As you recall Obama went to HI to visit his ailing grandma on October 24, supposedly due to broken hip and she died Nov 3, right before the election on Nov 3. On campaign trail Michelle stated that she talked to Obama and grandma, while Obama was visiting her and grandma was fine and in good health.
Larry Sinclair has published on his blog that according to the death certificate the grandma passed away on October the 22, 2 days before BO's visit.
Please, everybody, write to the Attorney General of HI, governor Lingl, all of the liberal judges that were hiding BO's original birth certificate and demand that they go public and disclose the information essential to the public.
1. we need to see Madelyn Dunham's BC immediately
2. we need to know who pronounced her dead
3. who signed the dead certificate
4. what is the cause of death
5. we need to see the coroners report
6. we need to see the hospital records
7. who identified the body before cremation
8. where was she cremated
9. when exactly did she die
10. did she die of natural causes
We need answers to all of these questions in regards to BO's mother Stanley Ann Dunham, -Obama-Toot-Soetoro-Sutoro (and who knows what)
This should not be Chicago Mafia, Hi edition. This is United States of America that is built on law and order and Constitution. All of the law enforcement officials and judiciary should not be aiding and abetting commission of crime, but should be on the forefront with us, the citizens of this country, uncovering crimes and bringing criminals to justice
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
from Cort Wrotnowski (certiorari filed from CT, deeming Obama ineligible, pending)
To the folks following the Obama Saga,
My name is Cort Wrotnowski. I am one of the people who filed with the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge Obama's eligibility. I have worked in tandem with Orly on this since October. I absolutely agree with what she is doing and how she is doing it. I support her efforts, I applaud her efforts and help her in any way that I can. To the people who suggested Leo and I did not want to do anything with her..show your faces...talk to me. I'll square you away. Leo has worked very hard on this matter. He needs time to recuperate and rethink what he is doing. That in no way should be confused with the specious notion that he does not want to work with Orly.
Sincerely, Cort Wrotnowski
My name is Cort Wrotnowski. I am one of the people who filed with the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge Obama's eligibility. I have worked in tandem with Orly on this since October. I absolutely agree with what she is doing and how she is doing it. I support her efforts, I applaud her efforts and help her in any way that I can. To the people who suggested Leo and I did not want to do anything with her..show your faces...talk to me. I'll square you away. Leo has worked very hard on this matter. He needs time to recuperate and rethink what he is doing. That in no way should be confused with the specious notion that he does not want to work with Orly.
Sincerely, Cort Wrotnowski
Need your help in research
I need your help in doing more research on annenberg foundation and their connections, particularly any and all connections to the supreme Court Justices. This is very important
Post by Larry Sinclair re Madelyn Dunham's death
I personally don't have actual death certificate and cannot confirm this info, therefor it is imperative for our law enforcement to get this death certificate and all the other accompanying documents and present it to the public, otherwise we should look for other elected officials in government and law enforcement
Orly
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
OBAMA, HALF-SISTER & HAWAII OFFICALS FALSIFY MADELYN DUNHAM DEATH
On October 21, 2008 Barack Obama announced that he would be suspending his campaign after a rally in Indianapolis on Thursday morning, October 23, 2008 to fly to Hawaii to visit with his "gravely ill grandmother." Barack Obama further stated that Madelyn L. Dunham had recently been hospitalized and was back at home after suffering a broken hip. Obama made it clear on October 22, 2008 that there "will be absolutely no video or photo ops during my upcoming visit with my ailing grandmother," and "I do not expect my grandmother to make it to election day."
On Friday October 24, 2008 Michelle Obama during a campaign rally for her husband claimed that "I spoke with Tutu last night and she is strong and in good health."
On Friday October 24, 2008 I placed two calls to the home of Madelyn Dunham, in one of those calls I spoke with Obama half-sister Maya Ng:
http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/2008/10/i-just-spoke-with-senator-obamas-sister.html where Maya claimed Mrs. Dunham could not talk.
On November 3, 2008 both the news media and Barack Obama announced that Madelyn L. Dunham had passed away on that date. Mrs. Dunham was to have celebrated her 89th birthday on the Sunday following Barack Obama's visit, yet no one, not even Barack Obama stopped to wish his "gravely ill" grandmother a Happy Birthday.
After first announcing that Madelyn Dunham had passed away in her sleep on November 3, 2008 (conveniently the day before election day for the sympathy vote) it was reported by Hawaii officials and then by Obama half-sister Maya Ng that Mrs. Dunham had in fact passed away on November 2, 2008. Both reports it turns out are false and it has been reported that Maya Ng and Hawaii officials knowingly and intentionally falsified death records of Madelyn L. Dunham who had actually died prior to Barack Obama arriving on Thursday October 23, 2008 for his claimed visit.
According to sources employed in the coroner's office Madelyn Dunham died on October 21, 2008 and was cremated on Friday October 24, 2008. It is further claimed that the death records of Madelyn L Dunham were falsified at the direct and specific request of Barack Obama and Maya Ng.
I have forwarded a letter to the Hawaii Attorney Generals office requesting and investigation and forwarded the information received regarding the falsifying of the death and cremation records of Madelyn L Dunham. If this information is factual Barack Obama has demonstrated his total disregard for any life, including the life of the woman who made it possible for him to be a spoiled, drug using, closet bi/gay fraud. Furthermore the fact that Michelle Obama knew and assisted in concealing this fraud along with the U.S. Secret Service assigned to protect Barack Obama makes them conspirators to this crime.
Today Barack Obama participated in the scattering of the ashes of Madelyn L Dunham who he used and exploited.
I have one thing to say Barack, not everyone is willing to cover for your lies and crimes. Now let's see if the Hawaii Attorney General is willing to do their job or if that office is going to simply look the other way.
Posted By Larry Sinclair at 1:07 AM
Orly
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
OBAMA, HALF-SISTER & HAWAII OFFICALS FALSIFY MADELYN DUNHAM DEATH
On October 21, 2008 Barack Obama announced that he would be suspending his campaign after a rally in Indianapolis on Thursday morning, October 23, 2008 to fly to Hawaii to visit with his "gravely ill grandmother." Barack Obama further stated that Madelyn L. Dunham had recently been hospitalized and was back at home after suffering a broken hip. Obama made it clear on October 22, 2008 that there "will be absolutely no video or photo ops during my upcoming visit with my ailing grandmother," and "I do not expect my grandmother to make it to election day."
On Friday October 24, 2008 Michelle Obama during a campaign rally for her husband claimed that "I spoke with Tutu last night and she is strong and in good health."
On Friday October 24, 2008 I placed two calls to the home of Madelyn Dunham, in one of those calls I spoke with Obama half-sister Maya Ng:
http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/2008/10/i-just-spoke-with-senator-obamas-sister.html where Maya claimed Mrs. Dunham could not talk.
On November 3, 2008 both the news media and Barack Obama announced that Madelyn L. Dunham had passed away on that date. Mrs. Dunham was to have celebrated her 89th birthday on the Sunday following Barack Obama's visit, yet no one, not even Barack Obama stopped to wish his "gravely ill" grandmother a Happy Birthday.
After first announcing that Madelyn Dunham had passed away in her sleep on November 3, 2008 (conveniently the day before election day for the sympathy vote) it was reported by Hawaii officials and then by Obama half-sister Maya Ng that Mrs. Dunham had in fact passed away on November 2, 2008. Both reports it turns out are false and it has been reported that Maya Ng and Hawaii officials knowingly and intentionally falsified death records of Madelyn L. Dunham who had actually died prior to Barack Obama arriving on Thursday October 23, 2008 for his claimed visit.
According to sources employed in the coroner's office Madelyn Dunham died on October 21, 2008 and was cremated on Friday October 24, 2008. It is further claimed that the death records of Madelyn L Dunham were falsified at the direct and specific request of Barack Obama and Maya Ng.
I have forwarded a letter to the Hawaii Attorney Generals office requesting and investigation and forwarded the information received regarding the falsifying of the death and cremation records of Madelyn L Dunham. If this information is factual Barack Obama has demonstrated his total disregard for any life, including the life of the woman who made it possible for him to be a spoiled, drug using, closet bi/gay fraud. Furthermore the fact that Michelle Obama knew and assisted in concealing this fraud along with the U.S. Secret Service assigned to protect Barack Obama makes them conspirators to this crime.
Today Barack Obama participated in the scattering of the ashes of Madelyn L Dunham who he used and exploited.
I have one thing to say Barack, not everyone is willing to cover for your lies and crimes. Now let's see if the Hawaii Attorney General is willing to do their job or if that office is going to simply look the other way.
Posted By Larry Sinclair at 1:07 AM
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
An Open Letter to Congressmen and Senators
Dear Representative/Senator,
Please consider that these questions may be the most important ones you are ever asked.
You, sir, will soon be part of a very crucial decision as Congress meets to certify the electoral vote. The purpose of this letter is to ask that you give your part in this decision the attention it is due. The decision you make and the action you take, I and many others believe, will impact the course of our Nation and the world on a profound scale. As you thoughtfully approach this decision to act on the information before you,
Will you do what is right?
This is the oath that all Congressmen have taken; will it be honored?
"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
Will you do what is right?
Will someone demand specific answers to these questions before it is too late?
Can Mr. Obama prove he is a natural born citizen? Was he adopted by Lolo Soetoro? Will he immediately release his college admission applications? Will he release all medical records? Mr. Obama chooses to ignore these very reasonable requests. These questions must be answered before the electors' vote is certified.
Will you do what is right?
Are those who are calling for the proof of constitutional requirements on the fringe?
If they are, they are in good company. They have the signers of the Declaration of Independence and those from the Boston Tea Party as compatriots and their cause is in every way just as important.
"God who gave us life, gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated, but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever." (Excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the Nation's capital) From Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia,Query XVIII, 1781.
Will you do what is right?
Can Americans derive hope from knowing the Constitution of the United States will be respected?
Leaders must uphold the original intent of the Constitution and the rule of law. If we as citizens and you as our leaders will remain faithful, our greatest days will be ahead.
Will you do what is right?
Is it proper to establish a candidate's eligibility without full and open disclosure on the part of the candidate himself?
Had Mr. Obama simply followed his own admonishments throughout his campaign that he espoused during the John Roberts confirmation hearings all of this could have been put to rest long ago. These are the words of Senator Obama:
"Let me also say that I remain distressed that the White House during this confirmation process, which overall went smoothly, failed to provide critical documents as part of the record that could have provided us with a better basis to make our judgment with respect to the nomination. This White House continues to stymie efforts on the part of the Senate to do its job. I hope with the next nominee who comes up for the Supreme Court that the White House recognizes that in fact it is its duty not just to the Senate but to the American people to make sure we can thoroughly and adequately evaluate the record of every single nominee who comes before us "
Even if Mr. Obama had never spoken these words the principle would remain the same. A position of responsibility and authority cannot be bestowed on a person who will not submit to the prevailing law. Congress must enforce these requirements. Will you do what is right?
Have you or any official government entity personally viewed an actual physical copy of the long form original birth certificate?
Was it signed by the attending physician at a Honolulu hospital? What was the name of the hospital? What was the name of the attending physician? Can you affirm under penalties of perjury that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii?
Can you state under penalties of perjury that Barack Obama was not born somewhere other than in Hawaii? Was the original birth certificate on record submitted as part of the 1911 Hawaii Birth Certificate program, which allowed parents of children residing in Hawaii who were over one year of age to submit alternate birth documentation to the Department of Health and still be called an "original birth certificate"?
If in fact you cannot verify that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, or that he was not born somewhere other than Hawaii, then what records do you believe would establish with 100% certitude where Barack Obama was or may have been born?
Will you do what is right?
Do you make decisions based on principle or based on how you judge the outcome?
On January 8, 2008 a decision will be made as to whether or not Mr. Obama will become America's next President. To question his eligibility would require a bold man to make a bold stand. A decision to make a just stand would demand our Constitution be honored with compliance.
[Title 3, United States Code, Section 15] … Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read….
Will you do what right?
Some men's decisions are guided by their Creator. Are yours?
James 4:17 "Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin."
Will you do what is right?
May God bless you and protect you,
David LaRock
Posted for David LaRock by Robert Stevens
Please consider that these questions may be the most important ones you are ever asked.
You, sir, will soon be part of a very crucial decision as Congress meets to certify the electoral vote. The purpose of this letter is to ask that you give your part in this decision the attention it is due. The decision you make and the action you take, I and many others believe, will impact the course of our Nation and the world on a profound scale. As you thoughtfully approach this decision to act on the information before you,
Will you do what is right?
This is the oath that all Congressmen have taken; will it be honored?
"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
Will you do what is right?
Will someone demand specific answers to these questions before it is too late?
Can Mr. Obama prove he is a natural born citizen? Was he adopted by Lolo Soetoro? Will he immediately release his college admission applications? Will he release all medical records? Mr. Obama chooses to ignore these very reasonable requests. These questions must be answered before the electors' vote is certified.
Will you do what is right?
Are those who are calling for the proof of constitutional requirements on the fringe?
If they are, they are in good company. They have the signers of the Declaration of Independence and those from the Boston Tea Party as compatriots and their cause is in every way just as important.
"God who gave us life, gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated, but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever." (Excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the Nation's capital) From Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia,Query XVIII, 1781.
Will you do what is right?
Can Americans derive hope from knowing the Constitution of the United States will be respected?
Leaders must uphold the original intent of the Constitution and the rule of law. If we as citizens and you as our leaders will remain faithful, our greatest days will be ahead.
Will you do what is right?
Is it proper to establish a candidate's eligibility without full and open disclosure on the part of the candidate himself?
Had Mr. Obama simply followed his own admonishments throughout his campaign that he espoused during the John Roberts confirmation hearings all of this could have been put to rest long ago. These are the words of Senator Obama:
"Let me also say that I remain distressed that the White House during this confirmation process, which overall went smoothly, failed to provide critical documents as part of the record that could have provided us with a better basis to make our judgment with respect to the nomination. This White House continues to stymie efforts on the part of the Senate to do its job. I hope with the next nominee who comes up for the Supreme Court that the White House recognizes that in fact it is its duty not just to the Senate but to the American people to make sure we can thoroughly and adequately evaluate the record of every single nominee who comes before us "
Even if Mr. Obama had never spoken these words the principle would remain the same. A position of responsibility and authority cannot be bestowed on a person who will not submit to the prevailing law. Congress must enforce these requirements. Will you do what is right?
Have you or any official government entity personally viewed an actual physical copy of the long form original birth certificate?
Was it signed by the attending physician at a Honolulu hospital? What was the name of the hospital? What was the name of the attending physician? Can you affirm under penalties of perjury that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii?
Can you state under penalties of perjury that Barack Obama was not born somewhere other than in Hawaii? Was the original birth certificate on record submitted as part of the 1911 Hawaii Birth Certificate program, which allowed parents of children residing in Hawaii who were over one year of age to submit alternate birth documentation to the Department of Health and still be called an "original birth certificate"?
If in fact you cannot verify that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, or that he was not born somewhere other than Hawaii, then what records do you believe would establish with 100% certitude where Barack Obama was or may have been born?
Will you do what is right?
Do you make decisions based on principle or based on how you judge the outcome?
On January 8, 2008 a decision will be made as to whether or not Mr. Obama will become America's next President. To question his eligibility would require a bold man to make a bold stand. A decision to make a just stand would demand our Constitution be honored with compliance.
[Title 3, United States Code, Section 15] … Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read….
Will you do what right?
Some men's decisions are guided by their Creator. Are yours?
James 4:17 "Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin."
Will you do what is right?
May God bless you and protect you,
David LaRock
Posted for David LaRock by Robert Stevens
I Am A Student Of History
"I Am A Student Of History"
from "Jihadi Killer Hour" Radio Show, November 14th, 2008, Posted By Pat
Dollard.
from "Jihadi Killer Hour" Radio Show, November 14th, 2008, Posted By Pat
Dollard.
Friends, Will you please take the time to read this, and if you think it worthwhile, pass it along to your email list, and ask them to read it? Even if they voted, with all good intentions, for Mr. Obama?
I am a student of history. Professionally. I have written 15 books in six languages, and have studied it all my life. I think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus.
Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten - fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two. We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? . . . Why?
We learn just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has "loaned" two trillion dollars (that is $2, 000, 000, 000, 000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is three times the 700B dollars we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it?
I thought this was a government of "we the people, " who loaned our powers to our elected leader s. Apparently not. We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. . . Why?
We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. . . Why?
We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago? ).
We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?
Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is medicare and our entire government, our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and know precisely what I am talking about)–the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth.
It is potentially 1929 x ten. And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.
And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla, Alaska. All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $15 0, 000 wardrobe is more imporant. )
Mr. Obama's winning platform can be boiled down to one word: change. Why?
I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now. This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life.
In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure.
Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again. And that is only the beginning.
And I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory and promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his "brown shirts" would bully them into submission.
And then, he was duly elected to office, a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think.
How did he get the people on his side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world. He did it with a compliant media–did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and . . . change.
And the people surely got what they voted for. (Look it up if you think I am exaggerating. ) Read your history books. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of.
When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though.
Don't forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in Europe. It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And in less than six years–a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency–it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them.
As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me.
Some people scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. Perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe–and why I believe it.
I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am.
Best regards
Important!! Legal action filed to stop Paulson and treasury from sending billions of $$ to AIG, run under shariah
Lawsuit Filed Against Treasury Dept: Stop AIG Bailout Financing Terrorism
December 15, 2008
ANN ARBOR, MI – A federal lawsuit was filed this morning against U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. and the Federal Reserve Board to stop all bailout funds from going to American International Group, Inc. (“AIG”). According to the lawsuit, the U.S. government, through its ownership of AIG, is not only violating the Constitution, but also promoting and financing the destruction of America using American tax dollars.
The basis of the lawsuit is that AIG intentionally promotes Shariah-compliant businesses and insurance products, which by necessity must comply with the 1200 year old body of Islamic canon law based on the Quran, which demands the conversion, subjugation, or destruction of the infidel West, including the United States. To help achieve these objectives and with the aid of federal tax dollars, AIG employs a three-person Shariah Advisory Board, with members from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Pakistan. According to AIG, the role of its Shariah authority “is to review operations, supervise its development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products and investments.”
Of particular significance is the Pakistani Board member, Dr. Muhammed Imran Ashraf Usmani. Dr. Usmani is the son and devoted disciple of Sheik Mufti Taqi Usmani, the leading authority on Shariah financing who, in 1999, authored a book dedicating an entire chapter on why a Western Muslim must engage in violent jihad against his own country – even if Muslims are given equality and freedom to practice their religion and to proselytize.
The lawsuit was filed in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of Kevin J. Murray, a former Marine infantryman who served two tours of duty in Iraq. Murray is represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and David Yerushalmi, an associated attorney who specializes in litigation and is an expert on Shariah law and Shariah compliant financing. Mr. Yerushalmi also serves as general counsel to the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C.
According to the lawsuit, use of taxpayer funds to acquire ownership of a business that intentionally promotes, endorses, supports, and funds Shariah-based Islamic religious practices violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “This lawsuit not only raises significant constitutional issues, it also shines a light on serious national security issues that our own government has created by direct financial support and ownership of a business that supports anti-American, radical Islamic activities. Make no mistake, there is an internal cultural jihad underway against our great nation, and I fear that many of our political leaders are unwittingly complicit in it.”
On September 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists, guided by principles of Shariah-mandated jihad against “infidels, ” attacked and killed thousands of innocent American civilians. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. went on the offensive by engaging Islamic terrorists overseas in Iraq and in Afghanistan. As in the past when our Nation faced great crisis, American servicemen were called to action, and Kevin Murray answered the call. From March to October 2003, Murray – a U.S. Marine – was deployed overseas in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Yet today, Murray’s federal tax dollars are being used to advance the very cause of global jihad he and his fellow servicemen were placed in harm’s way to overcome. Shariah explicitly demands the murder of infidels like Kevin Murray and the destruction of the United States, which Murray took an oath to defend. Shariah is the same law that is used to justify beheadings, stonings, and amputation for petty crimes in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Sudan, which Americans deplore.
Nevertheless, AIG acknowledges and boasts its promotion of Shariah law and Shariah-based business practices. AIG itself describes “Sharia” as “Islamic law based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet .”
In further support of the federal government’s endorsement of Shariah, the U.S. Treasury department co-sponsored a seminar in November of this year entitled “Islamic Financing 101” to promote Shariah financing among American institutions. Click here to read documents from the seminar. The Seminar was jointly sponsored by Harvard University, one of the many American universities and colleges receiving millions of dollars from oil-producing countries to influence their Middle East programs, which are often staffed with professors who are anti-American, anti-Israeli, and pro-Islamic.
“It is clear, ” said Thompson, “oil money is purchasing the sovereignty of the United States and whatever loyalty to America these greedy financial institutions, corporations, and universities have left. It’s up to the American people to take back their country from those who so easily betray its interests.”
The federal lawsuit challenges that portion of the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008” that appropriated $40 billion in taxpayer money to fund and financially support the United States government’s majority ownership interest in AIG, which engages in Shariah-based Islamic religious activities that are anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, and anti-American.
According to the lawsuit, through the use of taxpayer funds, the U.S. government acquired a majority (79.9%) ownership interest in AIG, and as part of the bailout, Congress appropriated and expended an additional $40 billion of taxpayer money to fund and financially support AIG and its financial activities. AIG, which is now a government owned company, engages in Shariah-compliant financing, which subjects certain financial activities, including investments, to the dictates of Islamic law and the Islamic religion. This specifically includes any profits or interest obtained through such financial activities.
An important element of Shariah-compliant financing is a form of obligatory charitable contribution called zakat, which is a religious tax for assisting those that “struggle for Allah.” The amount of this tax is between 2.5% and 20%, depending upon the source of the wealth. The zakat religious tax is used to financially support Islamic “charities, ” some of which have ties to terrorist organizations that are hostile to the United States and all other “infidels, ” which includes Christians and Jews.
The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, recently convicted for providing material support to Islamic terrorist organizations, is an example of an Islamic “charity” that qualifies for receipt of the zakat. Thus, as a direct consequence of the taxpayer funds appropriated and expended to purchase and financially support AIG, the U.S. government is now the owner of a corporation engaged in the business of collecting religious taxes to fund interests adverse to the United States, Christians, Jews, and all other “infidels” under Islamic law.
Continued Thompson, “This lawsuit is as much about protecting constitutional principles as it is about protecting our national security and preventing another 9/11 – whether it be overt through flying planes into buildings or covert through appropriating taxpayer money to fund an Islamic cultural jihad.”
The lawsuit seeks a court order to stop the taxpayer funding of AIG and its Islamic-based businesses and activities.
The Thomas More Law Center has been involved in several cases dealing with the insidious threat of radical Islam. Law Center attorney Robert Muise, who is handling this case involving AIG, is also one of the Law Center’s attorneys defending LtCol Jeffrey Chessani, USMC, the senior officer charged in the so-called “Haditha Massacre” case. Those charges were dismissed by a military judge, and the government has appealed that ruling. Muise is also representing former Marine Jesse Nieto, whose anti-Islamic terrorism message was recently banned by military authorities at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune because of some unknown complaints.
Click here to read TMLC's complaint filed against the Secretary of the Treasury today.
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.
©2008, Thomas More Law Center
December 15, 2008
ANN ARBOR, MI – A federal lawsuit was filed this morning against U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. and the Federal Reserve Board to stop all bailout funds from going to American International Group, Inc. (“AIG”). According to the lawsuit, the U.S. government, through its ownership of AIG, is not only violating the Constitution, but also promoting and financing the destruction of America using American tax dollars.
The basis of the lawsuit is that AIG intentionally promotes Shariah-compliant businesses and insurance products, which by necessity must comply with the 1200 year old body of Islamic canon law based on the Quran, which demands the conversion, subjugation, or destruction of the infidel West, including the United States. To help achieve these objectives and with the aid of federal tax dollars, AIG employs a three-person Shariah Advisory Board, with members from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Pakistan. According to AIG, the role of its Shariah authority “is to review operations, supervise its development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products and investments.”
Of particular significance is the Pakistani Board member, Dr. Muhammed Imran Ashraf Usmani. Dr. Usmani is the son and devoted disciple of Sheik Mufti Taqi Usmani, the leading authority on Shariah financing who, in 1999, authored a book dedicating an entire chapter on why a Western Muslim must engage in violent jihad against his own country – even if Muslims are given equality and freedom to practice their religion and to proselytize.
The lawsuit was filed in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of Kevin J. Murray, a former Marine infantryman who served two tours of duty in Iraq. Murray is represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and David Yerushalmi, an associated attorney who specializes in litigation and is an expert on Shariah law and Shariah compliant financing. Mr. Yerushalmi also serves as general counsel to the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C.
According to the lawsuit, use of taxpayer funds to acquire ownership of a business that intentionally promotes, endorses, supports, and funds Shariah-based Islamic religious practices violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “This lawsuit not only raises significant constitutional issues, it also shines a light on serious national security issues that our own government has created by direct financial support and ownership of a business that supports anti-American, radical Islamic activities. Make no mistake, there is an internal cultural jihad underway against our great nation, and I fear that many of our political leaders are unwittingly complicit in it.”
On September 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists, guided by principles of Shariah-mandated jihad against “infidels, ” attacked and killed thousands of innocent American civilians. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. went on the offensive by engaging Islamic terrorists overseas in Iraq and in Afghanistan. As in the past when our Nation faced great crisis, American servicemen were called to action, and Kevin Murray answered the call. From March to October 2003, Murray – a U.S. Marine – was deployed overseas in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Yet today, Murray’s federal tax dollars are being used to advance the very cause of global jihad he and his fellow servicemen were placed in harm’s way to overcome. Shariah explicitly demands the murder of infidels like Kevin Murray and the destruction of the United States, which Murray took an oath to defend. Shariah is the same law that is used to justify beheadings, stonings, and amputation for petty crimes in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Sudan, which Americans deplore.
Nevertheless, AIG acknowledges and boasts its promotion of Shariah law and Shariah-based business practices. AIG itself describes “Sharia” as “Islamic law based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet .”
In further support of the federal government’s endorsement of Shariah, the U.S. Treasury department co-sponsored a seminar in November of this year entitled “Islamic Financing 101” to promote Shariah financing among American institutions. Click here to read documents from the seminar. The Seminar was jointly sponsored by Harvard University, one of the many American universities and colleges receiving millions of dollars from oil-producing countries to influence their Middle East programs, which are often staffed with professors who are anti-American, anti-Israeli, and pro-Islamic.
“It is clear, ” said Thompson, “oil money is purchasing the sovereignty of the United States and whatever loyalty to America these greedy financial institutions, corporations, and universities have left. It’s up to the American people to take back their country from those who so easily betray its interests.”
The federal lawsuit challenges that portion of the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008” that appropriated $40 billion in taxpayer money to fund and financially support the United States government’s majority ownership interest in AIG, which engages in Shariah-based Islamic religious activities that are anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, and anti-American.
According to the lawsuit, through the use of taxpayer funds, the U.S. government acquired a majority (79.9%) ownership interest in AIG, and as part of the bailout, Congress appropriated and expended an additional $40 billion of taxpayer money to fund and financially support AIG and its financial activities. AIG, which is now a government owned company, engages in Shariah-compliant financing, which subjects certain financial activities, including investments, to the dictates of Islamic law and the Islamic religion. This specifically includes any profits or interest obtained through such financial activities.
An important element of Shariah-compliant financing is a form of obligatory charitable contribution called zakat, which is a religious tax for assisting those that “struggle for Allah.” The amount of this tax is between 2.5% and 20%, depending upon the source of the wealth. The zakat religious tax is used to financially support Islamic “charities, ” some of which have ties to terrorist organizations that are hostile to the United States and all other “infidels, ” which includes Christians and Jews.
The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, recently convicted for providing material support to Islamic terrorist organizations, is an example of an Islamic “charity” that qualifies for receipt of the zakat. Thus, as a direct consequence of the taxpayer funds appropriated and expended to purchase and financially support AIG, the U.S. government is now the owner of a corporation engaged in the business of collecting religious taxes to fund interests adverse to the United States, Christians, Jews, and all other “infidels” under Islamic law.
Continued Thompson, “This lawsuit is as much about protecting constitutional principles as it is about protecting our national security and preventing another 9/11 – whether it be overt through flying planes into buildings or covert through appropriating taxpayer money to fund an Islamic cultural jihad.”
The lawsuit seeks a court order to stop the taxpayer funding of AIG and its Islamic-based businesses and activities.
The Thomas More Law Center has been involved in several cases dealing with the insidious threat of radical Islam. Law Center attorney Robert Muise, who is handling this case involving AIG, is also one of the Law Center’s attorneys defending LtCol Jeffrey Chessani, USMC, the senior officer charged in the so-called “Haditha Massacre” case. Those charges were dismissed by a military judge, and the government has appealed that ruling. Muise is also representing former Marine Jesse Nieto, whose anti-Islamic terrorism message was recently banned by military authorities at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune because of some unknown complaints.
Click here to read TMLC's complaint filed against the Secretary of the Treasury today.
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.
©2008, Thomas More Law Center
Very Important: excerpt from the letter from Judge Bell (MS), Tom Smith ESQ (TN), Phillip Boardman, ESQ (VA), James Hochberg, ESQ (HI)
We also believe that the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution grants a right and duty to Members of Congress to assess the “qualifications” of the President Elect between the election, November 4, 2008 and Inauguration Day on January 20, 2008:
The applicable section of U.S. Code titled “Presidential Elections and Vacancies”, 3 U.S.C. 15, directs Congress in session on January 9, 2009 to open, count and record the electoral votes, then present the results to the President of the Senate, who shall then “announce the state of the vote.” Id. The statute provides a mechanism for objections then to be registered and resolved that include the qualifications of those elected to serve in the office of President.
The Twentieth Amendment further provides, “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice-President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice-President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be elected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice-President shall have qualified.” If Objections are filed, Congress has the authority to subpoena birth records or other documents related to the qualifications of the President-elect, doing so will require the concurrence of the Democrats, who have an obvious conflict of interest in re-examining this question, and without them, the Republicans have no such ability on their own.
Philip Berg’s website reports that the Supreme Court of the United States has set his petition contesting the election in Pennsylvania for a conference on January 9, 2008. There has been no ruling yet on the Lightfoot v. Bowan case from California. Although the Court has rejected other petitions from New Jersey and Connecticut, well over 100 electoral votes were challenged in these cases. They may all come to a head for a final resolution on January 9, 2008.
If Congressmen are interested in moving forward in the Courts, a lawsuit asking for a Court Order compelling production of the “long form” Obama birth certificate can be filed with the Hawaiian Supreme Court immediately. With a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, such a lawsuit might provide a vehicle for obtaining information that might not otherwise be available for the Supreme Court deliberations and the Congressional vote on January 9, 2008.
The applicable section of U.S. Code titled “Presidential Elections and Vacancies”, 3 U.S.C. 15, directs Congress in session on January 9, 2009 to open, count and record the electoral votes, then present the results to the President of the Senate, who shall then “announce the state of the vote.” Id. The statute provides a mechanism for objections then to be registered and resolved that include the qualifications of those elected to serve in the office of President.
The Twentieth Amendment further provides, “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice-President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice-President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be elected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice-President shall have qualified.” If Objections are filed, Congress has the authority to subpoena birth records or other documents related to the qualifications of the President-elect, doing so will require the concurrence of the Democrats, who have an obvious conflict of interest in re-examining this question, and without them, the Republicans have no such ability on their own.
Philip Berg’s website reports that the Supreme Court of the United States has set his petition contesting the election in Pennsylvania for a conference on January 9, 2008. There has been no ruling yet on the Lightfoot v. Bowan case from California. Although the Court has rejected other petitions from New Jersey and Connecticut, well over 100 electoral votes were challenged in these cases. They may all come to a head for a final resolution on January 9, 2008.
If Congressmen are interested in moving forward in the Courts, a lawsuit asking for a Court Order compelling production of the “long form” Obama birth certificate can be filed with the Hawaiian Supreme Court immediately. With a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, such a lawsuit might provide a vehicle for obtaining information that might not otherwise be available for the Supreme Court deliberations and the Congressional vote on January 9, 2008.
Monday, December 22, 2008
does anyone have documents, that provide answers to these questions from a reader Gene
1. I just checked this web site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_Soetoro-Ng It says Maya Soetoro Obama's half sister was born in Jakarta, Indonesia on August 15, 1970 so that means she is not a citizen of the US by birth. Has she been naturalized or is she using a green card cause her husband is Canadian?
2. I just checked this web site about his family tree: http://dgmweb.net/genealogy/FGS/O/ObamaBarackHussein-StanleyAnnDunham.shtml It says Barrack was born August 4, 1961 at Kapiolani Medical Center, Honolulu, HI.Has anyone checked with the medical center to see if they have any records of his birth?
I got letters stating that Maya Soetoro has a HI birth certificate, even though she was born in Indonesia. Does anyone have documents, showing any immigration and naturalization proceedings for Maya Soetoro? Can anyone send inquiry under freedom of info. act?
In re. to the hospital, I received letters stating that it was an outpatient clinic at that time, that there wasn't a maternity ward there in 1961. Can anyone verify this? We need something in writing
Orly
2. I just checked this web site about his family tree: http://dgmweb.net/genealogy/FGS/O/ObamaBarackHussein-StanleyAnnDunham.shtml It says Barrack was born August 4, 1961 at Kapiolani Medical Center, Honolulu, HI.Has anyone checked with the medical center to see if they have any records of his birth?
I got letters stating that Maya Soetoro has a HI birth certificate, even though she was born in Indonesia. Does anyone have documents, showing any immigration and naturalization proceedings for Maya Soetoro? Can anyone send inquiry under freedom of info. act?
In re. to the hospital, I received letters stating that it was an outpatient clinic at that time, that there wasn't a maternity ward there in 1961. Can anyone verify this? We need something in writing
Orly
Letter from reader Mary Lentz-please call Senator Stevens
Dear Dr. Taitz:
Thank you for helping America figure out who was just elected POTUS.
Sen. Stevens, it seems, has just been given a boost by an FBI whistleblower.
It seems he will be exonerated soon. However, he lost his Senate seat
because of democratic railroading. He may just be angry enough to object
on January 6 at one p.m. in the chambers of the US House of
Representatives to Barack Obama taking office until he unseals his bona
fides to be potus.
I just tried to email him, but he shunts emails to Sen. Murkoski and Rep
Young. I just now emailed both Murkoski and Young and Gov. Palin to ask
Stevens if he will help.
Would it be a good idea if others did the same. We only need one Senator
or Representative to object.
Thanks for your time, Mary Lentz
Thank you for helping America figure out who was just elected POTUS.
Sen. Stevens, it seems, has just been given a boost by an FBI whistleblower.
It seems he will be exonerated soon. However, he lost his Senate seat
because of democratic railroading. He may just be angry enough to object
on January 6 at one p.m. in the chambers of the US House of
Representatives to Barack Obama taking office until he unseals his bona
fides to be potus.
I just tried to email him, but he shunts emails to Sen. Murkoski and Rep
Young. I just now emailed both Murkoski and Young and Gov. Palin to ask
Stevens if he will help.
Would it be a good idea if others did the same. We only need one Senator
or Representative to object.
Thanks for your time, Mary Lentz
Quote from a reader Bob strauss
bob strauss said...
"Obama"can never be President! The birth certificate,whether from Kenya, or from Hawaii, makes no difference! His father was a British citizen and "Obama" automatically was born a British citizen as well. Therefore he is not, and can never be Qualified, to be President of the United States of America. There is no legal way for "Obama" AKA; Barry Soetoro to ever become President. Just the facts,get used to the TRUTH!!
"Obama"can never be President! The birth certificate,whether from Kenya, or from Hawaii, makes no difference! His father was a British citizen and "Obama" automatically was born a British citizen as well. Therefore he is not, and can never be Qualified, to be President of the United States of America. There is no legal way for "Obama" AKA; Barry Soetoro to ever become President. Just the facts,get used to the TRUTH!!
Letter from Mario Apuzzo, ESQ, from Jamesburg, NJ
OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY DEMANDS AN HONEST ANSWER
On the question of whether Obama is a "natural born Citizen" as that term is used by Article II of the U.S. Constitution, some might simply say it is too late to address such an issue, for the "American people" have spoken and it would be an "injustice" not to carry out their will. But to properly respond to this answer, we have to first analyze who voted for Obama. Then we have to ask ourselves whether we, as a nation founded upon and flourished from our Constitution, can simply refuse to exercise our obligation to make sure that our Constitution has been followed in this Presidential election.
First, I would like to comment on who are the "American people" who voted for Obama. Robert Stevens wrote the following at http://drorly.blogspot.com/: "[R]eportedly, Obama votes constituted 63.7 million out of the 122.4 million votes in the 2008 election, out of an estimated population of 305.9 million Americans, not counting US nationals not resident in the US; in other words, no more than 20.89 percent of Americans voted for Obama. . ., and there are currently substantial defections from his base among the liberals, left-wing media, African Americans and anti-war and gay rights activists." I believe that these statistics, assuming they are accurate, lead to a more important question and that is one raised by Alan Keyes, "a high-level Reagan era diplomat, a media personality and a conservative political activist, a well-known staunch pro-life champion and a leader in the effort to restore the eroded sovereignty of the American people by securing our borders, abolishing the federal income tax and bringing the federal Judiciary back within proper constitutional bounds. He formally severed his Republican affiliation in April and was the presidential nominee of America's Independent Party in 2008." This is how he describes himself and I offer the information not to show that I am his supporter but only so that you may have a little background on him.
Alan Keyes wrote an excellent piece on the importance of our nation adhering to our Constitution. He states how "passions and affections" can blind us from the reality with which we are faced, causing us to pay "scant attention" to that which is important. He explains the difference between a "constitutional democratic republic" and a "democratic republic," arguing that the United States is the former and not the latter. He shows how in a "constitutional democratic republic," the will of the simple majority is put in check by its Constitution while with a "democratic republic," the will of a simple majority has no such control and can assert its power, for good or bad, over all other elements of the society. Hence, he so distinguishes between a "constitutional democratic majority" and a "simple majority." He explains how it was the Constitution itself which allowed the civil rights advances of the 20th century and allowed black Americans to obtain many of the freedoms they enjoy today, notwithstanding the will of a simple majority that may have wanted things otherwise. He goes on to say that failing to adhere to the Constitution is the beginnings of the creation of a democratic dictatorship. He argues that if our leaders lack the character now to uphold the Constitution for ignorance, fear, or selfish ambition, what can we expect from them once an abuse of power actually materializes. He demands that every government official of the United States must make sure that the Constitution is respected in full, for these officials enter their office upon their oath that they will uphold the Constitution. As part of this duty, he maintains that they must assure that all relevant facts and evidence be publicly and fully presented on the issue of whether Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President. For those who want to read Mr. Keyes full article, go to http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82640.
Our nation is now debating whether Obama is Constitutionally qualified to be President. It is critical to the continuing positive development of our Constitutional democracy that our leaders comprehensively and honestly address this question. To do otherwise will at best cause millions of Americans to lose faith in the greatness of America and at worst only history can tell.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2008/12/two-constitutional-obstacles-obama-has.html
On the question of whether Obama is a "natural born Citizen" as that term is used by Article II of the U.S. Constitution, some might simply say it is too late to address such an issue, for the "American people" have spoken and it would be an "injustice" not to carry out their will. But to properly respond to this answer, we have to first analyze who voted for Obama. Then we have to ask ourselves whether we, as a nation founded upon and flourished from our Constitution, can simply refuse to exercise our obligation to make sure that our Constitution has been followed in this Presidential election.
First, I would like to comment on who are the "American people" who voted for Obama. Robert Stevens wrote the following at http://drorly.blogspot.com/: "[R]eportedly, Obama votes constituted 63.7 million out of the 122.4 million votes in the 2008 election, out of an estimated population of 305.9 million Americans, not counting US nationals not resident in the US; in other words, no more than 20.89 percent of Americans voted for Obama. . ., and there are currently substantial defections from his base among the liberals, left-wing media, African Americans and anti-war and gay rights activists." I believe that these statistics, assuming they are accurate, lead to a more important question and that is one raised by Alan Keyes, "a high-level Reagan era diplomat, a media personality and a conservative political activist, a well-known staunch pro-life champion and a leader in the effort to restore the eroded sovereignty of the American people by securing our borders, abolishing the federal income tax and bringing the federal Judiciary back within proper constitutional bounds. He formally severed his Republican affiliation in April and was the presidential nominee of America's Independent Party in 2008." This is how he describes himself and I offer the information not to show that I am his supporter but only so that you may have a little background on him.
Alan Keyes wrote an excellent piece on the importance of our nation adhering to our Constitution. He states how "passions and affections" can blind us from the reality with which we are faced, causing us to pay "scant attention" to that which is important. He explains the difference between a "constitutional democratic republic" and a "democratic republic," arguing that the United States is the former and not the latter. He shows how in a "constitutional democratic republic," the will of the simple majority is put in check by its Constitution while with a "democratic republic," the will of a simple majority has no such control and can assert its power, for good or bad, over all other elements of the society. Hence, he so distinguishes between a "constitutional democratic majority" and a "simple majority." He explains how it was the Constitution itself which allowed the civil rights advances of the 20th century and allowed black Americans to obtain many of the freedoms they enjoy today, notwithstanding the will of a simple majority that may have wanted things otherwise. He goes on to say that failing to adhere to the Constitution is the beginnings of the creation of a democratic dictatorship. He argues that if our leaders lack the character now to uphold the Constitution for ignorance, fear, or selfish ambition, what can we expect from them once an abuse of power actually materializes. He demands that every government official of the United States must make sure that the Constitution is respected in full, for these officials enter their office upon their oath that they will uphold the Constitution. As part of this duty, he maintains that they must assure that all relevant facts and evidence be publicly and fully presented on the issue of whether Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President. For those who want to read Mr. Keyes full article, go to http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82640.
Our nation is now debating whether Obama is Constitutionally qualified to be President. It is critical to the continuing positive development of our Constitutional democracy that our leaders comprehensively and honestly address this question. To do otherwise will at best cause millions of Americans to lose faith in the greatness of America and at worst only history can tell.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2008/12/two-constitutional-obstacles-obama-has.html
Rezko's lawyer owns Obama's house
« Sometimes It Takes A Russian Dentist to Extract The Truth | Main | We must get hold of a SENATOR and a CONGRESSPERSON »
December 16, 2008
Rezko’s Lawyer Owns Obama’s House
By DemocracyRules
This is another scandal that just keeps growing. When it first became known that Rezko helped Obama buy his house, Obama himself called the deal “boneheaded”.
Now things look much worse, because Rezko ‘s lawyer owns the house. His name is William Miceli, and Obama formerly worked for him.
Documents here Download 5046_Greenwood_AV_Lexus
Why would Rezko’s lawyer own Obama’s house?
There are several explanations, and none look good. Obama tried to buy the house because Michelle wanted it. “According to My DD: Direct Democracy, in 2004, Barack’s wife, Michelle, was on the board of the Commission of Chicago Landmarks and in this capacity, learned of a designated historical home in Kenwood that was for sale — the home and the adjacent land at 5046 South Greenwood.”
But the sellers were asking more than the market value. They also insisted on selling the adjacent empty lot at the same time. The house and the two lots together made an attractive package, because it became a corner property with a big yard.
House picture here
The price was too high for Obama, so he went to Rezko for help. Rezko’s plan was to buy the adjacent property on the same day Obama bought the house. Obama would still have to overpay, even for just the house. But once the whole deal was finished, the package would become a reasonably good deal.
Obama (or William Miceli) bought the house, and Rezko’s wife bought the adjoining lot. Then Obama got a strip of the lot from Rezko’s wife for about $100,000. This did two things. It expanded the house lot, which increased the house value. The picture shows a new fence that Obama had built along the new property line. It also made the adjacent lot so narrow, it’s unlikely anyone who bought it could make money building something on it. They might not even be able to get a building permit. So essentially the deal gave Obama a house and the use of two lots.
Michelle had the house she wanted, and the Obama’s had a house that looked “Senatorial”.
But the deal was unethical because Rezko had conferred a benefit by helping Obama obtain something he couldn’t otherwise afford.
And since Rezko’s lawyer actually owns the property, a benefit is still being conferred to Obama all the time he lives there.
But wait, there’s more! The mortgaged amount is very high. It’s so high it violates the ordinary lending rules for Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, which carries the mortgage. This is probably legal, because the owners set up a complicated land trust arrangement to bypass those rules. But why? And who pays this mortgage? Why would Obama pay a mortgage on a house he doesn’t own? Does he just pay rent, while Rezko’s lawyer pays the mortgage?
But wait, there’s even more! It’s now clear the adjacent lot was overvalued by Rezko’s bank. At the time, an appraiser said it was worth $500,000. But Rezko’s bank unilaterally upped the value to about $650,000. This enabled Rezko’s wife to get a bigger mortgage on the lot. Bank employee Kenneth J. Conner found out, and complained this was mortgage fraud. Overvaluing a property to get a bigger mortgage is against the law. Conner blew the whistle, but he was fired. Now he’s suing the bank.
Conner filed a civil complaint in October with the Illinois Circuit Court in Cook County alleging he was fired by Mutual Bank of Harvey, Ill., because he objected to land appraisals submitted on behalf of the Rezkos and the Obamas, with the complicity of the bank.
After he was fired, Conner told World Net Daily that the bank and the Rezkos were engaged in "fraud, bribes or kickbacks, use whatever term you want," to benefit the Obamas.
But wait there’s even more! Rezko borrowed money for the deal from his friend and backer Nadhmi Auchi, a British billionaire from Iraq who was mixed up in the oil-for food scandal. Auchi has a very complicated past, and he’s very litigous about any mention of his name.
Does Nadhmi Auchi effectively own or control the house Obama lives in?
Now there’s word that Patrick Fitzgerald is getting interested in these dealings. I sure hope he does.
Pro Patria
DemocracyRules on December 16, 2008 at 05:39 PM | Permalink
December 16, 2008
Rezko’s Lawyer Owns Obama’s House
By DemocracyRules
This is another scandal that just keeps growing. When it first became known that Rezko helped Obama buy his house, Obama himself called the deal “boneheaded”.
Now things look much worse, because Rezko ‘s lawyer owns the house. His name is William Miceli, and Obama formerly worked for him.
Documents here Download 5046_Greenwood_AV_Lexus
Why would Rezko’s lawyer own Obama’s house?
There are several explanations, and none look good. Obama tried to buy the house because Michelle wanted it. “According to My DD: Direct Democracy, in 2004, Barack’s wife, Michelle, was on the board of the Commission of Chicago Landmarks and in this capacity, learned of a designated historical home in Kenwood that was for sale — the home and the adjacent land at 5046 South Greenwood.”
But the sellers were asking more than the market value. They also insisted on selling the adjacent empty lot at the same time. The house and the two lots together made an attractive package, because it became a corner property with a big yard.
House picture here
The price was too high for Obama, so he went to Rezko for help. Rezko’s plan was to buy the adjacent property on the same day Obama bought the house. Obama would still have to overpay, even for just the house. But once the whole deal was finished, the package would become a reasonably good deal.
Obama (or William Miceli) bought the house, and Rezko’s wife bought the adjoining lot. Then Obama got a strip of the lot from Rezko’s wife for about $100,000. This did two things. It expanded the house lot, which increased the house value. The picture shows a new fence that Obama had built along the new property line. It also made the adjacent lot so narrow, it’s unlikely anyone who bought it could make money building something on it. They might not even be able to get a building permit. So essentially the deal gave Obama a house and the use of two lots.
Michelle had the house she wanted, and the Obama’s had a house that looked “Senatorial”.
But the deal was unethical because Rezko had conferred a benefit by helping Obama obtain something he couldn’t otherwise afford.
And since Rezko’s lawyer actually owns the property, a benefit is still being conferred to Obama all the time he lives there.
But wait, there’s more! The mortgaged amount is very high. It’s so high it violates the ordinary lending rules for Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, which carries the mortgage. This is probably legal, because the owners set up a complicated land trust arrangement to bypass those rules. But why? And who pays this mortgage? Why would Obama pay a mortgage on a house he doesn’t own? Does he just pay rent, while Rezko’s lawyer pays the mortgage?
But wait, there’s even more! It’s now clear the adjacent lot was overvalued by Rezko’s bank. At the time, an appraiser said it was worth $500,000. But Rezko’s bank unilaterally upped the value to about $650,000. This enabled Rezko’s wife to get a bigger mortgage on the lot. Bank employee Kenneth J. Conner found out, and complained this was mortgage fraud. Overvaluing a property to get a bigger mortgage is against the law. Conner blew the whistle, but he was fired. Now he’s suing the bank.
Conner filed a civil complaint in October with the Illinois Circuit Court in Cook County alleging he was fired by Mutual Bank of Harvey, Ill., because he objected to land appraisals submitted on behalf of the Rezkos and the Obamas, with the complicity of the bank.
After he was fired, Conner told World Net Daily that the bank and the Rezkos were engaged in "fraud, bribes or kickbacks, use whatever term you want," to benefit the Obamas.
But wait there’s even more! Rezko borrowed money for the deal from his friend and backer Nadhmi Auchi, a British billionaire from Iraq who was mixed up in the oil-for food scandal. Auchi has a very complicated past, and he’s very litigous about any mention of his name.
Does Nadhmi Auchi effectively own or control the house Obama lives in?
Now there’s word that Patrick Fitzgerald is getting interested in these dealings. I sure hope he does.
Pro Patria
DemocracyRules on December 16, 2008 at 05:39 PM | Permalink
Florida case
W. Spencer Connerat, III13584 Feather Sound Cir., W.Apt. 2009Clearwater, FL 33762-5559Telephone: (727) 556-0170 Petitioner, pro se SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDAW. Spencer Connerat, III Petitioner,vs.=0 A Florida Secretary of State Kurt S. Browning Respondent. ))))))))))))))
)))))))))))) Case No.: PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY EMERGENCY WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND STAY OF 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TO BE CONDUCTED IN FLORIDA SENATE CHAMBERS AT 2:00P.M. ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2008
)))))))))))) Case No.: PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY EMERGENCY WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND STAY OF 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TO BE CONDUCTED IN FLORIDA SENATE CHAMBERS AT 2:00P.M. ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2008
Letter from Rachel in LA
I found this letter today and feel it is the best one I have seen on this issue. Very astute! 12/21/2008 5:10 PM Rachel wrote:
When I first heard about this issue I thought it was just a political smear tactic, however the more I followed it, the more I believe that there is something seriously wrong. A large portion of this is due to Obama having all his records sealed and having spent more than $500K to prevent those records from being made public. This is incredibly suspicious, as well as unbelievably arrogant for anyone running for the Office of President of the United States. Why spend all that money when the issue can be laid to rest by publishing a $12 certified copy of the vault birth certificate? The only explanation is that there is something to hide.
I am a retired peace officer and I swore an oath upon being hired to uphold the United States Constitution. I took that oath very seriously at that time and I continue to do so to this day. When I graduated from college I spent several hundred dollars getting dozens of certified copies of my birth certificate, college transcripts, and high school transcripts because along with every application I submitted for an entry level position with police/sheriff/probation departments that I applied to I was required to submit these documents along with copies of my diplomas. I also had to submit a list of all the addresses where I had lived since becoming an adult, and any trips I had made out of country. This information was used to conduct background investigations since I was applying for jobs that required a security clearance. Obama is applying for the highest office in the land and is refusing to produce these documents, even though Obama admits in his book, Dreams from My Father, that he had a copy of his birth certificate.
I looked over my own birth certificate recently and went over the information on it. It clearly states on the document the address and Parish (I was born in Louisiana so the term "Parish" would be the equivalent of "County") where I was born, as well as who delivered me. I also went over my college transcripts and there are fields on it that indicate what your citizenship is as well as what grants, scholarships, and financial aid you received during your education there. I am sure that grad schools would have similar information on their transcripts as well.
Personally, after following this issue for the last couple of months, I have now come to the realization that I cannot accept Obama as POTUS because Obama has failed to prove that he meets the eligibility requirements for that office.
All nine Justices have sworn an oath to uphold, protect and defend the US Constitution, just as I have. Obama himself has also sworn that same oath twice, at the time he graduated from Law School and then again when he was sworn in as a Senator and his first official Act in 2009 will be to swear that oath again, making his first official act of office a fraud if he is not eligible. Read Rachel's Bar of Integrity source document. http://blog.barofintegrity.us/2008/12/21/open-letter--request-to-refile-petition-lightfoot-v-bowen-with-chief-justice-john-roberts.aspx?results=1#AddComment?reply-to=1637159
Lisa Ostella
Peace through Strength
http://www.barofintegrity.com
When I first heard about this issue I thought it was just a political smear tactic, however the more I followed it, the more I believe that there is something seriously wrong. A large portion of this is due to Obama having all his records sealed and having spent more than $500K to prevent those records from being made public. This is incredibly suspicious, as well as unbelievably arrogant for anyone running for the Office of President of the United States. Why spend all that money when the issue can be laid to rest by publishing a $12 certified copy of the vault birth certificate? The only explanation is that there is something to hide.
I am a retired peace officer and I swore an oath upon being hired to uphold the United States Constitution. I took that oath very seriously at that time and I continue to do so to this day. When I graduated from college I spent several hundred dollars getting dozens of certified copies of my birth certificate, college transcripts, and high school transcripts because along with every application I submitted for an entry level position with police/sheriff/probation departments that I applied to I was required to submit these documents along with copies of my diplomas. I also had to submit a list of all the addresses where I had lived since becoming an adult, and any trips I had made out of country. This information was used to conduct background investigations since I was applying for jobs that required a security clearance. Obama is applying for the highest office in the land and is refusing to produce these documents, even though Obama admits in his book, Dreams from My Father, that he had a copy of his birth certificate.
I looked over my own birth certificate recently and went over the information on it. It clearly states on the document the address and Parish (I was born in Louisiana so the term "Parish" would be the equivalent of "County") where I was born, as well as who delivered me. I also went over my college transcripts and there are fields on it that indicate what your citizenship is as well as what grants, scholarships, and financial aid you received during your education there. I am sure that grad schools would have similar information on their transcripts as well.
Personally, after following this issue for the last couple of months, I have now come to the realization that I cannot accept Obama as POTUS because Obama has failed to prove that he meets the eligibility requirements for that office.
All nine Justices have sworn an oath to uphold, protect and defend the US Constitution, just as I have. Obama himself has also sworn that same oath twice, at the time he graduated from Law School and then again when he was sworn in as a Senator and his first official Act in 2009 will be to swear that oath again, making his first official act of office a fraud if he is not eligible. Read Rachel's Bar of Integrity source document. http://blog.barofintegrity.us/2008/12/21/open-letter--request-to-refile-petition-lightfoot-v-bowen-with-chief-justice-john-roberts.aspx?results=1#AddComment?reply-to=1637159
Lisa Ostella
Peace through Strength
http://www.barofintegrity.com
Lobbying activities of Joe Biden's son Hunter
Biden's Son a Registered Lobbyist
forwarded by a reader Mr. David Crockett
Published by Lindsay Renick Mayer on August 25, 2008 12:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Barack Obama may be trying to keep lobbyists out of his campaign, but after selecting Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate in the upcoming presidential election, he won't be able to keep lobbyists out of the family. Biden's son, Hunter, has been a registered lobbyist since 2001, pushing the agenda of universities and biotech companies on Capitol Hill. So far this year he's lobbied on behalf of nine clients for the law firm he co-founded, Oldaker Biden & Belair, which made $1.7 million in the first six months of this year. According to USA Today, which used data from the Center for Responsive Politics in its analysis, Hunter's clients have reported paying the firm a total of $470,000 so far this year.
It appears that Hunter and his father have tried to comply with the ethics rules related to family members of lawmakers who are employed as lobbyists. In 2006, Hunter ended his run with National Group, a lobbying-only subsidiary of his firm, in response to new ethics rules requiring lawmakers to prove that their relatives do not benefit directly from the lawmaker's spending or tax provisions. Sen. Biden also supported a new law that prohibited lawmakers' staff from being lobbied by the member of Congress's immediate family members who are lobbyists. A spokesman for Hunter told USA Today that he never lobbies his father and does not "share in fees from clients on whose behalf Sen. Biden has been lobbied by other firm partners and employees."
Despite this, the Bidens have not avoided controversy altogether surrounding Hunter's career. Hunter and Sen. Biden's brother, James, have been accused in two lawsuits of defrauding a former business partner at a hedge fund. The partner says he was asked to set up the hedge fund, Paradigm Companies LLC, and to make Hunter president, in response to Sen. Biden's concerns that Hunter's role as a lobbyist could affect his presidential bid (which he ended up dropping in January). Hunter has said his father had nothing to do with the deal, which went sour.
In addition, prior to working for National Group, Hunter was the senior vice president of credit card company MBNA Corp, which also happens to be Sen. Biden's largest contributor over time. The company has given the senator $214,100. At least 13 of Biden's employees have taken a similar spin through the revolving door between the public and private sectors.
Over the weekend Capital Eye provided a guide to all of our observations about Biden's campaign fundraising and personal finances.
forwarded by a reader Mr. David Crockett
Published by Lindsay Renick Mayer on August 25, 2008 12:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Barack Obama may be trying to keep lobbyists out of his campaign, but after selecting Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate in the upcoming presidential election, he won't be able to keep lobbyists out of the family. Biden's son, Hunter, has been a registered lobbyist since 2001, pushing the agenda of universities and biotech companies on Capitol Hill. So far this year he's lobbied on behalf of nine clients for the law firm he co-founded, Oldaker Biden & Belair, which made $1.7 million in the first six months of this year. According to USA Today, which used data from the Center for Responsive Politics in its analysis, Hunter's clients have reported paying the firm a total of $470,000 so far this year.
It appears that Hunter and his father have tried to comply with the ethics rules related to family members of lawmakers who are employed as lobbyists. In 2006, Hunter ended his run with National Group, a lobbying-only subsidiary of his firm, in response to new ethics rules requiring lawmakers to prove that their relatives do not benefit directly from the lawmaker's spending or tax provisions. Sen. Biden also supported a new law that prohibited lawmakers' staff from being lobbied by the member of Congress's immediate family members who are lobbyists. A spokesman for Hunter told USA Today that he never lobbies his father and does not "share in fees from clients on whose behalf Sen. Biden has been lobbied by other firm partners and employees."
Despite this, the Bidens have not avoided controversy altogether surrounding Hunter's career. Hunter and Sen. Biden's brother, James, have been accused in two lawsuits of defrauding a former business partner at a hedge fund. The partner says he was asked to set up the hedge fund, Paradigm Companies LLC, and to make Hunter president, in response to Sen. Biden's concerns that Hunter's role as a lobbyist could affect his presidential bid (which he ended up dropping in January). Hunter has said his father had nothing to do with the deal, which went sour.
In addition, prior to working for National Group, Hunter was the senior vice president of credit card company MBNA Corp, which also happens to be Sen. Biden's largest contributor over time. The company has given the senator $214,100. At least 13 of Biden's employees have taken a similar spin through the revolving door between the public and private sectors.
Over the weekend Capital Eye provided a guide to all of our observations about Biden's campaign fundraising and personal finances.
Call to Action
Help us reach Pastor Rick Warren.
Please call his assistant, Anne Krumm, 949-609-8460.
Encourage his support for Lightfoot v. Bowan.
Pastor Warren, please make an appeal on TV and the media for Barack Obama to verify his eligibility for office. Demand he release his passports, birth certificate and records to support his natural born status.
Please call his assistant, Anne Krumm, 949-609-8460.
Encourage his support for Lightfoot v. Bowan.
Pastor Warren, please make an appeal on TV and the media for Barack Obama to verify his eligibility for office. Demand he release his passports, birth certificate and records to support his natural born status.
Another letter from a reader- Quinn from HI (currently a law student)
As a resident of Hawaii for the last 13 years, I am beyond appalled. As a citizen of the United States since 1979, I am beyond shock that the American Media and the Secretaries of these 50 United States would hide behind veils as such crucial times. So yes, just let me know what specific points you like me to address in this third world 50 state of these United States. I don't believe our First Commander in Chief George Washington would be proud if he was alive today. Americans have not followed the wishes of our founding fathers with the help of the media annoiting their favorite son..Barack Hussein Mohammed Obama, the least experience and long shot DNC 2008 candidate for Commander in Chief.
The Left Protesting Americans have however, become a law unto themselves and as a result trampled on the US Constitution and the State of Hawaii Constitution, since it has been over 3 decades of having a decorum of a State of Hawaii Constitution Convention whereupon the Hawaii State Legislature relentlessly refused to hold such State Convention even though a sitting Republican Governor, Linda Lingle and Lt. Governor, James Duke Aiona of the State of Hawaii calls for such amendment on the voting ballot this year so that it would allow the citizens of the 50th Aloha State the opportunity to voice their concerns. So, a Big Yes; I am more than appalled. It is a disgrace and a dispictable slap to the face for anyone to have any standings whats so ever, including constitutional abidding citizens such as Philip J. Berg. As Mr. Berg states, he is the biggest hoax in over 150 years and the illegible and unqualified President-Elect of these United States". I would further add that Mr. Hussein Mohammad Obama is not only these, but Illegitiment POTUS.
So please feel free to add my name to the class action suit as a former Naval Reserve.
-Quinn
The Left Protesting Americans have however, become a law unto themselves and as a result trampled on the US Constitution and the State of Hawaii Constitution, since it has been over 3 decades of having a decorum of a State of Hawaii Constitution Convention whereupon the Hawaii State Legislature relentlessly refused to hold such State Convention even though a sitting Republican Governor, Linda Lingle and Lt. Governor, James Duke Aiona of the State of Hawaii calls for such amendment on the voting ballot this year so that it would allow the citizens of the 50th Aloha State the opportunity to voice their concerns. So, a Big Yes; I am more than appalled. It is a disgrace and a dispictable slap to the face for anyone to have any standings whats so ever, including constitutional abidding citizens such as Philip J. Berg. As Mr. Berg states, he is the biggest hoax in over 150 years and the illegible and unqualified President-Elect of these United States". I would further add that Mr. Hussein Mohammad Obama is not only these, but Illegitiment POTUS.
So please feel free to add my name to the class action suit as a former Naval Reserve.
-Quinn
Another letter from a reader- Jean in Chicago
Dear Readers,
First, let me state that I am a registered Repulican who voted for John McCain in this past election. I voted Republican because my values and beliefs are consistent with the 2008 RNC platformand because Barack Obama with too many Anti-American ties and a platform, which I believed, supported a Socialist agenda.
Months before the election, I was disturbed to find out that Barack Obama might not even meet the "natural born" eligibility requirements to be elected to POTUS. The more I read, the more research that I conducted, the more I became convinced that Obama's rise to superstardom was an orchestrated effort that would have to involve both parties, high ranking governement officials and the media. Why wasn't anyone standing up to avoid the impending constitutional crisis?
To follow the slew of lawsuits that were being originated surrounding both Obama's and McCain's eligiblity issues, (but particularly Obama's because McCain's eligiblity issue, I thought had been addressed) I started a social networking site called WeThePeopleUSA.
My site grew almost overnight, at a rate of about 30-50 members a day and now totals around 500 members. Unfortunately, after lawsuit after lawsuit was dismissed regarding Obama's presidential eligibilty, I noticed a rapid decline in member participation and new members joining the site.
Fortuantely, I never stopped searching for the truth, not just about Obama, but about the Republican Party...My Party. I wanted to know why, with so many questions concerning Obama's eligibilty, hadn't ANY high profile Republicans stepped up to voice their concern? Why had the "so-called" conservative media, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, etc. failed to report on this issue?
Today, I am pretty much an expert on the Obama eligibilty question and I have many links on my site that link to other sites that are also reporting this issue. However, the silence of the Republican Party and historical support that John McCain has given on behalf of illegal immigrants, NAFTA and the Council on Foreign Policy has caused me to ask more questions that I wasn't sure that I really wanted the answer to.
Could McCain's loss to Obama have been part of the "master plan?" If so, how was it orchestrated and who were the players. Surely, the Republican's, our small government, capitalism loving party could not be behind such a betrayal. There must be some other explaination. This could not happen in America. What about our Supreme Court and George Bush's appointee for Chief Justice, John Roberts, surely, he would uphold the Constitution?
Unfortunately, I found out that it IS happening, and that It has been happening for a very long time. I have concluded that the Republican Party, as it stands today, is a party that secretly supports a New World Order.
Everything that is associated with Obama, including John McCain, his presidential opponent, and our Current and Former Republican Presidents is connected to this New World Order.
The New World Order is a borderless society ruled by a central banking system which uses one currency in which individual rights are no longer protected and one govenrment has total control. Many of the "elites" have recognized that a New World Order is needed and neccessary. click here for quotes.
From a False Credit Crisis to the Wars that have been started to create the New World Order, chaos has been created and terrorism used as an imminent danger, like 9/11 to scare people into giving up their constitutional rights.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, I do not wear a tin-foil hat. I am an average Average American, who, for most of my life, like many other American's has been too busy trying to work and make a living and raise a family to seek out the truth on my own.
I don't claim to have found out the complete "truth" only a list of questions, that yet to have been unansered. Until we can answer these questions and get to the real truth, we can not determine how to move forward as a Party or even what the party should look like.
How many "elites" in the Republican party today are connected to the New World Order? We MUST determine this before we can Stand United and Rebuild the Party.
Your thoughts and comments are encouraged. Please note: I have completed extensive research on both Obama and McCain's citizenship, as well as, the NWO, but I did not want to overload the reader here. A few links are provided for your reference, which link to more material you can read on your own to decide for yourself if ALL YOUR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS have truely been addressed by your party.
Thank you.
First, let me state that I am a registered Repulican who voted for John McCain in this past election. I voted Republican because my values and beliefs are consistent with the 2008 RNC platformand because Barack Obama with too many Anti-American ties and a platform, which I believed, supported a Socialist agenda.
Months before the election, I was disturbed to find out that Barack Obama might not even meet the "natural born" eligibility requirements to be elected to POTUS. The more I read, the more research that I conducted, the more I became convinced that Obama's rise to superstardom was an orchestrated effort that would have to involve both parties, high ranking governement officials and the media. Why wasn't anyone standing up to avoid the impending constitutional crisis?
To follow the slew of lawsuits that were being originated surrounding both Obama's and McCain's eligiblity issues, (but particularly Obama's because McCain's eligiblity issue, I thought had been addressed) I started a social networking site called WeThePeopleUSA.
My site grew almost overnight, at a rate of about 30-50 members a day and now totals around 500 members. Unfortunately, after lawsuit after lawsuit was dismissed regarding Obama's presidential eligibilty, I noticed a rapid decline in member participation and new members joining the site.
Fortuantely, I never stopped searching for the truth, not just about Obama, but about the Republican Party...My Party. I wanted to know why, with so many questions concerning Obama's eligibilty, hadn't ANY high profile Republicans stepped up to voice their concern? Why had the "so-called" conservative media, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, etc. failed to report on this issue?
Today, I am pretty much an expert on the Obama eligibilty question and I have many links on my site that link to other sites that are also reporting this issue. However, the silence of the Republican Party and historical support that John McCain has given on behalf of illegal immigrants, NAFTA and the Council on Foreign Policy has caused me to ask more questions that I wasn't sure that I really wanted the answer to.
Could McCain's loss to Obama have been part of the "master plan?" If so, how was it orchestrated and who were the players. Surely, the Republican's, our small government, capitalism loving party could not be behind such a betrayal. There must be some other explaination. This could not happen in America. What about our Supreme Court and George Bush's appointee for Chief Justice, John Roberts, surely, he would uphold the Constitution?
Unfortunately, I found out that it IS happening, and that It has been happening for a very long time. I have concluded that the Republican Party, as it stands today, is a party that secretly supports a New World Order.
Everything that is associated with Obama, including John McCain, his presidential opponent, and our Current and Former Republican Presidents is connected to this New World Order.
The New World Order is a borderless society ruled by a central banking system which uses one currency in which individual rights are no longer protected and one govenrment has total control. Many of the "elites" have recognized that a New World Order is needed and neccessary. click here for quotes.
From a False Credit Crisis to the Wars that have been started to create the New World Order, chaos has been created and terrorism used as an imminent danger, like 9/11 to scare people into giving up their constitutional rights.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, I do not wear a tin-foil hat. I am an average Average American, who, for most of my life, like many other American's has been too busy trying to work and make a living and raise a family to seek out the truth on my own.
I don't claim to have found out the complete "truth" only a list of questions, that yet to have been unansered. Until we can answer these questions and get to the real truth, we can not determine how to move forward as a Party or even what the party should look like.
How many "elites" in the Republican party today are connected to the New World Order? We MUST determine this before we can Stand United and Rebuild the Party.
Your thoughts and comments are encouraged. Please note: I have completed extensive research on both Obama and McCain's citizenship, as well as, the NWO, but I did not want to overload the reader here. A few links are provided for your reference, which link to more material you can read on your own to decide for yourself if ALL YOUR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS have truely been addressed by your party.
Thank you.
another letter from a reader
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
ORLY, I want to thank you for your Patriotism, the Constitution will
win, the Founders would be proud. MERRY CHRISTMAS.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA1
ORLY, I want to thank you for your Patriotism, the Constitution will
win, the Founders would be proud. MERRY CHRISTMAS.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Need your help in research
Yesterday an article appeared, saying that Joe Biden will be in charge of overseeing middle class, helping middle class, something to that extend. I remember that sometime in August-September of this year the was a report about one of Biden's two sons. This report was on a John and Ken show KFIAM 640 before the whole station went dark and switched from opposition to supporters of BO and Co. The report stated that Biden's son was a lobbyist and was getting some 1.7 million a year salary as a lobbyist. When his father decided to run, they figured, it doesn't look good, if he continues working as a lobbyist, and he tried to buy a hedge fund, using some of his dad's connections. The deal fell apart. I am trying to get info in the following area:
1. who was his employer, who paid him 1.7mln a year?
2. what benefit did this co get from Senate and congress?
3. What is the name of the fund he was trying to buy?
4. who were the lawyers, that were the mahers, the handlers on the deal?
5. Why did the deal fall apart.
BO promised transparency. With our dead media, it is up to us, Internet journalist and patriots, that don't want this country to go down the drain in the cesspool of corruption, to uncover the truth,
Orly
1. who was his employer, who paid him 1.7mln a year?
2. what benefit did this co get from Senate and congress?
3. What is the name of the fund he was trying to buy?
4. who were the lawyers, that were the mahers, the handlers on the deal?
5. Why did the deal fall apart.
BO promised transparency. With our dead media, it is up to us, Internet journalist and patriots, that don't want this country to go down the drain in the cesspool of corruption, to uncover the truth,
Orly
What does NDJ mean?
Does anybody have any documents about Stanley Ann's schooling before High School? I got a 100 messages that there are only two known pictures of Stanley Ann until adulthood: one at age 2 and one at ge 12. Second picture shows her wearing a school uniform with letters NDJ on it. A large number of people are writing to me that it is an insignia of Notre Day de Jamhour- a catholic school in Beirut Lebanon, where Bashir Jumail, former president of Lebanon studied. I haven't seen any docs. Can anybody dig out docs about her schooling until High School?
Orly
Orly
From No Compromise radio program
From: No Compromise
Date: Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Subject: Which Constitutional provision will be violated next if we stand for this violation?
To: undisclosed-recipients
Dear American,
Which Constitutional provision will be violated next if we stand for this violation? Your free speech rights? How about your Gun rights? Do we have the Right to decide which mandates in our Constitution are less important than others? Obama ADMITTED in his books that his father was born in Kenya--a clear Constitutional violation! The media put him in office and the media is NOT reporting this Constitutional Crisis looming over this Country. This is clearly a Marxist take over, and this info must go through the internet ASAP. Dr. Orly Tatiz is ONE justice away from getting this before the SCOTUS for ORAL ARGUMENTS. Three Justices believe in this enough to hear those ARGUMENTS. If they believe it's important shouldn't we? Plz circulate this open letter to your lists and blogs. Thanks, Tracy ***
Date: Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Subject: Which Constitutional provision will be violated next if we stand for this violation?
To: undisclosed-recipients
Dear American,
Which Constitutional provision will be violated next if we stand for this violation? Your free speech rights? How about your Gun rights? Do we have the Right to decide which mandates in our Constitution are less important than others? Obama ADMITTED in his books that his father was born in Kenya--a clear Constitutional violation! The media put him in office and the media is NOT reporting this Constitutional Crisis looming over this Country. This is clearly a Marxist take over, and this info must go through the internet ASAP. Dr. Orly Tatiz is ONE justice away from getting this before the SCOTUS for ORAL ARGUMENTS. Three Justices believe in this enough to hear those ARGUMENTS. If they believe it's important shouldn't we? Plz circulate this open letter to your lists and blogs. Thanks, Tracy ***
Sunday, December 21, 2008
When the whole system is corrupt, filing law suits is an exercise in futility
I guess I need to explain better where I am coming from. I have now some 10,000 e-mails with a lot of opinions in regards to different law suits, but let me explain myself by bringing an example. In the Soviet Union any and all law suits filed against the Communist party operatives and governmental officials always ended up in favor of the Communist party and the government. This wasn't because the lawyers for the people were incompetent and dumb, it happened because the system was corrupt to it's core and it reached a point when any law suit filed was an exercise in futility and the only thing that could bring any real change and sanity was an uprising, a revolution against the system, and that is why Leh Valensa and Solidarity got an overwhelming support of the people, that is why Wazlav Havel succeeded in Chech republic, that's why the Berlin wall fell. People despised the corrupt system that gave people no freedom of speech, no free press and no justice in the judiciary system.
Unfortunately, when I saw what is happenning in this country in the last year, I can see an eerie resemblence of what I saw in the Soviet union. We see a totally corrupt press that is manipulated by a few in power and we see a corrupt system of government. The facts of the case are unbelievably simple. According to Law of Nations, statements by the first chief Justice John Jay and framer of the 14th ammendment John Bingham "natural born citizen is one that was born in this countryy with parents that are citizens of this country". It cannot be more simple then that. Regardless of where Obama was born, he is not eligible. If he was born in Kenya, he is not only not eligible for presidency, but also not a citizen and needs to apply for his green card. The fact that nobody in the government is willing to do a thing about it and nobody in the judiciary is willing to hear the case on the merits, tells me that the whole system is totally corrupt and that is why I feel we need to go on the offensive. Filling law suits will not be enough. All the law suits will end up in the Supreme Court and if 6 out of 9 Supremes couldn't care less about the Constitution of this country, then we are wasting our time.
It is important to show each and every American, how corrupt our system is. We have to hold all of the judges and all of the elective officials accountable. We are showing the citizens of this country, how arrogant the government elite is, when after thousands of letters and petitions they do nothing. We show how aloof the judiciary is, when they are not willing to hear the cases on the merits.
Now let's take Trilateral commission and Bielderberg group. Why are those so universally despised by the people? Because these are closed, secretive societies. Naturally people are apprehensive of any cabals, any closed societies, they are fearful of their governments being taken by small groups of special interests that might be opposite to the interest of the populace. When people see that the top echelons of power in both Republican and Democratic party are being taken by reported members of such groups, when they see, how year after year their jobs are being shipped to the third world countries with labor costing pennies on the dollar, when they see Treasuries looted and as a final insult somebody totally ineligible pushed up in the White House, people are ready for revolt and rightfully so.
Our government and our judiciary need to understand, that they crossed all boundaries and they need to wake up. Let's take an example from medicine: when a parasite or a cancer enters a body of a host, it flourishes initially, but as it spreads, it gradually kills the host and ends up dying with the host.
If the groups like Trilateral commission and Bielderberg group don't want to be despised by the people, they need to open their doors to the media, and not only to their puppet media, but to free Internet reporters like me. They need to open their membership to the people, they need to show that they act in the interest of the people and not against the people.
The Judiciary needs to hear the cases on the merits and render judgements based on the Constitution and not the Judgements that de facto tear apart the Constituion.
The members of the Congress and the Senate need to announce to the people that they will demand the hearing on January the 8th, if Judiciary does not hear the case on the merits until then.
This used to be a great country, it has a lot of great people,and people in power need to rise to the occasion and show that they represent the interests of the people, or people will be justified in impeaching and recalling and finally replacing people in power.
Orly
Unfortunately, when I saw what is happenning in this country in the last year, I can see an eerie resemblence of what I saw in the Soviet union. We see a totally corrupt press that is manipulated by a few in power and we see a corrupt system of government. The facts of the case are unbelievably simple. According to Law of Nations, statements by the first chief Justice John Jay and framer of the 14th ammendment John Bingham "natural born citizen is one that was born in this countryy with parents that are citizens of this country". It cannot be more simple then that. Regardless of where Obama was born, he is not eligible. If he was born in Kenya, he is not only not eligible for presidency, but also not a citizen and needs to apply for his green card. The fact that nobody in the government is willing to do a thing about it and nobody in the judiciary is willing to hear the case on the merits, tells me that the whole system is totally corrupt and that is why I feel we need to go on the offensive. Filling law suits will not be enough. All the law suits will end up in the Supreme Court and if 6 out of 9 Supremes couldn't care less about the Constitution of this country, then we are wasting our time.
It is important to show each and every American, how corrupt our system is. We have to hold all of the judges and all of the elective officials accountable. We are showing the citizens of this country, how arrogant the government elite is, when after thousands of letters and petitions they do nothing. We show how aloof the judiciary is, when they are not willing to hear the cases on the merits.
Now let's take Trilateral commission and Bielderberg group. Why are those so universally despised by the people? Because these are closed, secretive societies. Naturally people are apprehensive of any cabals, any closed societies, they are fearful of their governments being taken by small groups of special interests that might be opposite to the interest of the populace. When people see that the top echelons of power in both Republican and Democratic party are being taken by reported members of such groups, when they see, how year after year their jobs are being shipped to the third world countries with labor costing pennies on the dollar, when they see Treasuries looted and as a final insult somebody totally ineligible pushed up in the White House, people are ready for revolt and rightfully so.
Our government and our judiciary need to understand, that they crossed all boundaries and they need to wake up. Let's take an example from medicine: when a parasite or a cancer enters a body of a host, it flourishes initially, but as it spreads, it gradually kills the host and ends up dying with the host.
If the groups like Trilateral commission and Bielderberg group don't want to be despised by the people, they need to open their doors to the media, and not only to their puppet media, but to free Internet reporters like me. They need to open their membership to the people, they need to show that they act in the interest of the people and not against the people.
The Judiciary needs to hear the cases on the merits and render judgements based on the Constitution and not the Judgements that de facto tear apart the Constituion.
The members of the Congress and the Senate need to announce to the people that they will demand the hearing on January the 8th, if Judiciary does not hear the case on the merits until then.
This used to be a great country, it has a lot of great people,and people in power need to rise to the occasion and show that they represent the interests of the people, or people will be justified in impeaching and recalling and finally replacing people in power.
Orly
Food for thought for US attorney Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald "Why aren't William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn rotting in jail?"
William Ayers recently admitted that he indeed has been friends with Obama and I am trying to look deeper in the connection. Ayers states that he is "Guilty as hell and free as a bird", while proudly standing on the American flag, thrown in the mud. This creep is allowed to pollute the minds of innocent children, using 500mln Annenberg donation. (tells you something about our education system)
Well not so fast Mr. Ayers, if we can help it, maybe you are not so free after all and maybe these not so free birds can start singing about other birds in the forest.
Ayers was freed because of technicality, the informants wiretap was thrown out.(our courts seem to care more about rights of the criminals then rights of the victims) I bet his rich father's connections didn't hurt too. I tried to google the charges and he was found not guilty only on two charges: crossing the state lines to destroy property and to create civil disturbance. O'k. But what about other carges? There is no statue of limitation on murder. They founded the Weather underground and set up a bomb-making factory. The target was a military base in Fort Dix, NJ. The plan was to bomb the base during the annual dance, when they could inflict maximum damage and murder hundreds of GIs and their wives and girlfriends. The bomb exploded prematurely and 3 bomb makers were killed: Terry Robbins, Ted Gold and Ayers's former girlfriend Diana Oughton. There is a theory of transferred intent. Ayers and Dohrn tried to murder others, but due to circumstances different targets ended up being killed. Ayers and Dohrn admit to their involvement, Ayers has written a whole memoir. They have two sons Zayd and Malik Ayers Dohrn (noticed Muslim names, remember connection to Farrakhan, Rashid Khalidi and Black Panthers?). Zayd, 26 y.o, recently made a play about this bombing. (how sweet, he is paying homage to his mom and dad's achievements). Ayers admits to his involvement, he makes statements against interest. There is nothing preventing the authorities from indicting them on murder charges.
Here is another thought. Ayers and Dohrn lived underground for 11 years. They admitted to living under different identities, in different places, had different jobs. Well, how did they do it? They needed forged birth certificates, forged drivers licenses, forged marriage licenses, school records and so on. I haven't seen any charges on forgery, mail fraud and so on. Which brings me to the next point. Somebody had to help them, to manufacture those documents and how many others got such documents???
Now it brings me to BO and his own lovely "Leave it to Beaver Family". BO's sister, Maya Soetoro stated that her mother lived in 13 different places. Maybe family friends of Stanley Ann Dunham, aka Soetoro, aka Sutoro, aka Obama, aka Anna Toot, aka Kelly Ann Dunham aka god knows what, can shed some light on hidden original birth certificate, missing marriage license, forged selective service certificate and short birth certificate (according to experts )and the list goes on and on.
Judging by Tony Rezko, people tend to be much less cocky under certain conditions and tend to recall many more details.
Well not so fast Mr. Ayers, if we can help it, maybe you are not so free after all and maybe these not so free birds can start singing about other birds in the forest.
Ayers was freed because of technicality, the informants wiretap was thrown out.(our courts seem to care more about rights of the criminals then rights of the victims) I bet his rich father's connections didn't hurt too. I tried to google the charges and he was found not guilty only on two charges: crossing the state lines to destroy property and to create civil disturbance. O'k. But what about other carges? There is no statue of limitation on murder. They founded the Weather underground and set up a bomb-making factory. The target was a military base in Fort Dix, NJ. The plan was to bomb the base during the annual dance, when they could inflict maximum damage and murder hundreds of GIs and their wives and girlfriends. The bomb exploded prematurely and 3 bomb makers were killed: Terry Robbins, Ted Gold and Ayers's former girlfriend Diana Oughton. There is a theory of transferred intent. Ayers and Dohrn tried to murder others, but due to circumstances different targets ended up being killed. Ayers and Dohrn admit to their involvement, Ayers has written a whole memoir. They have two sons Zayd and Malik Ayers Dohrn (noticed Muslim names, remember connection to Farrakhan, Rashid Khalidi and Black Panthers?). Zayd, 26 y.o, recently made a play about this bombing. (how sweet, he is paying homage to his mom and dad's achievements). Ayers admits to his involvement, he makes statements against interest. There is nothing preventing the authorities from indicting them on murder charges.
Here is another thought. Ayers and Dohrn lived underground for 11 years. They admitted to living under different identities, in different places, had different jobs. Well, how did they do it? They needed forged birth certificates, forged drivers licenses, forged marriage licenses, school records and so on. I haven't seen any charges on forgery, mail fraud and so on. Which brings me to the next point. Somebody had to help them, to manufacture those documents and how many others got such documents???
Now it brings me to BO and his own lovely "Leave it to Beaver Family". BO's sister, Maya Soetoro stated that her mother lived in 13 different places. Maybe family friends of Stanley Ann Dunham, aka Soetoro, aka Sutoro, aka Obama, aka Anna Toot, aka Kelly Ann Dunham aka god knows what, can shed some light on hidden original birth certificate, missing marriage license, forged selective service certificate and short birth certificate (according to experts )and the list goes on and on.
Judging by Tony Rezko, people tend to be much less cocky under certain conditions and tend to recall many more details.
Summit call from We the People
My considered opinion is that we are in danger of having our constitutional rights taken from us by an arrogant and ruthless band of self-serving politicians, members of the media, world banks (including the Federal Reserve Bank), and entertainers. I am concerned that the working men and women of this country are going to lose those rights that they now take for granted because the majority of those in power don't believe the citizens care enough to fight for or protect those rights. If you want to do something, the attached will allow you to make your voice heard by simply reading and signing a number of petitions concerning major issues. Ron Teed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
To: ChristianNtwk
Sent: 12/20/2008 6:38:20 P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Fwd: *****VERY IMPORTANT**********
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: carolyn
Sent: 12/20/2008 5:09:49 P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: *****VERY IMPORTANT**********
PLEASE READ INFO
As a people we need to know what to do and how to organize to address this deliberate crushing of our Constitution
If the link doesn't work for some reason, please email me back and I will resend it another way.
Carolyn
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bob Schulz (DO NOT REPLY - Unmonitored Mailbox)
Date: Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Subject: [WTP] SUMMIT CALL
To: carolyn
December 20, 2008
SUMMIT CALL
In our article posted here on December 5, 2008, we asked, "What must a free people do, and what is the appropriate next step, if Mr. Obama refuses to respond to our Open Letter and the Supreme Court refuses to hear the Petitions by attorneys Donofrio, Berg and Taitz challenging Obama's citizenship status?"
A violation of the "natural born citizen" clause of the Constitution by Mr. Obama is so egregious and blatant in its nature that it marks the overt and wholesale abandonment of the Constitution by the Government, making this our "capstone grievance," capping even the other abusive Constitutional violations this Foundation has sought to correct.
(continued...)
Click Here To Access the Update
It's almost 2009!
Freedom Calendars
shipping now!
Help our Year-End Fund Drive!
Click here to donate through our e-store and obtain your 2009 Freedom Calendars!
Now Shipping!
It's a great way to introduce your friends and family to both our mission of defending Liberty and the WTP organization. The calendars and educational packages make great Holiday gifts too!
You can also donate for the Calendars using our printable/mailable Donate Form ".rtf" format (be sure to specify the Calendar package you select)
Donations to the tax-exempt 501(c)3 Foundation are fully tax deductible.
Join the WTP Congress -- Just $7 / month!
Read & Sign the Petitions for Redress of Grievances
Please remember, the operations of the WTP Foundation
are funded entirely by your generous support.
Our Home Page is www.GiveMeLiberty.org
Add yourself to our e-mail list
Delete yourself from our e-mail list
This message was sent to address by
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We The People Foundation For Constitutional Education
2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, New York 12804
http://givemeliberty.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To send an email to Bob Schulz, click here:
mailto:bob@givemeliberty.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
To: ChristianNtwk
Sent: 12/20/2008 6:38:20 P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Fwd: *****VERY IMPORTANT**********
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: carolyn
Sent: 12/20/2008 5:09:49 P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: *****VERY IMPORTANT**********
PLEASE READ INFO
As a people we need to know what to do and how to organize to address this deliberate crushing of our Constitution
If the link doesn't work for some reason, please email me back and I will resend it another way.
Carolyn
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bob Schulz (DO NOT REPLY - Unmonitored Mailbox)
Date: Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Subject: [WTP] SUMMIT CALL
To: carolyn
December 20, 2008
SUMMIT CALL
In our article posted here on December 5, 2008, we asked, "What must a free people do, and what is the appropriate next step, if Mr. Obama refuses to respond to our Open Letter and the Supreme Court refuses to hear the Petitions by attorneys Donofrio, Berg and Taitz challenging Obama's citizenship status?"
A violation of the "natural born citizen" clause of the Constitution by Mr. Obama is so egregious and blatant in its nature that it marks the overt and wholesale abandonment of the Constitution by the Government, making this our "capstone grievance," capping even the other abusive Constitutional violations this Foundation has sought to correct.
(continued...)
Click Here To Access the Update
It's almost 2009!
Freedom Calendars
shipping now!
Help our Year-End Fund Drive!
Click here to donate through our e-store and obtain your 2009 Freedom Calendars!
Now Shipping!
It's a great way to introduce your friends and family to both our mission of defending Liberty and the WTP organization. The calendars and educational packages make great Holiday gifts too!
You can also donate for the Calendars using our printable/mailable Donate Form ".rtf" format (be sure to specify the Calendar package you select)
Donations to the tax-exempt 501(c)3 Foundation are fully tax deductible.
Join the WTP Congress -- Just $7 / month!
Read & Sign the Petitions for Redress of Grievances
Please remember, the operations of the WTP Foundation
are funded entirely by your generous support.
Our Home Page is www.GiveMeLiberty.org
Add yourself to our e-mail list
Delete yourself from our e-mail list
This message was sent to address by
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We The People Foundation For Constitutional Education
2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, New York 12804
http://givemeliberty.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To send an email to Bob Schulz, click here:
mailto:bob@givemeliberty.org
Annenberg-Ayers-Hugo Chavez connection
Constitutional scholar, Professor Levin has written about the funds swaps between Annenberg-and Annenberg challenge lead by Ayers and Obama. It looks like some $500 million was received by Annenberg challenge. As late as November 2006 Ayers visits Hugo Chavez and apploads his efforts.
As Ayers stated in a speech there in November 2006 “La educacion es Revolucion!” He applauded “the profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez” and he said he “share[d] the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution.” (I am wondering, what psycho allowed this guy to run the 500mln foundation?)
Right before the election I listened to Mike Savage program, called Savage Nation (Savage was muted since). Mike stated that he obtained info, showing that the computer software used in our voting machines came from Venesuella, which puts into question the results of the elections. Nobody knows what backdoors are integrated in such software.
Please, everybody write to Patrick Fitzgerald US att. in Illinois, Att. Gen of US, all of the law enforcement you can think of. We need just one decent person. They have to investigate
1. where did the software for our voting machines came from?
2. who authorized the purchase?
3. they need to audit Obama's donor list and amounts for his campaign
4. audit Annenberg challenge donor list and amounts (I have a nagging suspicion they will find a name Hugo Chavez there)
5. audit Annenberg foundation donor list and amounts and cross connect all three.
Orly
As Ayers stated in a speech there in November 2006 “La educacion es Revolucion!” He applauded “the profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez” and he said he “share[d] the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution.” (I am wondering, what psycho allowed this guy to run the 500mln foundation?)
Right before the election I listened to Mike Savage program, called Savage Nation (Savage was muted since). Mike stated that he obtained info, showing that the computer software used in our voting machines came from Venesuella, which puts into question the results of the elections. Nobody knows what backdoors are integrated in such software.
Please, everybody write to Patrick Fitzgerald US att. in Illinois, Att. Gen of US, all of the law enforcement you can think of. We need just one decent person. They have to investigate
1. where did the software for our voting machines came from?
2. who authorized the purchase?
3. they need to audit Obama's donor list and amounts for his campaign
4. audit Annenberg challenge donor list and amounts (I have a nagging suspicion they will find a name Hugo Chavez there)
5. audit Annenberg foundation donor list and amounts and cross connect all three.
Orly
Letter from a reader
Dr. Orly, i live in Oklahoma and just wanted to send you a heart felt "THANK YOU" for what you're doing out there. I hope you know that millions of us are watching you and helping you behind the scenes.We are blogging, donating, spreading the word, and getting more and more people involved in the fight! I just wanted to let you know that we are behind you and you're NOT alone in this. America is being high jacked and we must stop it at any means.The one thing the New World Order never took into consideration when trying to overthrow our Government and our Country is the overwhelming power of the internet.The main stream media has failed us miserably, but we don't need the CNN's and CBS's and CNBC's to get the word out, we are doing it behind the scenes and there are millions of us hard at work. Even though you were not born in the United States of America, you are a beautiful example of what America is and what she stands for Dr.Orly Taitz! In my book you truly are a Red Blooded American and just in case you don't know it...... WE LOVE YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Keep fighting the fight, you are not alone :) GOD BLESS AMERICA !
GAY-PORN KINGPIN LINKED TO O
CONWEST RESOURCES, INC. 444 DEHARO STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107
does business as Falcon Studios.
Funny how OpenSecrets shows no donations from them; yet they are big campaign donors. Such as the $5,000 they gave to Andrew Cuomo.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10102008/gossip/pagesix/gay_porn_kingpin_linked_to_o_132914.htm
GAY-PORN KINGPIN LINKED TO O
Excerpt:
ONE of the "bundlers" who has raised $50,000 to $100,000 for the Barack Obama presidential campaign is Terrence Bean, who once controlled the biggest producer of gay porn in America. Bean, the first gay on Sen. Obama's National Finance Committee, is the sole trustee of the Charles M. Holmes Foundation, which owned Falcon Studios, Jock Studios and Mustang Studios, the producers of about $10 million worth of all-male pornography a year.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107
does business as Falcon Studios.
Funny how OpenSecrets shows no donations from them; yet they are big campaign donors. Such as the $5,000 they gave to Andrew Cuomo.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10102008/gossip/pagesix/gay_porn_kingpin_linked_to_o_132914.htm
GAY-PORN KINGPIN LINKED TO O
Excerpt:
ONE of the "bundlers" who has raised $50,000 to $100,000 for the Barack Obama presidential campaign is Terrence Bean, who once controlled the biggest producer of gay porn in America. Bean, the first gay on Sen. Obama's National Finance Committee, is the sole trustee of the Charles M. Holmes Foundation, which owned Falcon Studios, Jock Studios and Mustang Studios, the producers of about $10 million worth of all-male pornography a year.
Open Letter - Request to refile Petition Lightfoot v Bowen with chief Justice John Roberts
Cover Letter
Request to refile Petition ‘Lightfoot v Bowen’ with Chief Justice John Roberts
Dear Justice Roberts,
This cover letter is an open letter that is being posted on the Internet, including the ‘YouTube’ website, and will be read on a number of radio stations, particularly radio stations around military bases. It will be forwarded to all members of Congress, Senators, and Governors, as well as to the media.
This legal action, as well as 20 other actions filed in the past few months, is seeking Judicial intervention in the Presidential confirmation process, due to the fact that Mr. Barack Obama, whose father was a Kenyan-British citizen when he was born, is not a ‘Natural Born’ U.S. Citizen, and therefore is not eligible to be President of these United States.
The suit also alleges that Mr. Obama has not established his citizenship status since, from 1911 to 1972, the State of Hawaii allowed issuance of Hawaiian Certificates of Live Birth to foreign-born children of Hawaiian residents for up to a year after their birth. In addition, there is mounting evidence that Mr. Obama was not born in Hawaii, and therefore he would not be a U.S. citizen until ‘Naturalized’ by subsequent application for citizenship.
The Plaintiffs in this action are a Vice-Presidential candidate on the California ballot, California electors, and registered voters. A number of the plaintiffs have served years of their lives in the U.S. military, and, as such, have risked their lives, pursuant to their sworn oath, to defend and protect the Constitution of the U.S. against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The plaintiffs, as well as many other sworn members of the U.S. military, are deeply concerned about the fact that none of the cases related to Mr. Obama’s lack of eligibility has been heard on the merits.
The plaintiffs are also concerned about a program you have recorded: “Conversations with Chief Justice Roberts”, wherein numerous high schools students were flown in to Washington D.C. in order to participate in discussions with you about the Constitution, the Law, and the Supreme Court. As it clearly states on the video, this program was fully funded by the Annenberg foundation, and it appears that you, as a Justice of the Supreme Court, consider Annenberg to be a reputable organization that supports the Constitution, and that you support their efforts. A problem I see with this is that the Annenberg Foundation’s ‘Annenberg Challenge’ board included one William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist who participated in the bombing of a police headquarters in 1970, the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972. As late as 2001, Mr. Ayers stated in a NY Times interview: “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel I didn’t do enough”. Also, beginning in 1995, the chairman of the Annenberg Challenge was Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.
In addition, The Annenberg Challenge has created an offshoot internet organization called www.FactCheck.org (Annenberg Political Fact Check), that purportedly provides unbiased checking of political facts. In reality, Annenberg Political Fact Check has actively and intentionally defrauded the American public into believing that Mr. Obama is a ‘Natural Born’ citizen, and therefore eligible for the U.S. Presidency. Annenberg Political Fact Check has intentionally omitted the following relevant facts:
The definition of ‘Natural-Born citizen’ (Law of Nations by Emmerich De Vattel) is one who is born in a Country to parents who are both citizens of that Country. They also omitted the statements of John A. Bingham, author of the 14th amendment, that a ‘natural born citizen’ is one who was born in any U.S. territory to parents, neither of whom owes allegiance to any other sovereignty. Since, admittedly, Mr. Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and instead owed allegiance to Kenya-Great Britain, Mr. Obama did not qualify as a ‘natural born citizen’ then, and therefore does not qualify for Presidency of the U.S. now.
Fact Check intentionally omitted any discussion of Hawaii Statue 338-19 which allowed, from 1911 to 1972, for foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth, regardless of which foreign country they were born in.
They also omitted the fact that such Certification of Live Birth can be obtained based on a statement of any one relative only, without any corroborating evidence.
It omitted the fact that there has been no corroborating evidence of Mr. Obama’s birth from any hospital, nurse or hospital administrator in Hawaii, while there have been numerous affidavits and statements from Mr. Obama’s Kenyan grandmother, a U.S. Baptist Bishop (with extensive missionary service in Kenya), and the Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, asserting unequivocally that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was born in Kenya. In this case, Mr. Obama certainly was not then (and quite possibly is not now) a U.S. citizen, and he will instead need to apply for ‘Naturalized’ U.S. citizenship status (or show proof thereof). Either way, he is therefore Constitutionally unqualified for the Presidency of the U.S.
Until now, the only information the American public has received about Mr. Obama’s qualifications has been from sources such as Annenberg’s FactCheck.org, an extremely biased political organization, some of whose members have highly questionable backgrounds and motives, to say the least.
My clients, as well as 300 million Americans, including thousands of members of the U.S. military, who are asked to pledge their lives to defend the Constitution of this country, would like to know if the Supreme Court Justices, and in particular the Chief Justice (whose duties include administering the oath of office to a Constitutionally-qualified President of the U.S. on January 20th 2009), are willing to give a few hours of their time to hear the Oral Arguments in defense of this Constitution. They want to know if the Justices believe in the Constitution on which this country was built, or whether or not they allow it to be torn apart to the advantage of large money interests.
Sincerely,
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
Counsel for the Petitioners
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
YouTube Channel, DrOrlyTV
Request to refile Petition ‘Lightfoot v Bowen’ with Chief Justice John Roberts
Dear Justice Roberts,
This cover letter is an open letter that is being posted on the Internet, including the ‘YouTube’ website, and will be read on a number of radio stations, particularly radio stations around military bases. It will be forwarded to all members of Congress, Senators, and Governors, as well as to the media.
This legal action, as well as 20 other actions filed in the past few months, is seeking Judicial intervention in the Presidential confirmation process, due to the fact that Mr. Barack Obama, whose father was a Kenyan-British citizen when he was born, is not a ‘Natural Born’ U.S. Citizen, and therefore is not eligible to be President of these United States.
The suit also alleges that Mr. Obama has not established his citizenship status since, from 1911 to 1972, the State of Hawaii allowed issuance of Hawaiian Certificates of Live Birth to foreign-born children of Hawaiian residents for up to a year after their birth. In addition, there is mounting evidence that Mr. Obama was not born in Hawaii, and therefore he would not be a U.S. citizen until ‘Naturalized’ by subsequent application for citizenship.
The Plaintiffs in this action are a Vice-Presidential candidate on the California ballot, California electors, and registered voters. A number of the plaintiffs have served years of their lives in the U.S. military, and, as such, have risked their lives, pursuant to their sworn oath, to defend and protect the Constitution of the U.S. against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The plaintiffs, as well as many other sworn members of the U.S. military, are deeply concerned about the fact that none of the cases related to Mr. Obama’s lack of eligibility has been heard on the merits.
The plaintiffs are also concerned about a program you have recorded: “Conversations with Chief Justice Roberts”, wherein numerous high schools students were flown in to Washington D.C. in order to participate in discussions with you about the Constitution, the Law, and the Supreme Court. As it clearly states on the video, this program was fully funded by the Annenberg foundation, and it appears that you, as a Justice of the Supreme Court, consider Annenberg to be a reputable organization that supports the Constitution, and that you support their efforts. A problem I see with this is that the Annenberg Foundation’s ‘Annenberg Challenge’ board included one William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist who participated in the bombing of a police headquarters in 1970, the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972. As late as 2001, Mr. Ayers stated in a NY Times interview: “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel I didn’t do enough”. Also, beginning in 1995, the chairman of the Annenberg Challenge was Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.
In addition, The Annenberg Challenge has created an offshoot internet organization called www.FactCheck.org (Annenberg Political Fact Check), that purportedly provides unbiased checking of political facts. In reality, Annenberg Political Fact Check has actively and intentionally defrauded the American public into believing that Mr. Obama is a ‘Natural Born’ citizen, and therefore eligible for the U.S. Presidency. Annenberg Political Fact Check has intentionally omitted the following relevant facts:
The definition of ‘Natural-Born citizen’ (Law of Nations by Emmerich De Vattel) is one who is born in a Country to parents who are both citizens of that Country. They also omitted the statements of John A. Bingham, author of the 14th amendment, that a ‘natural born citizen’ is one who was born in any U.S. territory to parents, neither of whom owes allegiance to any other sovereignty. Since, admittedly, Mr. Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and instead owed allegiance to Kenya-Great Britain, Mr. Obama did not qualify as a ‘natural born citizen’ then, and therefore does not qualify for Presidency of the U.S. now.
Fact Check intentionally omitted any discussion of Hawaii Statue 338-19 which allowed, from 1911 to 1972, for foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth, regardless of which foreign country they were born in.
They also omitted the fact that such Certification of Live Birth can be obtained based on a statement of any one relative only, without any corroborating evidence.
It omitted the fact that there has been no corroborating evidence of Mr. Obama’s birth from any hospital, nurse or hospital administrator in Hawaii, while there have been numerous affidavits and statements from Mr. Obama’s Kenyan grandmother, a U.S. Baptist Bishop (with extensive missionary service in Kenya), and the Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, asserting unequivocally that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was born in Kenya. In this case, Mr. Obama certainly was not then (and quite possibly is not now) a U.S. citizen, and he will instead need to apply for ‘Naturalized’ U.S. citizenship status (or show proof thereof). Either way, he is therefore Constitutionally unqualified for the Presidency of the U.S.
Until now, the only information the American public has received about Mr. Obama’s qualifications has been from sources such as Annenberg’s FactCheck.org, an extremely biased political organization, some of whose members have highly questionable backgrounds and motives, to say the least.
My clients, as well as 300 million Americans, including thousands of members of the U.S. military, who are asked to pledge their lives to defend the Constitution of this country, would like to know if the Supreme Court Justices, and in particular the Chief Justice (whose duties include administering the oath of office to a Constitutionally-qualified President of the U.S. on January 20th 2009), are willing to give a few hours of their time to hear the Oral Arguments in defense of this Constitution. They want to know if the Justices believe in the Constitution on which this country was built, or whether or not they allow it to be torn apart to the advantage of large money interests.
Sincerely,
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
Counsel for the Petitioners
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
YouTube Channel, DrOrlyTV
Media Misrepresentation ?
An informal (and admittedly "unscientific") poll created by AOL addressing the Obama eligibility issue has had over 97,800 respondents so far. Those participating in this survey come from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
As I previously pointed out, only about 42 percent of those answering this survey believe there are no issues or unanswered questions associated with Obama's Eligibility. In all but 5 states and the District of Columbia, those who feel that Obama's eligibility has not been settled outnumber those who believe otherwise.
My previous article on this topic was met with a firestorm of protest in the comments section of the blog post (some comments were removed and are no longer visible). Several claimed that Obama is currently the most popular new president ever, and that most Republicans and McCain supporters are changing their minds in large numbers and supporting Obama. They stated that this was based on recent "scientific" polls.
So I investigated a bit to see if I could track down the source of these claims. And sure enough, there have been stories on CNN and in other media about a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted on December 1st and 2nd of 2008 which made many positive assertions about Obama's approval ratings. There was also a NBC/Wall Street Journal survey performed on December 5-8, 2008 which reported similar results.
I decided I would look a bit deeper at these very positive poll results. After all, it seemed a bit difficult for me to believe that people were so deliriously positive about Obama when such a small fraction of the population voted for him (reportedly, Obama votes constituted 63.7 million out of the 122.4 million votes in the 2008 election, out of an estimated population of 305.9 million Americans, not counting US nationals not resident in the US; in other words, no more than 20.89 percent of Americans voted for Obama), and there are currently substantial defections from his base among the liberals, left-wing media, African Americans and anti-war and gay rights activists.
There were a number of things I found curious about these two polls with very similar reported results:
Small samples
*Both were small surveys. The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll was only of 1009 people, and many questions were only posed to a fraction of these people. In some cases, only 500 were asked certain questions. The CNN/Opinion Research Poll queried only 1096 people.
Not Representative Samples
*Reading through the documentation of NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, it is clear that those sampled were not particularly representative of the population. For example, the only people surveyed were those who did not own a regular landline telephone, and only used cellular telephones for their telephone needs. That is representative?
*the NBC/Wall Street Journal survey only included 10 percent Hispanics, although Hispanics are well in excess of 15 percent of the US population. So they are off by more than 50 percent in sampling this population.
*Ninety percent of those in the NBC/Wall Street Journal Survey are registered to vote. This compares to about 150 million registered US voters out of 213 million eligible to vote, or a "Voting Age Population" of 231 million. The number registered to vote constitutes 70.4 percent and 64.9 percent respectively of eligible adults and voting age adults in the US, a far cry from the 90 percent reported for those participating in the survey.
*38% of those surveyed reported voting for George W. Bush in 2000 and for George W. Bush in 2004 (question 25). George W. Bush won 47.87% of the popular vote in 2000 and 50.7 percent of the popular vote in 2004. Clearly, this is a strongly biased sample and not at all representative.
Misreported results
*Only 41 percent of those surveyed were excited about Obama's presidency, or otherwise positive, by my reading of the responses to the questions (such as question 11, asked of only about 500 people). This is a far cry from the reports of 80+ percent in the press. The press seems to be reporting on this situation in a somewhat biased manner.
*About 53 percent of those questioned did not feel that strong a relationship with Obama (question 12).
*43 percent of those polled were somewhat doubtful, or very doubtful that Obama has the right personal characteristics to be President (question 13).
*Only 37 percent were certain that Obama's presidency would represent a change in direction (question 14).
*Only 54 percent of those expressed confidence that Obama's goals for the country were appropriate (question 15).
*Twenty three percent of 500 or so asked felt Obama was not being as "open and accessible" (whatever that means) as he should be (question 19). I would have made this a more pointed question about his lies and things he has hidden. The responses to a more direct question might have been much more revealing. After all, it depends on how you ask the question in these surveys.
*Only 52 percent thought that the election of Obama presaged a period of American unity, where people would work together (question 24). This is in sharp contrast to reports in the media from various polls of 80 percent or more that believed we were headed for a period of great unity, and that even Republicans and those who voted for McCain were joining in to support Obama. Wow, quite a discrepancy there!
Confused respondents
*Of the 500 or so asked, about 76 percent were very concerned or somewhat concerned that the country might experience a deflationary economy. About 82 percent were very concerned or somewhat concerned that the country might experience an inflationary economy (questions 36a and 36b).
So when at least this NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll is examined carefully, it does not look very representative and its results were not reported very reliably. I have to wonder, is this because Rupert Murdoch, who now owns the Wall Street Journal, has recently abandoned his previously-held conservative positions and reportedly ordered all his media assets, including FOX News, to support Barack Obama, or at least not report anything negative about him? Murdoch is renowned for meddling in the political and editorial views of the elements of his media empire, like television stations and newspapers. Is this another example?
If this sort of blatant misrepresentation of the facts concerns you, please complain to the Federal Communications Commission.
Robert Stevens
As I previously pointed out, only about 42 percent of those answering this survey believe there are no issues or unanswered questions associated with Obama's Eligibility. In all but 5 states and the District of Columbia, those who feel that Obama's eligibility has not been settled outnumber those who believe otherwise.
My previous article on this topic was met with a firestorm of protest in the comments section of the blog post (some comments were removed and are no longer visible). Several claimed that Obama is currently the most popular new president ever, and that most Republicans and McCain supporters are changing their minds in large numbers and supporting Obama. They stated that this was based on recent "scientific" polls.
So I investigated a bit to see if I could track down the source of these claims. And sure enough, there have been stories on CNN and in other media about a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted on December 1st and 2nd of 2008 which made many positive assertions about Obama's approval ratings. There was also a NBC/Wall Street Journal survey performed on December 5-8, 2008 which reported similar results.
I decided I would look a bit deeper at these very positive poll results. After all, it seemed a bit difficult for me to believe that people were so deliriously positive about Obama when such a small fraction of the population voted for him (reportedly, Obama votes constituted 63.7 million out of the 122.4 million votes in the 2008 election, out of an estimated population of 305.9 million Americans, not counting US nationals not resident in the US; in other words, no more than 20.89 percent of Americans voted for Obama), and there are currently substantial defections from his base among the liberals, left-wing media, African Americans and anti-war and gay rights activists.
There were a number of things I found curious about these two polls with very similar reported results:
Small samples
*Both were small surveys. The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll was only of 1009 people, and many questions were only posed to a fraction of these people. In some cases, only 500 were asked certain questions. The CNN/Opinion Research Poll queried only 1096 people.
Not Representative Samples
*Reading through the documentation of NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, it is clear that those sampled were not particularly representative of the population. For example, the only people surveyed were those who did not own a regular landline telephone, and only used cellular telephones for their telephone needs. That is representative?
*the NBC/Wall Street Journal survey only included 10 percent Hispanics, although Hispanics are well in excess of 15 percent of the US population. So they are off by more than 50 percent in sampling this population.
*Ninety percent of those in the NBC/Wall Street Journal Survey are registered to vote. This compares to about 150 million registered US voters out of 213 million eligible to vote, or a "Voting Age Population" of 231 million. The number registered to vote constitutes 70.4 percent and 64.9 percent respectively of eligible adults and voting age adults in the US, a far cry from the 90 percent reported for those participating in the survey.
*38% of those surveyed reported voting for George W. Bush in 2000 and for George W. Bush in 2004 (question 25). George W. Bush won 47.87% of the popular vote in 2000 and 50.7 percent of the popular vote in 2004. Clearly, this is a strongly biased sample and not at all representative.
Misreported results
*Only 41 percent of those surveyed were excited about Obama's presidency, or otherwise positive, by my reading of the responses to the questions (such as question 11, asked of only about 500 people). This is a far cry from the reports of 80+ percent in the press. The press seems to be reporting on this situation in a somewhat biased manner.
*About 53 percent of those questioned did not feel that strong a relationship with Obama (question 12).
*43 percent of those polled were somewhat doubtful, or very doubtful that Obama has the right personal characteristics to be President (question 13).
*Only 37 percent were certain that Obama's presidency would represent a change in direction (question 14).
*Only 54 percent of those expressed confidence that Obama's goals for the country were appropriate (question 15).
*Twenty three percent of 500 or so asked felt Obama was not being as "open and accessible" (whatever that means) as he should be (question 19). I would have made this a more pointed question about his lies and things he has hidden. The responses to a more direct question might have been much more revealing. After all, it depends on how you ask the question in these surveys.
*Only 52 percent thought that the election of Obama presaged a period of American unity, where people would work together (question 24). This is in sharp contrast to reports in the media from various polls of 80 percent or more that believed we were headed for a period of great unity, and that even Republicans and those who voted for McCain were joining in to support Obama. Wow, quite a discrepancy there!
Confused respondents
*Of the 500 or so asked, about 76 percent were very concerned or somewhat concerned that the country might experience a deflationary economy. About 82 percent were very concerned or somewhat concerned that the country might experience an inflationary economy (questions 36a and 36b).
So when at least this NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll is examined carefully, it does not look very representative and its results were not reported very reliably. I have to wonder, is this because Rupert Murdoch, who now owns the Wall Street Journal, has recently abandoned his previously-held conservative positions and reportedly ordered all his media assets, including FOX News, to support Barack Obama, or at least not report anything negative about him? Murdoch is renowned for meddling in the political and editorial views of the elements of his media empire, like television stations and newspapers. Is this another example?
If this sort of blatant misrepresentation of the facts concerns you, please complain to the Federal Communications Commission.
Robert Stevens
Rule by fear from SF Chronicle
SFGateHome of the San Francisco Chronicle
The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Forum
TWO VIEWS OF THE NEW DEAL The pitfall of low expectations 12.19.08
Another New Deal is a bad deal 12.19.08
Condemning a new 'Cadillac' Death Row 12.18.08
Ninth Circuit sides with science - and the law 12.18.08
More Open Forum »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943
Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."
Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.
According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."
Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of "new programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people?
Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to "a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.
Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of government" in the event of what the document vaguely calls a "catastrophic emergency." Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government." This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.
U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with a new way to expand the domestic "war on terror." Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission to "examine and report upon the facts and causes" of so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting it.
According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it.
A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who "engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights" as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights supporters ... the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.
What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens?
The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president to use the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law.
Lewis Seiler is the president of Voice of the Environment, Inc. Dan Hamburg, a former congressman, is executive director.
This article appeared on page B - 7 of the San Francisco Chronicle
The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Forum
TWO VIEWS OF THE NEW DEAL The pitfall of low expectations 12.19.08
Another New Deal is a bad deal 12.19.08
Condemning a new 'Cadillac' Death Row 12.18.08
Ninth Circuit sides with science - and the law 12.18.08
More Open Forum »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943
Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."
Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.
According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."
Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of "new programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people?
Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to "a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.
Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of government" in the event of what the document vaguely calls a "catastrophic emergency." Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government." This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.
U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with a new way to expand the domestic "war on terror." Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission to "examine and report upon the facts and causes" of so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting it.
According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it.
A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who "engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights" as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights supporters ... the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.
What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens?
The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president to use the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law.
Lewis Seiler is the president of Voice of the Environment, Inc. Dan Hamburg, a former congressman, is executive director.
This article appeared on page B - 7 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
