Susan Daniels who discovered Obama’s stolen identity in a CT social security number and experts on Adobe and a former INS agent. All these witnesses had overwhelming evidence of fraud and forgery. The copy of Obama’s birth certificate posted on the White House website confirmed that Obama is not natural born as required in the Constitution. Early on Wednesday, we learned that Leo Donofrio, renown authority on the Constitution and federalist papers, had filed a 200 page Amicus (friend of the court) Brief which joined the documented evidence irrefutably proving that Obama is not a natural-born Citizen and even his status of “native born Citizen” is questionable because of the suspected birth document forgery.

Within hours, Orly Taitz and the attorneys for the plaintiffs in two other lawsuits that had been consolidated were copied on a letter from Obama’s Atlanta attorney, Jablonski. The letter was sent to Georgia Secretary of State, Brian P. Kemp to stop the hearing. It came at approximately 3:00pm but by five o’clock, SOS Kemp responded to Jablonski rejecting the request and stated it would not be judicious given the hearing is set for the next morning. He added, “…if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

About the same time I was working diligently to get the latest news out to my contacts including posting the information on Facebook, I got a comment and link to Leo Donofrio’snaturalborncitizen blog. The news was stunning. Leo was alerted to information in the government’s own INS/ICE handbook delineating a distinct difference in “natural-born citizen” and “native-born” citizen. I scrambled. Did my Birther Summit team know about this? I painstakingly emailed the information to my 500 or so contacts and posted on Facebook. It was too let to get it into the court records but it didn’t matter. Our case was air-tight as it was.

It had been a long day and I began receiving emails from friends and supporters saying they would look for me in the live-stream video provided by The Birther Summit and Art2superPACsites. I didn’t have the energy to tell them I wasn’t going to Atlanta. I could not afford to go but it was nice so many people really thought I would be there. This is what we all worked so hard for.

There was so much traffic on the live video feeds and many of us had long periods of blackouts but I did see Orly and the other attorneys leave to go with the judge to his chambers. What really happened yesterday was the judge decided to award a DEFAULT JUDGEMENT to the plaintiff’s since the defendant didn’t show up. But an abbreviated hearing took place. The first two cases were heard and Orly presented her witnesses and argued her case and the evidence all went into the record. We had our day in court.

To Watch a Video of the Eligibility Hearing Click Here: Exclusive Video Of Entire Georgia Obama Eligibility Hearing

Georgia Video - Here it is - Video: Exclusive Video Of Entire Georgia Obama Eligibility Hearing

2012-01-27T19:09:00.000-05:00

Video: Exclusive Video Of Entire Georgia Obama Eligibility Hearing

Jan 27, 2012 02:18 pm | Breaking News

Obama & his Attorney fail to appear for Trial -- 2 Hour Hearing provides strong evidence that Obama is not qualified for Ballot

2012-01-26T13:33:00.002-05:00

Obama & his Attorney fail to appear for Trial -- 2 Hour Hearing provides strong evidence that Obama is not qualified for Ballot

Thursday, 26 January 2012 12:15

William M. Windsor

President Barack Obama and his attorney refused to appear for a trial in Atlanta, Georgia on January 26, 2012 despite subpoenas requiring his attendance and documents as well as a letter from the Georgia Secretary of State saying their failure to appear would be at their peril.

Judge Michael Malihi presided over the two-hour hearing in which significant evidence was presented to show that Obama is not eligibile to be President of the United States.

I was there in the media group with videographer Lydia Swain, and the entire hearing was videotaped ....

The video will be available in its entirety through On Second Thought TV.

Late Wednesday, Obama's attorney, Michael Jablonski, wrote Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, asking him to suspend the hearing. "It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here -- a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country," Jablonski wrote. Jablonski also served notice he would boycott the hearing.

In response, Georgia Secretary of State Kemp said the hearing to consider the challenges is required by Georgia law. "If you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the [Office of State Administrative Hearings] proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril."

After hearing many witnesses and seeing and hearing about a lot of documents, it is my belief that Obama is not qualified to be on the ballot.

The day began with a pre-trial conference with the attorneys in the judge's chambers. The Defendant's table was vacant. No one showed up to defend Obama.

Three attorneys presented cases for their plaintiffs -- all Georgia registered voters. According to my count, 12 witnesses testified under oath.

There was no testimony or evidence for Obama, so if the judge rules on the facts and the law presented, the name of Barack Obama will not appear on the ballot in Georgia. I'm not a "birther," but that's how I see it. Significant evidence for the Plaintiffs and zero (0) evidence for Obama.

The testimony from three witnesses -- Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator, scanning, and typesetting experts -- was that the birth certificate for Obama that was released online was a forgery. I know enough about layers in Adobe to know that when part of a signature appears on one layer and the rest of the signature appears on another layer, something is rotten in Denmark. The witnesses seemed credible, though I would have loved to see an Adobe employee testify.

The testimony of former Immigration officer, John Sampson, was especially compelling. It was his testimony that the birth certificate has serial numbers that are out of sequence with other births at the time; the certification paragraphs are different on Obama's alleged birth certificate and the birth certificates issued before and after his; and the name of the registrar was different on the birth certificates issued at the same time to others. Mr. Sampson has found a number of irregularities that would cause him to demand documents and investigate further. He indicated that it is a crime to claim to be a U.S. citizen if you aren't, and one of the consequences is deportation.

Susan Daniels, a private investigator testified that the social security number that Obama uses is fraudulent, in her opinion. The number was issued in Connecticut in 1977-79, and Obama never resided there. A number of records that she obtained showed that Obama was born in 1890.

Attorney Van Irion gave a closing argument that explained the definition of "natural born citizen" -- a person born in the United States from parents who are both U.S. citizens. Mr. Irion explained case law on the definition and provided an excellent presentation as to why Obama is not qualified. Mr. Irion's witness, Kenneth Allen, provided documents proving that Obama's father was from Kenya (birth certificate and immigration forms). One witness produced 181 pages of documents obtained through a Freedom of Information request to the U.S. Immigrations service that show that Obama's father was never a U.S. citizen.

Documents were presented showing that Obama has been known under a variety of names -- Barry Soetero, Barry Soebarkah, and Barack Obama. Witnesses claim no proof of a name change was found. Attorney Orly Taitz testified that Illinois Bar Association records show that Barack Obama's application for membership claims he had no prior names.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am not a birther. I am not a Republican; I became an Independent when I discovered how corrupt all parties are.

To me, this is potentially the case of the most significant dishonesty and corruption by an elected official in the history of the United States. If that is the case, this should shine a bright light on the extent of the government corruption in America. If you are pro-Obama, please don't get mad at me for supporting this story. I have stated that if Obama is qualified, and if he signs a pledge to be honest and return our rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I'll vote for Obama if no other major candidate signs the Contract with the Citizens of the United States.

After the hearing today, I believe that Obama is not qualified. I spoke with a very sharply-dressed black man with gray hair after the hearing. He was an Obama supporter, but he seemed to be swayed in his thinking by the evidence he saw and the testimony he heard.

It was standing-room-only. There were two overflow rooms where people watched on video screens.

I saw representatives from all the major TV networks' local affiliates, and I saw a reporter for CNN.

The judge asked the Plaintiffs' Attorneys to file briefs by February 5. A decision will be rendered sometime thereafter.

William M. Windsor

http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=631:obama-a-his-attorney-fail-to-appear-for-trial-2-hour-hearing-provides-strong-evidence-that-obama-is-not-qualified-for-ballot&catid=117:news-reports&Itemid=219

For a good blow by blow account http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138

Latest Update from Obama ballot challenge

2012-01-26T13:14:00.000-05:00

I just got off the phone with Dean Haskins who was in the courtroom this morning assisting with the Art 2Pac live stream. Judge Malihi talked to the attorneys in chambers before the hearing this morning and told them that he was going to enter a DEFAULT JUDGMENT against Obama and recommend that Obama's name not be on the Georgia ballot! Alll the attorneys expressed a desire to put an abbreviated streamlined case on the record and the judge agreed. How does the mainstream media spin this? The Georgia SOS has already indicated that he will follow the judge's recommendation. Obama will not get any popular vote or electors from the great state of Georgia! Congratulations to all freedom-loving Americans!

Harry Reid's Magical Glasses Infomercial...Check It Out Now!!!

2012-01-26T12:48:00.002-05:00

Over one million hits - Obama Birth Certificate Faked In Adobe Illustrator - Official Proof 1 ( Layers )

2012-01-26T03:35:00.000-05:00

RUMORS!

2012-01-26T03:13:00.000-05:00

No rumor- watch history being made- Thu 6 am pt/9 am et-
http://art2superpac.com/

****ARTICLE II SUPER PAC WILL PROVIDE GAVEL TO GAVEL LIVE VIDEO COVERAGE FROM THE 3 BALLOT CHALLENGE HEARINGS ON JANUARY 26TH IN ATLANTA GEORGIA STARTING AT 9 AM ET****

On the eve of Obama's eligibility hearing Leo Donofrio reveals a new nail in Obama's coffin

2012-01-26T01:29:00.001-05:00

Existing US Law on INS .gov Website Says Obama is Ineligible

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/

“I had presumed that the idiom “natural born citizen” appeared nowhere in U.S. Law other than A2S1C5, but I found it in administrative law and it is contrasted with native and naturalized citizenship. I’ve never seen any mention of this fact before and wonder how many are aware of it in the ineligibility camp. Here’s the quotes:
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.html

He then quoted two provisions from the link provided, but there’s actually three at the official INS “.gov” site which establish official recognition by the federal government that native-born and natural-born should be separately delineated. When you visit the suggested link to the Immigration and Naturalization service, it brings you to “Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.”

Interpretation 324.2 (a)(3) provides:

“The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien…” (Emphasis added.)

Then, Interpretation 324.2(a)(7) provides:

“(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.

The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.” (Emphasis added.)

And again, Interpretation 324.2(b) provides:

“The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss.” (Emphasis added.)

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48438.html

Three times in this official INS Interpretation – currently published by the Obama Administration – native-born and natural-born are given separate consideration. And in the third example – from Interpretation 324.2(b) – the INS clearly states that each delineation, “naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen“, is a separate status.

The INS includes the following explanation of Interpretations:

“Interpretations were created to supplement and clarify the provisions of the statute and regulations as interpreted by the courts. These materials usually are not included in the regulations because they deal generally with procedural matters and do not deal directly with application and benefit requirements. They are still a useful tool to help you understand how the DHS Bureaus performs their different immigration services and enforcement functions. Users of the Operation Instructions and Interpretations should always consult the relevant regulations and manuals in conjunction with these materials. As the DHS Bureaus have grown, the trend has been towards inclusion of more materials in the regulations and field manuals, and the Operations Instructions and Interpretations have been updated less frequently.”

Gee, no wonder they thought it was a good speech - Obama's SOTU addresses have the lowest average Flesch-Kincaid score of any modern president; Obama owns three of the six lowest-scoring addresses since FDR

2012-01-25T23:20:00.002-05:00

Obama's SOTU addresses have the lowest average Flesch-Kincaid score of any modern president; Obama owns three of the six lowest-scoring addresses since FDR

For the third consecutive State of the Union Address, Barack Obama spoke in clear, plain terms.

And for the third straight Address, the President's speech was written at an eighth-grade level.

In Obama's own words: "My message is simple."

But was it too simplistic?

A Smart Politics study of the 70 orally delivered State of the Union Addresses since 1934 finds the text of Obama's 2012 speech to have tallied the third lowest score on the Flesch-Kincaid readability test, at an 8.4 grade level.

Obama also delivered the second lowest scoring address in 2011 (at an 8.1 grade level) and the sixth lowest in 2010 (at an 8.8 grade level)

The Flesch-Kincaid test is designed to assess the readability level of written text, with a formula that translates the score to a U.S. grade level. Longer sentences and sentences utilizing words with more syllables produce higher scores. Shorter sentences and sentences incorporating more monosyllabic words yield lower scores.

Smart Politics ran the Flesch-Kincaid test on each of the last 70 State of the Union Addresses that were delivered orally by presidents before a Joint Session of Congress since Franklin Roosevelt.

Excluded from analysis were five written addresses (by Truman in 1946 and 1953, Eisenhower in 1961, Nixon in 1973, and Carter in 1981) and two addresses that were delivered orally, but not by the President himself (Roosevelt in 1945 and Eisenhower in 1956).

The vast majority of State of the Union speeches were delivered in writing prior to FDR.

Each of Obama's three addresses are among only seven of 70 in the modern era that were written shy of a 9th grade level, and among the six that have averaged less than 17 words per sentence.

Obama's 2012 and 2010 addresses averaged 16.6 words per sentence with his 2011 address coming in at 16.8.

Other low-scoring addresses on the Flesch-Kincaid scale over the decades are George H.W. Bush's 1992 address, Harry Truman's 1951 and 1952 addresses, and Lyndon Johnson's 1965 address.

Obama's speeches are a continuation of a general pattern that finds as State of the Union Addresses have perhaps become more and more political, they have been written more and more simplistically.

With three addresses under his belt, President Obama has the lowest average Flesch-Kincaid score for State of the Union addresses of any modern president. Obama's average grade-level score of 8.4 is more than two grades lower than the 10.7 grade average for the other 67 addresses written by his 12 predecessors.

Georgia Secretary Of state Backs Judge and Rebuffs Jablonski and Obama.

2012-01-25T22:25:00.000-05:00

GEORGIA SOS TELLS OBAMA AND HISATTORNEY YOU MISS THE HEARING AT YOUR PERIL!!!!!!
Obama's Attorney Jaberwoki Slapped Down By Georgia SOS - 1/25/2012

Obama vs Bush State of Union - Bush seems so much more intelligent and mature!

2012-01-25T18:56:00.000-05:00

Compare Bush's SOTU address of 2005 to what we all heard last night. Gee, Bush seems so much more intelligent and mature!

American Bar Association President: "Obama Ignoring Constitution"

2012-01-25T04:32:00.000-05:00

American Bar Association President: "Obama Ignoring Constitution"
January 24th, 2012 • 3:15 AM
   In a Washington Times column Monday, "Obama Ignoring the Constitution," ABA President William T. Robinson III focuses on Obama's flagrant use of signing statements.
   "His use of a signing statement to ignore the clear intent of Congress runs counter to the constitutional obligation he has to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' That is not to say that Mr. Obama is obligated to accede to every whim of Congress. Rather, this President—like every other President who objects to language in legislation enrolled by Congress—should exercise the wholly constitutional authority he has to veto a bill....
   "Article I of the Constitution unequivocally reserves to Congress alone the power to make law. Where a signing statement is used to nullify a component of a law, the President is in each instance unilaterally usurping the exclusive power of the legislative branch by denying Congress the opportunity to override a veto of that law and may be abrogating the power of the judicial branch to make a determination of constitutionality.
   "Clearly, the original intent of the framers of the Constitution was to give the President the choice of signing or vetoing a bill passed by Congress—in its entirety. In many ways, a signing statement resembles and is effectively a 'line-item veto,' which the Supreme Court definitively ruled to be unconstitutional in 1998. Writing in concurrence with the decision in that case, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy warned that 'increasing the power of the President beyond what the Framers envisioned ... compromises the political liberty of our citizens, liberty which the separation of powers seeks to secure.' Signing statements simply constitute an improper consolidation of too many powers of state in the hands of a single individual.
"The wisdom of Justice Kennedy's words in 1998 continue to echo today with the same power and persuasiveness," he concludes.

What really happened in the Gingrich ethics case?

2012-01-25T01:54:00.000-05:00

Given all the attention to the ethics matter, it's worth asking what actually happened back in 1995, 1996, and 1997. The Gingrich case was extraordinarily complex, intensely partisan, and driven in no small way by a personal vendetta on the part of one of Gingrich's former political opponents. It received saturation coverage in the press; a database search of major media outlets revealed more than 10,000 references to Gingrich's ethics problems during the six months leading to his reprimand. It ended with a special counsel hired by the House Ethics Committee holding Gingrich to an astonishingly strict standard of behavior, after which Gingrich in essence pled guilty to two minor offenses. Afterwards, the case was referred to the Internal Revenue Service, which conducted an exhaustive investigation into the matter. And then, after it was all over and Gingrich was out of office, the IRS concluded that Gingrich did nothing wrong. After all the struggle, Gingrich was exonerated.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/what-really-happened-gingrich-ethics-case/336051

Georgia Update from Carl Swensson

2012-01-24T15:47:00.003-05:00

Now they want to play musical courtrooms. This has to be a tactic initiated by Jablonski whether he takes credit for it or not. Regardless, Thursday’s hearing WILL occur. Fulton County is a DEM stronghold. Make sure everybody sees this ASAP.

In my humble opinion, it would appear that this kind of tactic is all they have in their arsenal. Hoping that people won’t or can’t show up because they don’t know where to go.

I wondered what they’d do since they aren’t now filing any motions.

I’ll need some folks to stand at the other locations to make sure everyone knows where they need to go.

Carl

Unfortunately, Fulton County has just informed us that we will no longer be able to use the courtroom in its complex for the hearing on Thursday. Therefore, we are moving the hearing to Courtroom 1 in our office at:

230 Peachtree Street N.W., Suite 850

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Please notify any other interested parties of this change. Please also let me know if you have any questions about the courtroom. We are working out the technological aspects of the hearing right now.

Kim Beal

Carl A. Swensson

King Obama Refuses Judge's Order

2012-01-24T12:34:00.000-05:00

Obama Refuses Judge’s Order to Appear in Court Over Eligibility

American Vision News reported Saturday on the eligibility cases against Barack Obama sustained by Judge Michael Malihi in Atlanta. Hearings are set for January 26. The Associated Press reported that Obama was “ordered” to “appear in court,” but we now learn Obama is scheduled to attend campaign events in Vegas on that day.

Whitehousedossier.com reports,

President Obama has been ordered to appear before a judge in Atlanta in a case challenging whether he is qualified to be president of the United States, according to the Associated Press.
The judge set the hearing for this Thursday after denying on Friday a motion by Obama’s lawyer to quash a subpoena that requires Obama to personally show up.
Obama, however, will be nowhere near Atlanta on Thursday. According to the White House, he will be out West promoting the agenda he plans to lay out in Tuesday’s State of the Union address. Obama Thursday plans to make appearances in Las Vegas and Denver areas before traveling on to Detroit to spend the night.

While this could mean, as some have suggested, that Obama is planning to snub the court order with executive defiance, others—both “birthers” and anti-birthers—are noting this is not quite the case. Dean Haskins of birtherreport.com writes,

On the Intellectual Inferiority of Liberalism

2012-01-24T02:10:00.000-05:00

On the Intellectual Inferiority of Liberalism

By James Lewis

Liberalism used to be a respectable position for intelligent, well-meaning, and informed people. That was a long time ago. No longer.
Today the "liberal" faith requires an extraordinary act of ignorance, purposeful forgetting, and constant spinning. To be a faithful "liberal" today you have to forget the whole 20th century, and its 100 million victims of the radical left -- that is, victims of Obama's brand of leftism. You have to shut out of your mind the fact that Obama hails from today's Chicago Machine, the most storied and undemocratic political machine since Boss Tweed.
You have to ignore the bloody history of black nationalism in America, where Obama's hero Malcolm X was assassinated by the followers of Elijah Muhammed. You have to ignore the racial blackmail that has controlled American politics since the rise of the post-MLK "civil rights" movement, when all the heroic actions of a few civil rights campaigners like Martin Luther King, Jr., was taken over by dangerous racial demagogues like Rev. Al, the Rev. Wright and the radical left.
All those facts have to be sunk into your capacious black hole of memory, along with the history of the Soviet Union and its 100 million helpless victims. The Nazis only had 13 years to kill six million Jews, and even more Gypsies, homosexuals, Poles, democratic Germans, and of course, the religious. The Soviets and Chinese had seventy years or longer, and killed correspondingly more millions of victims with the same style of sociopathic control freakery. North Korea is the biggest Communist museum piece today, but nobody on the liberal side seems to take any responsibility for it -- just as they deny their alliance with Muslim fascists all over the world, who are agitating for another century of mass murder.
As Michael Ledeen recently pointed out, the Hitler-Stalin alliance is alive today, only the names have changed. It's now called Left-Islamofascism. The same old murderous alliance under a new label.
If you are a self-labeled "liberal" today, you own that history; therefore you must deny and evade it.
After watching "modern" liberals for a couple of decades, I've come to suspect that their viciousness (what we see in the media and the left every single day) is a result of deep and abiding guilt. Because at least the "liberal" leadership cannot be as ignorant of their own history as they pretend. The brainwashed masses may be completely ignorant, but nobody can be as ignorant of history as Obama pretends to be.
Obama grew up on the Stalinist left, all the way from his childhood in post-bloodbath Indonesia to his adulthood in Chicago politics; Michelle is the daughter of a Chicago ward boss; Bill Ayers, their good friend and political enabler, knows all the bloody history of Communism in detail, and glories in it.
These people cannot be ignorant of the 20th century.
A deep guilt has to be gnawing liberals today, the ones who are not innate sociopaths. When media creatures like Bill Maher peddle hatred disguised as humor, there are only two possibilities: Either Maher is ultimately cynical, and therefore a sociopath (a person without conscience); or he and his cult manage every single day to stave off the moral implications of their heroes -- Karl Marx, but also intellectual Nazis like Martin Heidegger -- by raging at the rest of us.
They are deeply troubled people, and they can only live with themselves by ranting at good and decent, normal people. Michael Moore has to think of a new and more vicious slander to throw at us, to keep down his own knowledge of irredeemable guilt.
There is no moral difference between the radical left and the Nazis, and they must know that elementary fact from Politics 101.
Which brings me back to my title. Liberalism used to mean the love of political freedom. Real liberals used to read Locke, Mill, Voltaire, the Founders, the political wisdom of the Western Enlightenment. Today self-labeled 'liberals' love mass murderers and those who justify mass murder: Karl Marx, the post-modern 'philosophers', the totalitarian left, Thomas Friedman, the New York Times and Islamic fascism. Like any utopian cult, these pseudo-liberals justify it all, not by the horrors of the past (which cannot be justified at all) but by some dream image of the future. The next time they'll get it right! Because they have good intentions, you see.
Obama helped to bring down the (relatively) moderate regimes of the Arab world and thereby unleashed a New Dark Age reaction from Yemen to Tunisia. Tens of thousands of people have been killed in the sadistically mislabeled "Arab Spring," according to StrategyPage.com. The whole Arab Spring scam is frightful, a great disaster, far more murderous than the propaganda scam of the Palestinian "Nakba," the disaster of losing Jerusalem to the infidels (who are Jews and Christians who freely allow Arabs to run their own holy places there).
The Arab Spring is the real Nakba. Not just because tens of thousands of Arabs are being killed every day in Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere. But also because the Arab world is living in daily dread of Iranian nuclear weapons. The Saudis have no greater enemies than the militant Shiite regime of Iran. Ayatollah Khomeini hated the Saudi Sunnis, and tried to overthrow them as usurpers of the holy places of Mecca and Medina. Every Sunni Muslim in the world knows that history. The Arab Spring -- so-called -- has therefore exposed all the stable Arab regimes to lethal danger.
That is why Niall Ferguson, the Harvard historian, recently warned that capital flight from the Arab world meant an inevitable breakdown of the economies of Egypt and Syria. People are beginning to suffer from starvation and civil breakdown in the Arab world. That is why the Prime Minister of Egypt broke down in tears at a recent press conference.
Obama hasn't done real Muslims any favors with all the hoopla about a non-existent "Arab Spring." Instead, he has forged another alliance between the atheistic left and the medieval Muslims of Iran, Turkey and the Arab world. That is what "liberalism" has come to mean; it is the polar opposite of real liberalism. John F. Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, and even LBJ and FDR would be running against Obama if they were living today.
As Obama reportedly told Hillary in a yelling, screaming fight at the White House when he repeatedly demanded in public that President Hosni Mubarak must step down, it was all for a good cause, because all real revolutions are "organic." The President of Arugula does not know much about organic, but in this case it seems to mean that the Muslim fascists who are even now beating and bloodying half a billion women and girls in their homes, to keep them voting rock-solid for the Muslim Brotherhood, are "organic." They are "real." Islamic moderates and modernists who brought a century of near-democracy to Turkey and Iran are just foreign infections, according to Obama's perverse reading of history. This is ideological madness. It is not "empathy," as Obama told a self-satisfied roomful of San Francisco liberals at the beginning of his 2008 campaign. It is sadism, if anything. Only a Third World ideologue of the Jerry Wright variety could believe that making things worse is going to make them better.
If you're a liberal today, you've somehow ended up on the wrong side of history. That is a vast cultural disaster, but much more for victim nations than it is for the self-preening West. Twisting liberalism into a pretzel is a feat of mis-education and propaganda the likes of which we have not seen since the rise of mass electronic media.
Most "liberals" today do not believe in freedom, but support tyranny. That inversion of history has been accomplished by mass propaganda. If you doubt that, just ask your nearest friendly liberal what they think about "fundamentalist Christians." It's a hot button that will set of a flood of rage, all due to the leftwing media propaganda. Just try it on your family and friends. It shocks me every time I see it, because it has absolutely no basis in reality. Liberal hatred of believing Christians comes to you courtesy of the mass fantasy machine. (American Abolitionism, which led to the Civil War, was a created by believing Christians. Just listen to the words of the Battle Hymn of the Republic.)
I see smart and educated people clinging to a wrecked belief system like that Italian tourist ship that just flipped on its side. The genuine liberalism of Harry Truman, JFK, and Walter Lippmann is dead as a doornail. Instead we have the left radicalism of Obama, who grew up on the hard, hard Stalinist left. Obama is called a liberal, but he is an authoritarian anti-Constitutionalist with major totalitarian tendencies. Obama is certainly not a Cold War liberal like JFK, Hubert Humphrey, LBJ. If the Cold War were raging today Obama would be pro-Soviet.
We do not have a real "civil rights" movement any more. We have a Civil Revenge movement, as the great comic talk radio host Ken Hamblin has said so well. Hamblin made "The Black Avenger" his standing joke, along with his free "Certificate of Absolution" for any whites obsessed with racial guilt from the Civil War (1861 to 1865, when 600,000 mostly white folks died fighting over slavery and a united America).
The Civil War is 150 years old. The Civil Rights laws were passed in the 1960s, long before the current brainwashed generation of "liberals" came of age. Those old resentments are just kept alive to keep demagogues in power.
Today the Axelrod mobs of the OWS movement are totally ignorant, like the peasants in Czarist Russia. They just riot because they are told to. Just ask them a question, any question, about politics and reality. They don't know a thing because they have been kept dumb and obedient. They are educated ignorami.
Liberalism is dead. The radical left has killed it. Then the left stole its good name.
That is a very sad fact. But it's even worse to fall for the leftist media scam.
We don't have many liberals left. The New Republic is fighting a rearguard action, and there are a few genuine liberals of good will, who keep hoping the Democratic Party will change. Fat chance. The "liberals" today are the wishful totalitarians of yesterday.
Obama is not a liberal. We have no liberals in positions of power or prominence any more.
Any time the radical power class uses that word "liberal," the sane people of this country should scream at their computer screens. Don't fall for it. It's a lie.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/01/on_the_intellectual_inferiority_of_liberalism.html
ALSO:

Liberalism Destroys Families and Nations

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2011/10/liberalism-destroys-families-and.html

The stated agenda of the left includes destroying the American family and undermining the values of our culture. After the 2008 election I realized that my own children had been led away to disaster by the “Pied Piper” of socialism and political correctness. The below letter is a response from a friend who had his own family torn apart by modern “liberalism”. He also offers a source for a way to way to break the spell of the Pied Piper.

Obana's Crimes - which laws have been broken

2012-01-24T02:07:00.000-05:00

The Post & Email ^ | Jan. 23, 2012 | Sharon Rondeau

MISUSE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, CONSPIRACY, MISPRISION OF FELONY? by Sharon Rondeau Can the U.S. Department of Justice fail to prosecute federal law-breakers? (Jan. 23, 2012) — Numerous graphics, typesetting, Adobe® and scanning professionals have claimed that the long-form birth certificate image bearing the alleged details of Barack Hussein Obama II’s birth presented to the public on April 27, 2012 is a forgery. If that is the case, which federal statutes have been violated, if any, by placing the image on federal government property?How many people might have participated in the crime, and what might the penalties be? If the Hawaii...

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/23/which-laws-could-have-been-broken/

I Finally Understand Democrats

2012-01-24T02:02:00.000-05:00

I Finally Understand Democrats

By Johnny Alamo

After years of puzzlement and curiosity observing modern day Democrats, I think I have finally figured them out.
I'm constantly amazed that modern Democrats have evolved beyond living in caves. I mean what other animal on this planet can disregard all common sense and logic and survive? Scientists have recently discovered that even giant sea slugs that do not possess a brain as such can learn from past experiences. That puts them a leg up over the current crop of liberals in this country. I used to subscribe to the adage that liberalism was a mental disorder, but even Rainman would have a hard time buying into the standard mantra of the present day Democratic Party. In order to believe that Democrats have the answer today, you would have to believe:
That you can grow the entitlement class beyond the taxpayer class and never hit critical mass where there is no money left.
That using the military to oust a murderous thug dictator in 2003 was criminal, and using the military to oust a murderous thug dictator in 2011 was noble.
That the best way to grow the wealth of the private sector is to take all the money out of it.
That the best way to make us energy independent is to block any effort to produce more petrocarbons in this country.
That the best way to create jobs is to increase taxes and regulations on the job creators.
That the best way to stop arms from this country from getting into the hands of the drug cartels in Mexico is to provide arms to the drug cartels in Mexico.
That all the ills of the economy are due to the fat cat banks and other corporations, and the best way to deal with that is to provide billions in bailouts to the fat cat banks and other corporations.
That more unemployment checks create more jobs.
That investigating the background of George W Bush to the point that you have color photographs of his colon is proper vetting of the Chief Executive, but asking for Barack Hussein Obama's college records or for information on his association with a known terrorist is racist.
That somehow making firearms illegal will prevent criminals from using them.
That the life of a murderer on death row is sacred, but an unborn baby's is not.
That the best way to overcome our racist past is to enforce racist affirmative action policies.
That people who are too ignorant to get a free state issued I.D. card are smart enough to vote.
That the best way to overcome our current spending crisis is to spend more money.
That the federal government with no competition can provide a better health care product than the private sector with competition can.
That a grandma in a wheelchair is a bigger potential threat on an airplane than a guy with a name that takes phlegm to pronounce.
That we need to be sensitive to the feelings of people that subscribe to a religion that teaches that we all should submit to their version of righteousness or face beheading, but should demean and diminish those that believe in the religion that teaches we should love and embrace our neighbors no matter what religion they belong to.
That poll watchers who want to ensure that election laws are observed and the vote is without fraud are intimidating voters, and black radicals with clubs in front of a polling place are not.
That ice ages and the warming periods in between were not caused by man's influence on the earth but a half degree rise in average temperatures over 30 years is.
That using the equivalent of two gallons of fossil fuel to produce one gallon of ethanol makes sense because it is "renewable."
That a picture of a female guard in Abu Ghraib pointing at the genitals of a terrorist and laughing is deplorable but those same goofballs setting off an IED and killing our troops are just freedom fighters.
That a 70 year old woman with a Gadsden flag is a radical but an OWS protestor that defecates on a police car and breaks windows of businesses is a frustrated citizen.
That in spite of the fact that one third of the world is hungry it makes more sense to use food for fuel than drilling for a fuel source that nobody can eat.
The simple fact is that Democrats are the Dodo birds of the human race. The Dodo was discovered by Portuguese explorers in the late 1500's. The name comes from the Portuguese word "Doudo" which means simpleton. They called this bird a simpleton because in their minds it lacked any common sense whatsoever. That lack of common sense or survival instinct eventually led to its demise as a species.
Wait a minute, that's not really fair of me, I shouldn't equate Democrats to a simple minded flightless bird that was too stupid to run from predators. The Dodo had a job foraging for food.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/01/i_finally_understand_democrats.html

January 24th at 7:45 CT (8:45 ET) PRODUCT TALKS welcomes Drs Sam and Bunny Sewell,

2012-01-23T23:58:00.000-05:00

On Tuesday, January 24^th at 7:45 CT (8:45 ET) PRODUCT TALKS welcomes Drs Sam and Bunny Sewell, who will be interviewed by Linda Dietz on the topic of HEALTHY SENIORS and OPTIMIZING LONGEVITY..

Tune in by calling: 212/990-8000 6262# Send questions in advance, or during the call to bunnysam@bestselfusa.com

Life Style Changes that enhance health and longevity

Water – Exercise - Weight Loss

Basic Nutrition for overall health

Holistic rather than silver bullet approach to health

Vitalizer as a minimum requirement

RX for a healthy life as a more adequate nutritional safety net

Target Nutrition

For healthy heart – For blood sugar regulation and diabetes symptom management – Healthy bones – Brain health

The Pharmaceutical Industry's Secret

By Dr. Jeffrey McCombs on 10/01/2011

Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the world's 2nd largest drug manufacturer, said fewer than half of the patients prescribed drugs actually derived any benefit from them. It is an open secret within the drugs industry that most of its products are ineffective in most patients but this is the first time that such a senior pharmaceutical executive has gone public.

Dr Roses spoke at a recent scientific meeting in London where he cited figures on how well different classes of drugs work in real patients. Drugs for Alzheimer's disease work in fewer than 30% of patients, whereas those for cancer are only effective in 25% of patients. Drugs for migraines, for osteoporosis, and arthritis work in about 50% of the patients. Lipitor, the world’s largest selling drug rarely works in women and the elderly, the two groups that are prescribed it the most. "Most drugs work in fewer than one in two patients mainly because the recipients carry genes that interfere in some way with the medicine," he said.

"The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people," Dr Roses said. "I wouldn't say that most drugs don't work. I would say that most drugs work in 30 to 50 per cent of people."

According to recent surveys, 4 out of 5 Americans – 80% of our population – take at least one medication each week. Men and women age 65 to 75 take an average of 6 medications per week and among those over age 75, the average is 11 medications per week. If you’re helping to look after elderly parents, those numbers probably don’t surprise you.

In general, the use of prescription drugs increases 9-10% a year. That means that within 3 years, the average American will take at least one medication each week.

I don’t believe that any of us is born with a drug deficiency, nor do we acquire one later on in life. We all have an innate Life Force that is capable of doing amazing things when given the right conditions, nutrients, and opportunity to do so. With the right approach, most people can eliminate high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, excess weight, migraines, arthritis, and fatigue, just to name a few.

When you give up personal responsibility for your health, you pay a high price. Don’t worry, Big Pharma will be glad you’re paying it.

# # # # # # #

The average person over age 65 has taken 19.1 prescriptions.

The average person 50 to 65 has taken 7.6 prescriptions.

The Shaklee user for 20+ years has taken 0.6 prescriptions. (avg. age 62)

To see the full Landmark Study click the link below

Source: http://www.landmarkstudy.com/

MEDICATION ROBS YOUR BODY OF NECESSARY NUTRIENTS

If you are on medications your nutrition is probably depleted.

Many of the side effects associated with prescription drugs are related to the nutritional deficiencies caused by those drugs.

New health challenges can emerge which are caused by drug induced nutritional deficiencies.

Full spectrum nutrition available from Shaklee “VITALIZER” will protect you from these health risks.

Obama Publicity Photo Promos Ron Paul.

2012-01-23T19:48:00.001-05:00

Obama To Ignore Judge’s Ruling To Appear In Court

2012-01-23T17:53:00.002-05:00

Obama To Ignore Judge’s Ruling To Appear In Court Over Eligibility Hearing

by Ulsterman on January 22, 2012 with 49 Comments in News

This past week saw Georgia Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi rule that President Barack Obama is to appear in court this Thursday regarding a hearing that refutes Obama’s eligibility to run for president. It appears the Judge’s order will be completely ignored by the administration.

What, if any repercussions will face the president are unknown. Presently, it appears his administration has little fear of reprisal as the mainstream media continues to ignore the case. The White House has indicated the president will be campaigning in Las Vegas and Denver next Thursday. It will be interesting to see what Judge Malihi does following Barack Obama’s violation of a legally issued subpoena.

Its a really hot January in Georgia

2012-01-23T14:22:00.000-05:00

Attorney Leo Donfrio Files Amicus Brief In Georgia Obama Ballot Access Challenge Cases

Monday, January 23, 2012 8:09

AMICUS BRIEF – Georgia POTUS Eligibility Cases

Attorney Leo Donofrio

This morning, I filed an AMICUS BRIEF in the Georgia POTUS eligibility cases. The brief complies with all Rules and procedures of the Administrative Court. The brief is 54 pages, and the appendix is 155 pages. The Rules of Court require attachment to the brief of all legal authorities, other than those issued by the federal government, or the State of Georgia. There’s some very esoteric law attached thereto.

I seriously urge everyone to familiarize themselves with Lord Coke’s Report from Calvin’s Case, as well as Chancellor Ellesmere’s argument, also in Calvin’s Case, for this is the true common law genesis of jus soli subjection, which happens to be a uniquely Christian tenet of law that has been completely misunderstood in this country for too long now. Calvin’s Case is universally recognized as the common law precedent relating to jus soli, but it is so much more fascinating than you can imagine. And it will forever revolutionize understanding of the words “natural-born”.

This book contains all of the relevant arguments and reports. But the original text of Lord Coke’s Report is the proper starting point. (This document is also in the appendix to my brief.) And here’s another source with slightly modernized English and extras.

You may download the AMICUS BRIEF here.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/amicus-brief-georgia-potus-eligibility-cases

ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell v Obama, Amicus Brief From Attorney Donofrio, Georgia Ballot Challenge - 1/23...

Flier/Handout - Obama Not a Natural Born Citizen with Venn Diagram - Support Art2SuperPAC

Pope Warns America of ‘Grave Threat’ to Religious Freedom

2012-01-23T01:49:00.002-05:00

Pope Warns America of ‘Grave Threat’ to Religious Freedom

Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, January 22, 2012, 12:46 AM

Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan lashed out at the Obama Administration for forcing religious organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience. The new rules are so strict that most Catholic institutions will not qualify for an exemption.

(The Echo)

Pope Benedict warned of the “grave threat” to religious freedom in United States before the Obama Administration’s decision this week.Catholic News Agency reported:

Pope Benedict XVI warned today of a “grave threat” to religious liberty in the United States that requires American Catholics to respond with intelligence and courage.

“It is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres,” he said Jan. 19 in an address to a group of American bishops visiting the Vatican.

The Pope said he was particularly concerned with “certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion.”

Pope Benedict’s address was delivered to the bishops from the Mid-Atlantic states region, which includes the Archdioceses of Washington and Baltimore. They are in Rome this week on their regular “ad limina” visit to discuss the health of the U.S. Church with the Pope and Vatican officials. The two bishops from the Archdiocese for the U.S. Military Services are also participating in the meetings.

Pope Benedict said that over the past few days many of the bishops have expressed concern over attempts in the U.S. to “deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices.”

Meanwhile, other bishops raised the “worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship” without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.

At present, the Obama administration is considering imposing a contraception and sterilization mandate that would require all insurance companies to provide those services free of charge. The regulation has a religious exemption clause, but it provides very few exceptions for Church organizations.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/01/pope-warns-america-of-grave-threat-to-religious-freedom-in-us/

Government vs. Constitution

2012-01-22T22:36:00.000-05:00

Muslim Sexists - Look up in the sky!

2012-01-22T22:06:00.002-05:00

Gotta See! Obama and The Devil Go Down to Georgia - Double Click Video For Full Screen

2012-01-22T12:21:00.005-05:00

Double Click Video For Full Screen

“Selwyn Mills takes on the evil of politicians with all the cutting wit of C. S. Lewis’ “Screwtape Letters.” This is a book of spectacular intellect, and humor that enlightens. Dr. Mills’ book is a much more entertaining read than Machiavelli’s “The Prince” but still very revealing of the soul warping effect of politics.”
To purchase, go to www.selwynmills.com

Obama’s 2011 Gallup job approval rating lowest yet

2012-01-22T01:03:00.002-05:00

Obama’s 2011 Gallup job approval rating lowest yet

This past year’s presidential job-approval average from Gallup caught me by surprise. After all, Barack Obama got Osama bin Laden in May, which gave him a few weeks of good job approval ratings, and his 2010 drubbing in the midterm elections would make most presume that he’d reached his nadir. Not hardly:

President Barack Obama averaged 44% job approval for his third full year in office, which ended Jan. 19. His third-year average is down slightly from his second-year average of 47% and much lower than his first-year average of 57%.
Obama’s third-year average is based on approximately 175,000 interviews with U.S. adults conducted between Jan. 20, 2011 — the second anniversary of his inauguration — and Jan. 19, 2012.
Obama’s job approval rating during his third year in office had its ups and downs, peaking at 53% in May and falling as low as 38% in August and October.

Obama actually finished worse than the overall annual average, with just 43% approval in the final quarter. That included a handful of mid-40s approval ratings at the end of the quarter, so one could argue that Obama has a little momentum coming into a presidential-election year. However, even those readings don’t beat his 2010 average, when Obama’s party got clobbered in midterm elections.

Actually, Obama should be thanking Jimmy Carter. Without Carter’s abysmal 37.9% for 1979, Obama would have set the lowest mark in Gallup history for third-year approval ratings. He now edges out Ronald Reagan, who finished 1983 with a 44.9% rating, but fell well short of Bill Clinton’s 47.5%, which is now third lowest in the series. Of course, both of those presidents won their re-election bids the following year, but both of those also had economies that had obviously strengthened and job creation well under way, especially Clinton, whose rating had more to do with HillaryCare and budgets. (The only other person besides Carter to lose his re-election bid in this series was George H. W. Bush, whose third-year rating was an astronomical 69.5, second-best in the series behind Eisenhower’s 72.1%.)

Andrew Malcolm sums it up well, including Gallup’s note that this is one of the poorer annual averages in their 68-year history:

According to Gallup’s analysis:
“Comparing Obama’s third-year numbers with all presidential years in Gallup records, Obama’s 44% average job approval rating is well below average, ranking 53rd of the 68 presidential years measured.”
So far, so bad. …
So, the better Americans have come to know the guy and to watch his record, the less they seem to think of him. Of course, what really matters is what they think of him starting with early voting this October and ending the night of Nov. 6.

We’ll know more about that as this year unwinds, but unless there is a dramatic economic improvement, those numbers aren’t coming up. If getting Osama bin Laden doesn’t make a difference, then nothing else will.

Mario Apuzzo's latest contribution - The McClellan/Obama Citizenship Debate and the Natural Born Citizen Clause

2012-01-22T00:58:00.000-05:00

The McClellan/Obama Citizenship Debate and the Natural Born Citizen Clause

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 21, 2012

George B. McClellan

Dr. Conspiracy likes to give the appearance of being an unbiased scholar in pursuit of the truth regarding whether putative President Barack Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” He has also created an internet persona of being a champion of civil rights. He has even gone as far as to take the unabashed position that most people who question Obama’s “natural born Citizen” status are racists. To date, he has made no apologies for his outlandish position.

At his blog,http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/01/mcclellans-citizenship/ , Dr. Conspiracy has posted a story published in The Boston Globe on November 9, 1903, entitled “McClellan’s Citizenship. Question of Eligibility for Presidency.” The story can be read athttp://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/McClellan.pdf . The story is about whether George B. McClellan, then newly-elected Mayor of New York City, but who was born in Europe to U.S. citizen parents (his father was Civil War General McClellan), was a “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible to be President. By looking at his picture posted by Dr. Conspiracy, Colonel McClellan was surely white, but yet American citizens raised the question of whether he was a “natural born Citizen.” Note that Dr. Conspiracy does not tell us that even though McClellan was white (and so was John McCain and George Romney who were also challenged), he was challenged by presumably other whites on his eligibility to be President. So I guess that it is after all possible to challenge a political candidate on his eligibility for a particular office without being motivated by race.

One lawyer at the end of the article, Edmund A. Whitman of the law firm Elder & Whitman, even said that the issue of whether McClellan was a “natural born Citizen” was “too trivial to bother discussing.” I guess they also had Obots in 1903.

Also, Dr. Conspiracy touts the opinion of the Boston lawyers who in the article maintained that McClellan was a “natural born Citizen” and that there was no mention by them of the need for a “natural born Citizen” to be born to citizen parents.

First, McClellan was born to U.S. citizen parents. So I do not understand why Dr. Conspiracy would expect the citizenship of McClellan’s parents to be an issue.

Second, the issue was whether one has to be “native born” in order to be a “natural born Citizen.” The way the lawyers treated that issue, it meant whether being born in the United States was a necessary element of being a “natural born Citizen.” That someone satisfies a necessary element of a definition does not equate to having satisfied all necessary elements of the definition.

Third, most of the lawyers who concluded that McClellan was a “natural born Citizen” said he was so because under the Constitution there are only “natural born Citizens” and naturalized citizens, and since McClellan was not a naturalized citizen, he must necessarily be a “natural born Citizen.” Yet, Dr. Conspiracy makes no mention of the fact that none of those lawyers even cited and quote from let alone addressed United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), which clearly stated just five years earlier that, with citizenship not descending from parents but only given by statute to the children born out of the United States to citizen parents, children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents are naturalized “at birth.” Additionally, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898) and Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), both considered persons born abroad to U.S. citizen parents to be naturalized “at birth.” The dissenting opinion of Justice Black in Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 839-44 (1971), further elucidates the point of one being naturalized “at birth.” There he stated:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts." 169 U. S., at 702-703.

The Court in Wong Kim Ark thus stated a broad and comprehensive definition of naturalization. As shown in Wong Kim Ark, naturalization when used in its constitutional sense is a generic term describing and including within its meaning all those modes of acquiring American citizenship other than birth in this country. All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependent upon a congressional enactment are forms of naturalization. This inclusive definition has been adopted in several opinions of this Court besides United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra. Thus in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 167 (1875), the Court said: "Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. . . . [N]ew citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization." And in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884), the Court took the position that the Fourteenth Amendment "contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. . . . Persons not . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired." 112 U. S., at 101-102.

Moreover, this concept of naturalization is the only one permitted by this Court's consistent adoption of the view that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to supply a comprehensive definition of American citizenship. In an opinion written shortly after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court stated that one of the primary purposes of the Citizenship Clause was "to establish a clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States, and also citizenship of a State." Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73 (1873). In his study, The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, Professor Flack similarly concluded that the Citizenship Clause "put beyond doubt and cavil in the original law, who were citizens of the United States." H. Flack, The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment 89 (1908). And in Afroyim both majority and dissenting Justices appear to have agreed on the basic proposition that the scope of the Citizenship Clause, whatever its effect, did reach all citizens. The opinion of the Court in Afroyim described the Citizenship Clause as "calculated completely to control the status of citizenship." 387 U. S., at 262. And the dissenting Justices agreed with this proposition to the extent of holding that the Citizenship Clause was a "declaration of the classes of individuals to whom citizenship initially attaches." Id., at 292.

Id. at 840-44.

So, according to Wong Kim Ark, McClellan would have been a naturalized citizen. It would then follow a fortiori from Wong Kim Ark that being a naturalized citizen, he could not be a “natural born Citizen.” But we do not see any mention of any of that by those lawyers or Dr. Conspiracy. I do not know any of the political affiliations of any of the Boston lawyers interviewed for the story nor do I have the desire to go looking it up. But I guess it must have been politics as usual also in 1903.

But the disqualifying effect of being naturalized “at birth” not only disqualified McClellan, but also disqualifies Obama. Because Obama was not born to citizen parents, assuming he was born in Hawaii, he has to rely on the Fourteenth Amendment or 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) to be a “citizen of the United States.” First, that amendment and statute do not provide anyone with the status of a “natural born Citizen,” which status is only obtained by satisfying the American “common-law” definition of the clause as confirmed by Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), which, after analyzing American citizenship at length, held:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural- born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."

Id. at 168. As we see, only a child born “in a country of parents who were its citizens themselves” can be a “natural-born citizen.” So like Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case (1608), who naturalized Calvin “at birth” to be an English “natural born subject,” Wong Kim Ark in effect naturalized Wong “at birth” to be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.”

Second, because Obama needs either the Fourteenth Amendment or statute to remove the alienage with which he was born by being born to a non-U.S. citizen father, he is in effect at best a naturalized citizen “at birth,” who automatically becomes a “citizen of the United States” and needs no further naturalization after birth. But the Founders and Framers, as they revealed through the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802, meant a “natural born Citizen” to be a child whose first breath of life was as a person in allegiance and citizenship only to the United States and to no other country. In other words, to be a “natural born Citizen” it was not sufficient that one was a citizen of the United States “at birth.” Rather, what was needed was that “at birth” one was only a “citizen of the United States” and of no other nation. Because of the possibility of jus sanguinis (citizenship inherited from one’s parents) and jus soli (citizenship acquired from the territory on which one is born) providing allegiance and citizenship to a child at the moment of birth, they adopted the “natural born citizen" standard for future presidents which was a child born in the country to citizen parents. This means that a “natural born Citizen” is a child who is born in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent to a father and mother who are both either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States.”

Obama has conceded that his father was a citizen of Great Britain at the time Obama was born. Hence, even assuming that Obama was born in Hawaii, he was not born to a father who was either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States.” He was not born as a child whose first breath of life was as a person in allegiance and citizenship only to the United States and to no other country. Obama may be a Fourteenth Amendment "naturalized born Citizen," but he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” As for McClellan, it does not matter for him any more, but there may be more like him who come in the future.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 21, 2012
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Kenyan Parliament ADMITS Obama is NOT a Native American and is a Son of the Soil of Kenya:

2012-01-21T16:38:00.002-05:00

Kenyan Parliament ADMITS Obama is NOT a Native American and is a Son of the Soil of Kenya:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_8PC3oKAvA
Double click video for full screen.

First Law Suit Obama required to produce documents - CBS Atlanta ran this as their lead story last night.

2012-01-21T16:35:00.000-05:00

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/16567672/ga-judge-orders-president-to-appear-at-hearing

Hey Obama "Here come da judge!" - Judge Mahili Denies Obama's Motion To Quash Subpoenas And To Not Appear At Georgia Ballot Challenge Hearing!!!

2012-01-20T16:28:00.006-05:00

Note that the Article II PAC is providing uncut, uncensored, gavel-to-gavel Livestream Video Coverage of the Atlanta hearings next Thursday

Carl Swensson's case also was allowed to proceed with discovery.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78876832/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Order-on-Motion-to-Quash-Subpoenas-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge

Judge Mahili Denies Obama's Motion To quash Subpoenas And To Not Appear At Georgia Ballot Challenge Hearing!!!

Actual order is here: http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-PowellvObama,OrderonMotiontoQuashSubpoenas,GeorgiaBallotChallenge.pdf

The Order:

Defendant, President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for the office of the President of the United States, has filed a motion to quash the subpoena compelling his attendance at the hearing on January 26, 2012.

In support of his motion, Defendant argues that "if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as President of the United States" to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend. Defendant's motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority. Specifically, Defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is "unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony... [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party's preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced." Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(5).

Defendant further alludes to a defect in service of the subpoena. However, the Court's rules provide for service of a subpoena upon a party, by serving the party's counsel of record. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(4). Thus, the argument regarding service is without merit.
__________________________

HAS ORLY ACTUALLY WON!!! WON!!! WON???

Dean Haskins @ Birther Summit

Posted: January 20, 2012

This is a follow-up to something I posted yesterday. Before making my observations, I want to make a guarantee. If it turns out that I was wrong in my previous statement, I will gladly state that I was wrong, and issue a full apology to Orly about my legal assessment (which is something I already know would never be a reciprocal agreement). However, I am certainly not prepared to do that today, regardless of Orly's "I won!!! I won!!! I won!!!" foolishness. You see, unlike Orly, I am not going to look at a cow patty, and assume that because there is evidence of a cow somewhere, I get to serve ice cream to everybody right now. Let me rephrase that . . . SELL ice cream to everybody right now.

This is one of the issues I have already discussed—that everything from Orly seems to come with her own flavor of spin. And then, once the spin has been made, it is blindly believed by people (who just want so badly for it to be true), and it starts getting posted around the internet. Problem is, when it turns out that it wasn't entirely true, the only recourse Orly has is to scream "corruption!"

Let me make a couple points to try to put this into context. First, because the first response to "birthers" by many in this country is simply to blow us off as conspiracy theorists, Michael Jablonski submitted a sloppy, weak Motion to Quash. I'm sure he thought it would suffice with the judge—since the opposition were birthers; however, Judge Malihi obviously regards his role and the legal process much more seriously than that. And, because I'm sure he wants to make certain that, at the end of these HEARINGS (not trials), there is nothing that could be viewed as procedurally improper, he's not going to grant the professional attorney involved any special favors. He will hold somebody accountable to understand the law, and I'll leave it up to you to figure out whom that might be.

Here's what will probably happen: after Jablonski recovers from his blanket party, he will likely file an amended Motion to Quash; and it will probably be one of the most thorough Motions to Quash in the history of Motions to Quash, and Judge Malihi will probably grant that motion.

In the unlikelihood that Judge Malihi does not grant his amended Motion to Quash, there is something that is virtually guaranteed to happen: Obama not showing up to an administrative law hearing in the state of Georgia. Jablonski would appear on his behalf, and present a certified "birth certificate" and proof of residency for the past 14 years. As the certified "birth certificate" will be considered self-verifying by the court, nothing Orly will say will sway it. And remember, the end result of this hearing is a non-binding recommendation to the Secretary of State. So, no, Obama will not be handcuffed in Atlanta next week (he won't even be there).

I'm not trying to be a downer, or burst anybody's bubble—but, honestly folks—we need to stop spreading the spin all over the internet, just to be made fools of when what was posted never happens. I'm amazed at the number of people who haven't figured that one out with Orly yet. It's just not going to happen like we want it to.

Actually, this denial of the Motion to Quash still doesn't address the invalidity of all the other out-of-state subpoenas Orly mailed (not served). Since Jablonski lives and works in Georgia, he was technically served. Nobody who lives outside of Georgia has been served.

As we have all come to expect, Orly continues to show the most debased levels of egomania, and still tries to attack others who have worked on this team as long as she has. She still has all the graciousness of a cactus loofah, and the attitude of a spoiled brat child (who is the only one who deserves your donations, and if you don't donate, you're an Obama operative).

So, again, when we're on the other side of this HEARING, and it turns out I am wrong, I'll freely admit it. However, and unfortunately for our side, I'm not wrong—so get ready to hear endless wails of "corruption." And, I do want to make a side note here before signing off: Orly's incompetence is, by no means, to be construed as an indictment against the other two hearings that will take place. Both of those cases have real attorneys involved, so I am hopeful that they will be able to produce positive results. It's funny . . . I haven't heard those other lawyers publicly proclaim ME, ME, ME even once. That alone gives me some hope about their cases.

Humbly,

ME ME ME ME ME ME ME

###

http://www.birthersummit.org/news/75-has-orly-actually-won-won-won.html

AND FURTHERMORE

HAS DEAN HASKINS LOST HIS MIND?

Posted by: Dean C. Haskins
dean@birthersummit.org
202.241.3648
Posted: January 21, 2012
© 2012 The Birther Summit

Download a PDF

Believe me, that question has not gone unasked in my head since I released my assessment this past Thursday. For quite some time, I have been part of what I can only describe as a logical disconnect, wherein multiple conversations would occur almost daily with leaders in our movement, and in those conversations, whenever the topic would turn to a certain “lawyer,” there would be nothing but complaints about procedural missteps and outlandish self-aggrandizing; but, at the same time, there was an underlying understanding that nothing about that could be stated publicly—that we were somehow responsible to take the good along with the bad, and that meant either public praise, or silence.

As long as I rationalized that, with everyone on the planet, acceptance is accompanied with both good and bad, then my silence wasn't so much a betrayal of truth as it was an assent to the human condition, and a belief that unity could help usher in our desired result. But then, a funny thing happened on my way to sanity—I asked myself a salient question, and my head nearly exploded: Where's the good?

I know there are times in life wherein one believes his cause to be so just that, to assure what one deems a proper conclusion, he must find, and rely on, a bulldog advocate—that one ruthless counselor who is ultra-versed in the necessary knowledge, and is tenacious and unforgiving in the righteous pursuit. That person is normally not often accused of being overly gracious—but, that's why we're enamored—because that person will go after the opposition's jugular to accomplish what we know to be right. We accept the nastiness simply because it furthers our cause.

And, as I saw the purposely misleading messages, and thoroughly invalid legal statements being made across the internet (along with a seemingly steady stream of vicious attacks against anyone who was thought to either be siphoning her deserved donations from her, or garnering a bit too much of the limelight), I realized that what I had been doing wasaccepting the bad with the bad. Why on earth would we accept both the nastiness and nothing but failure in furthering our cause?

I know there are some who believe that noise and activity, regardless of its veracity, is helpful, as it keeps a buzz going about our cause. Well, sometimes noise and activity is nothing but noise and activity, and, as I fear has happened in our cause, sometimes they can actually do damage.

This latest round of hyperposting is so unprofessional it boggles the mind. It's as if we're losing in a 96-0 football game, we accidentally intercept a poorly thrown pass, and suddenly, we've won the Super Bowl. Instead of collectively Tebowing, we should be contemplating what will likely happen in the next play. And, as I've stated, if I've been wrong about my assessment, I'll admit and apologize, but, I can almost guarantee that the next play isn't what everyone is hoping for.

Those who worship at the altar of Taitz might stop and ponder why it is that it wasn't until after my post on Thursday that she filed a request for letters rogatory. If I were a gambling man, I'd bet that, before my post, she had never even heard of a letter rogatory. However, even though she finally filed the right thing, she once again shot herself in the foot by asking a Georgia court to overturn Hawaii law. As I've explained, the law will not allow for release of Obama's original birth certificate. Yeah, I hate that too, but it's still the law.

Residents of Orlyberg (see what I just did there?) can go ahead and believe that a viable course of action is to ignore the law (because we really dislike it), and continue to ask courts to disregard the law as well. I, personally, believe we would be far better served to understand the law, and construct a way to work within it to further our cause. Come next Thursday, we'll again see how much closer to the goalpost we will get by trying to circumvent the law. I stand by my predictions, and will apologize if they are wrong—as much as I wish it were not the case, it is the only logical conclusion I can draw, based upon the law. I still hold out some hope for the first two HEARINGS scheduled. But again, the end result of it all will be a non-binding recommendation from the judge to the Secretary of State. So, obviously, the bigger hurdle, even if Judge Malihi can be persuaded, will be Sec. of State Brian Kemp.

Of course, over the past few days, I've received some hate mail, but, not as much as one might think. I have received far more messages from those who have basically said, “It's about time.” So, the Obots hate me because I'm a birther, the Orlybots hate me because I've told the truth, and then there is a publicly silent group who chooses to remain Swiss in this matter (now, isn't that an amazing coincidence?). It appears I may be making myself a man with no country. I've heard that island living isn't all that bad.

There are even those who suggest that what I have said could injure our cause. Well, if you believe that the truth will hurt your cause, then either you are corrupt, or your cause is; and, I'm not willing to concede that our cause is. Nothing I have said can harm our cause, because nothing I have said is untrue. Again, not liking the law, or proper legal procedure, is not a reason to ignore them. And, working outside of them is a formula for certain defeat. It is also worth mentioning the intellectual dishonesty involved in chiding me for telling a blunt truth, but giving incessant passes to the hateful attacks from the she-god.

And, as long as you have brought that up, Orly has, once again, leveled a blitzkrieg at the Article2SuperPac, directing her minions not to donate to them, but to send donations only to her. Does this not disgust anyone else? And, she continues to lie about doing 99% of the work, so I guess, in her mind, we are the 1%. I'm thinking that, maybe, those who are involved in the Article2SuperPac should do a quick study into things like defamation, libel, injurious falsehood, interference with advantageous relations (trade libel), and possibly, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

If I am to be “blamed” for telling the truth, then so be it. I suppose there will always be those who believe that Orly is the face of our movement, and I'm sure they now believe I am the movement's ass. Well, as I've stated, I'm not interested in popularity contests, I'm only interested in the truth. If you don't like what I have to say, then don't read what I write. It's that simple. But, I will promise those who choose to spend an occasional couple of minutes hearing from the voices in my head, I will try my best to present the truth the best I can, and will not lie simply for the purpose of promoting myself or prying a donation from you. I will not be boxed into any mandate for group-speak, and even when I hate the truth I share, I will share it anyway. In life, I have learned that the truth will set you free, but it will usually piss you off first. Ultimately, friends are no substitute for truth; and, if one's friends abandon him for speaking the truth, they weren't friends anyway.

###

If you would like more information about the Birther Summit, please visit our website often at www.birthersummit.org or contact Dean Haskins at dean@birthersummit.org.

UK Blog getting Thousands of Hits - Obama's Gay Past Being Hidden By Killing Ex-Lovers

2012-01-17T23:28:00.000-05:00

Obama's Gay Past Being Hidden By Killing Ex-Lovers

http://the-tap.blogspot.com/2012/01/obamas-gay-past-being-hidden-by-killing.html

Sent in to The Tap by Mr Low Of Singapore

Mother of Murdered Obama Gay Lover Speaks Up
Submitted by SadInAmerica on Mon, 01/16/2012 - 8:09pm.

In late May, (2010) Wash. DC-based investigative journalist Wayne Madsen had a bombshell revelation about Obama’s membership in a Chicago gay club, Man’s Country. ~ Wayne Madsen

Read Full Story Here: http://the-tap.blogspot.com/2012/01/obamas-gay-past-being-hidden-by-killing.html

The Steady Drip

OBAMA ELIGIBILITY CHALLENGES SPREAD TO 6 STATES

OBAMA ELIGIBILITY CHALLENGES SPREAD TO 6 STATES

Decision in Georgia case expected soon, but ballot concerns going viral

GEORGIA HEARINGS – Two Base Hits and One Foul Ball - TWO OUT OF THREE AIN'T BAD -

GEORGIA HEARINGS – TWO OUT OF THREE AIN'T BAD

Voting for Faith, Reason, and Heart - I therefore state my intention to vote in the Florida Primary for Rick Santorum

Voting for Faith, Reason, and Heart

Georgia Ballot Challenge: Obama Walks On By

Georgia Ballot Challenge: Obama Walks On By

Here's your change! - In just three years Obama accomplished all this - Wow, what a guy!

I wouldn't call this an endorsement! - I have decided who I will vote for in the Florida GOP primary.

This is the Beginning of the End for Barack Hussein Obama

This is the Beginning of the End for Barack Hussein Obama

CNN Tries To Whitewash Obama's Radical Past

Why Isn't Orly mentioned? - GEORGIA JUDGE CONSIDERED 'DEFAULT' AGAINST OBAMA

GEORGIA JUDGE CONSIDERED 'DEFAULT' AGAINST OBAMA

Ruling could have brought immediate recommendation to remove name from ballot

Links to stories about the most important issue for our nation - Obama's Ineligibility

What Really Happened In A Georgia Courtroom On January 26, 2012?

What Really Happened In A Georgia Courtroom On January 26, 2012?

Georgia Video - Here it is - Video: Exclusive Video Of Entire Georgia Obama Eligibility Hearing

Obama & his Attorney fail to appear for Trial -- 2 Hour Hearing provides strong evidence that Obama is not qualified for Ballot

Obama & his Attorney fail to appear for Trial -- 2 Hour Hearing provides strong evidence that Obama is not qualified for Ballot

William M. Windsor

Latest Update from Obama ballot challenge

Harry Reid's Magical Glasses Infomercial...Check It Out Now!!!

Over one million hits - Obama Birth Certificate Faked In Adobe Illustrator - Official Proof 1 ( Layers )

RUMORS!

On the eve of Obama's eligibility hearing Leo Donofrio reveals a new nail in Obama's coffin

Gee, no wonder they thought it was a good speech - Obama's SOTU addresses have the lowest average Flesch-Kincaid score of any modern president; Obama owns three of the six lowest-scoring addresses since FDR

Georgia Secretary Of state Backs Judge and Rebuffs Jablonski and Obama.

Jablonski Doing a Desperation Play on Atlanta Obama Eligibility Hearings

Obama vs Bush State of Union - Bush seems so much more intelligent and mature!

American Bar Association President: "Obama Ignoring Constitution"

What really happened in the Gingrich ethics case?

Georgia Update from Carl Swensson

King Obama Refuses Judge's Order

Obama Refuses Judge’s Order to Appear in Court Over Eligibility

On the Intellectual Inferiority of Liberalism

On the Intellectual Inferiority of Liberalism

Liberalism Destroys Families and Nations

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2011/10/liberalism-destroys-families-and.html

Obana's Crimes - which laws have been broken

I Finally Understand Democrats

I Finally Understand Democrats

January 24th at 7:45 CT (8:45 ET) PRODUCT TALKS welcomes Drs Sam and Bunny Sewell,

MEDICATION ROBS YOUR BODY OF NECESSARY NUTRIENTS

If you are on medications your nutrition is probably depleted.

Many of the side effects associated with prescription drugs are related to the nutritional deficiencies caused by those drugs.

New health challenges can emerge which are caused by drug induced nutritional deficiencies.

Full spectrum nutrition available from Shaklee “VITALIZER” will protect you from these health risks.

Obama Publicity Photo Promos Ron Paul.

Obama To Ignore Judge’s Ruling To Appear In Court

Obama To Ignore Judge’s Ruling To Appear In Court Over Eligibility Hearing

Its a really hot January in Georgia

Pope Warns America of ‘Grave Threat’ to Religious Freedom

Government vs. Constitution

Muslim Sexists - Look up in the sky!

Gotta See! Obama and The Devil Go Down to Georgia - Double Click Video For Full Screen

Obama’s 2011 Gallup job approval rating lowest yet

Obama’s 2011 Gallup job approval rating lowest yet

Mario Apuzzo's latest contribution - The McClellan/Obama Citizenship Debate and the Natural Born Citizen Clause

The McClellan/Obama Citizenship Debate and the Natural Born Citizen Clause

Kenyan Parliament ADMITS Obama is NOT a Native American and is a Son of the Soil of Kenya:

First Law Suit Obama required to produce documents - CBS Atlanta ran this as their lead story last night.

Hey Obama "Here come da judge!" - Judge Mahili Denies Obama's Motion To Quash Subpoenas And To Not Appear At Georgia Ballot Challenge Hearing!!!

HAS DEAN HASKINS LOST HIS MIND?

UK Blog getting Thousands of Hits - Obama's Gay Past Being Hidden By Killing Ex-Lovers

Obama's Gay Past Being Hidden By Killing Ex-Lovers