Thursday, December 18, 2008 4:42 AM
From: This sender is DomainKeys verified "Hanen" >View contact details To: dr_taitz@yahoo.comEASY WAY TO MAKE SURE OBAMA NEVER GETS INAUGURATED (READ CAREFULLY):–
Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II “natural born citizen” based on the Kenyan/British citizenship of Barack Obama’s father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a “citizen” born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution — the Court having done so three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors — it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen”.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Here is another one that doesn't get it
Does anybody want to write to Senator Levin? How hard it is to understand that HI allow it's residents to obtain HI Birth certificate for their children born abroad and they allow birth certificates to be obtained based on a statement of one relative only. I swear after Kyl basing his knowledge on snopes and Martines saying that "it was vetted by voters that were not allowed access to the original BC" and now this one, I wonder if the collective IQ of our 100 Senators would amount to a 100??? What do you think?
Orly
PS Joan, your e-mail box didn't work, e-mail cam back
Thursday, December 18, 2008 3:58 AM
From: "Orly Taitz"View contact details To: "Joan" Joan,will you be willing to send an open letter and explain to Sen Levin the problem with Hi BC? Ask him to write a demand for formal investigation and subpoena of the original BC and other docs. Please forward a demand for indictment to him and all the att. general and US att. Patrick Fitzgerald. I will post your open letter. You can also put it on video, I will post it on you-tube channel that we are preparing: Dr. Orly Taitz presents
Orly Taitz DDS Esq
26302 La Paz ste 211
Mission Viejo Ca 92691
29839 S. Margarita Pkwy
Rancho Santa Margarita Ca 92688
ph. w 949-586-8110 c-949-683-5411
fax 949-586-2082
--- On Thu, 12/18/08, Joan Kessler wrote:
From: Joan Subject: FW: Your Concerns
To: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 3:51 AM
Dr. Taitz,
I am just a citizen, not a lawyer, but I wanted you to see this that I received from my senator in Michigan when I sent him my concern a few weeks ago.
Joan
Grand Haven, MI
From: senator_levin@levin.senate.gov [mailto:senator_levin@levin.senate.gov]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 12:53 PM
To: (name redacted)
Subject: Re: Your Concerns
Dear Ms. (redacted):
Thank you for contacting me regarding the false rumors surrounding President-elect Obama’s citizenship status. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me.
As you may know, Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution states that, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii as documented by his official birth certificate. He is, therefore, a natural born citizen of the United States. Thank you again for writing.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin
Orly
PS Joan, your e-mail box didn't work, e-mail cam back
Thursday, December 18, 2008 3:58 AM
From: "Orly Taitz"
Orly Taitz DDS Esq
26302 La Paz ste 211
Mission Viejo Ca 92691
29839 S. Margarita Pkwy
Rancho Santa Margarita Ca 92688
ph. w 949-586-8110 c-949-683-5411
fax 949-586-2082
--- On Thu, 12/18/08, Joan Kessler
From: Joan Subject: FW: Your Concerns
To: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 3:51 AM
Dr. Taitz,
I am just a citizen, not a lawyer, but I wanted you to see this that I received from my senator in Michigan when I sent him my concern a few weeks ago.
Joan
Grand Haven, MI
From: senator_levin@levin.senate.gov [mailto:senator_levin@levin.senate.gov]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 12:53 PM
To: (name redacted)
Subject: Re: Your Concerns
Dear Ms. (redacted):
Thank you for contacting me regarding the false rumors surrounding President-elect Obama’s citizenship status. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me.
As you may know, Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution states that, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii as documented by his official birth certificate. He is, therefore, a natural born citizen of the United States. Thank you again for writing.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin
Please forward to me the written objections to Obama presidency from Congr. Linder and other congr. and senators
Please forward to me written objections to Obama presidency from US Congressmen and Senators. I understand that Congressman Linder is the first one.
Please forward to me your videos, u-tube links and letters demanding att. generals and us attorneys to indict Obama for fraud and investigate expert reports in regards to his forged documents
Here is a letter from a reader
Dear Brilliant American Patriots;
http://www.newsonsofliberty.us/
In this article it tells that nowhere is it specified that one particular entity is responsible for vetting the presidential candidates. "They" just ASS-U-ME that the DNC or the RNC or whoever will check their own candidates background.
The other day I read an article that stated the phrase that says something to the effect of, "If the responsibility is not granted to the federal government by the Constitution and it is not granted to the states by the Constitution then those rights fall to the people." (Sorry, I can't find the article again.)
If there is not anything written specifically stating that a certain entity has the obligation to vet the presidential candidates than the job automatically falls to the people.
It is only my little mind that loves to believe in miracles but it just seems to me that the courts cannot claim "Standing" or anything else if any American citizen wants to see the candidate's proof of qualifications.
I realize that I do not have the exact quote but could someone please tell me WHY my logic isn't good enough to find out Obama's qualifications?
Along with that, is the following article that Andy sent around what we are going to try to do with Congress? I'm trying to keep up but you guys move rapidly.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan178.htm
Dr. Edwin Vieira has four degrees from Harvard University, but he has overcome this handicap and can speak intelligible English. Among many other accomplishments, Dr. Vieira is the author of the masterful Pieces of Eight, the definitive monetary history of the United States, which in the present financial debacle is more relevant than ever. I strongly recommend you read it.
Dr. Vieira is a consummate constitutional authority. He says that if just one member of the House and one member of the Senate were to challenge Hussein's eligibility to serve as President in writing when the Electoral College's votes arrive in the Senate, the Congress would have to conduct a full investigation, complete with witnesses, testimony and documents. Dr. Vieira urges you to get in touch with your Congressmen and Senators for the purpose.
Remember, you are not asking them to deny the presidency to Hussein. You are merely asking them to require him to prove his eligibility. This should be very easy to do for lame ducks like Tar Heel Elizabeth Dole, for instance, who has nothing political to lose and therefore nothing to fear. On her way out, lame ducks like her could have the last laugh by performing this historic service to the Constitution.
Just li'le ol' me,
Karen
Please forward to me your videos, u-tube links and letters demanding att. generals and us attorneys to indict Obama for fraud and investigate expert reports in regards to his forged documents
Here is a letter from a reader
Dear Brilliant American Patriots;
http://www.newsonsofliberty.us/
In this article it tells that nowhere is it specified that one particular entity is responsible for vetting the presidential candidates. "They" just ASS-U-ME that the DNC or the RNC or whoever will check their own candidates background.
The other day I read an article that stated the phrase that says something to the effect of, "If the responsibility is not granted to the federal government by the Constitution and it is not granted to the states by the Constitution then those rights fall to the people." (Sorry, I can't find the article again.)
If there is not anything written specifically stating that a certain entity has the obligation to vet the presidential candidates than the job automatically falls to the people.
It is only my little mind that loves to believe in miracles but it just seems to me that the courts cannot claim "Standing" or anything else if any American citizen wants to see the candidate's proof of qualifications.
I realize that I do not have the exact quote but could someone please tell me WHY my logic isn't good enough to find out Obama's qualifications?
Along with that, is the following article that Andy sent around what we are going to try to do with Congress? I'm trying to keep up but you guys move rapidly.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan178.htm
Dr. Edwin Vieira has four degrees from Harvard University, but he has overcome this handicap and can speak intelligible English. Among many other accomplishments, Dr. Vieira is the author of the masterful Pieces of Eight, the definitive monetary history of the United States, which in the present financial debacle is more relevant than ever. I strongly recommend you read it.
Dr. Vieira is a consummate constitutional authority. He says that if just one member of the House and one member of the Senate were to challenge Hussein's eligibility to serve as President in writing when the Electoral College's votes arrive in the Senate, the Congress would have to conduct a full investigation, complete with witnesses, testimony and documents. Dr. Vieira urges you to get in touch with your Congressmen and Senators for the purpose.
Remember, you are not asking them to deny the presidency to Hussein. You are merely asking them to require him to prove his eligibility. This should be very easy to do for lame ducks like Tar Heel Elizabeth Dole, for instance, who has nothing political to lose and therefore nothing to fear. On her way out, lame ducks like her could have the last laugh by performing this historic service to the Constitution.
Just li'le ol' me,
Karen
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Express your disapproval of John Kyl
I am saddened to realize that a sitting US Senator claimed in a letter to a constituent that essentially, Barack Obama is eligible to be president of the United States of America because of the careful analysis of Snopes.com. What has this country come to?
I suggest you express your concern with this lack of analysis, careful thought and proper respect for logic, reason and the rule of law by contacting the Honorable John Kyl at his offices:
PHOENIX OFFICE
2200 East Camelback, Suite 120
Phoenix, Arizona 85016-3455
Phone: (602) 840-1891
Fax: (602) 957-6838
TUCSON OFFICE
6840 North Oracle Road, Suite 150
Tucson, Arizona 85704
Phone: (520) 575-8633
Fax: (520) 797-3232
WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE
730 Hart Senate Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-4521
Fax: (202) 224-2207
Email John Kyl using this form.
Tim Johnson
Michelle Obama Is The “Specifically Named Individual” On Page 64 of The Affidavit Submitted by FBI : NO QUARTER
Michelle Obama Is The “Specifically Named Individual” On Page 64 of The Affidavit Submitted by FBI : NO QUARTER: "By TruthtellergravatarcloseAuthor: Truthteller Name: Truthteller
Email: susanunpc@gmail.com
Site: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/
About: See Authors Posts (88) on December 9, 2008 at 6:37 PM
Please read the Criminal Complaint filed by David W. Cain, Special Agent of the FBI. Details of the conversations Blagojevich had with his operatives about Barack Obama and the possibility Barack Obama would strike several deals with Blagojevich regarding the open Senate seat are discussed, and yes, quotations are provided." Read more.
Please Support Orly's Efforts!!
Orly has been spending $2000-3000 of her own money traveling to-from DC plus expenses. We at USATodayAdForObamaRecords hope to post a "chip-in" link soon, but for the time being please send your contributions to: Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
26302 La Paz ste 211
Mission Viejo Ca 92691
ph. w 949-586-8110 c-949-683-5411
Bank of America
Account # 0992301937
Routing Number 122000661
An application for 501-c3 status has been filed in California.
Michelle Obama on court ordered inactive status with the Illinois State Attorneys bar from 1993, after only 4 years of practicing law. What did she do
LAWYER SEARCH: ATTORNEY'S REGISTRATION AND PUBLIC DISCIPLINARY RECORD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARDC Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration and Public Disciplinary and Disability Information as of December 17, 2008 at 11:09:14 AM:
Full Licensed Name: Michelle Obama
Full Former name(s): Michelle Lavaughn Robinson
Date of Admission as Lawyer
by Illinois Supreme Court: May 12, 1989
Registered Business Address: Not available online
Registered Business Phone: Not available online
Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law - Last Registered Year: 1993
Malpractice Insurance:
(Current as of date of registration;
consult attorney for further information) No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARDC Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration and Public Disciplinary and Disability Information as of December 17, 2008 at 11:09:14 AM:
Full Licensed Name: Michelle Obama
Full Former name(s): Michelle Lavaughn Robinson
Date of Admission as Lawyer
by Illinois Supreme Court: May 12, 1989
Registered Business Address: Not available online
Registered Business Phone: Not available online
Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law - Last Registered Year: 1993
Malpractice Insurance:
(Current as of date of registration;
consult attorney for further information) No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status.
New u-tube videos part 1 & 2 Important
Click on the pictures to the right:
on the bottom is part 1
on the top is part 2
on the bottom is part 1
on the top is part 2
Reminder
Please remember to write to Att General Mike McCuskey, US att for Northern District of Illinois- Patrick Fitzgerald, cc all 50 att Gen, 9 Supremes and Senate and Congress and demand immediate inditment of Obama on massive fraud committed. Se prior article "Urgent, What needs to be done!" From Dec 13. They all need to know that the whole country is watching them and we all will hold them and our corrupt MSM acountable
Lightfoot is being resubmitted to Chief Justice Roberts. See analysis
I am writing an open letter to Chief Justice Roberts, I am resubmitting the petition to him. I could use an easy route and resubmit to Thomas and Scalia, but we already know that they are voting for the constitution. My concern is that twice during conferences the full court voted against the petitions, de facto against the constitution. At least 4 Justices had to vote yes for the petition to go to the oral argument. Since it didn't go there, it means that not only liberal Justices: Souter, Stevens, Bryer and Ginsburg and swing vote Kennedy voted against, but one of the conservative Justices: Roberts or Alito voted against as well, and I decided to zero in and see, which one is it. I need to resubmit not to Thomas or Scalia, but to either Roberts or Alito and by process of elimination, I will know which one is it. He will not be able to hide behind the conference anymore. I decided to write to Roberts. It will be an open letter, that will be posted on the Internet, it will be read at the numerous radio stations around the country, including the radio stations around all the military bases, it will be in the video form on U-tube, the whole country will be watching him. Roberts will not be able to hide, he will have to show to the whole nation, whether he is for the constitution of this country or whether he is ready to tear it apart in favor of some new world order conceived by a few bankers and the trilateral commission.
Additionally, Roberts has a duty to swear in the new president. This duty can be seen as a ministerial duty.
Lastly, the candidate needs to put his hand on a bible, that says that bear false witness is an abomination and I wonder, how Roberts, a Catholic, feels about it, based on all the massive fraud committed by Obama.
If at the end of the day our Judiciary, our law enforcement and our government fails us, we will have the right to remove the usurper using all means necessary. Our army is sworn to uphold the constitution, they have the right to remove the usurper from the White house to uphold the constitution, and we still have our second amendment right and we might need to use it to defend our rights and freedoms, guaranteed to us by our constitution.
Additionally, Roberts has a duty to swear in the new president. This duty can be seen as a ministerial duty.
Lastly, the candidate needs to put his hand on a bible, that says that bear false witness is an abomination and I wonder, how Roberts, a Catholic, feels about it, based on all the massive fraud committed by Obama.
If at the end of the day our Judiciary, our law enforcement and our government fails us, we will have the right to remove the usurper using all means necessary. Our army is sworn to uphold the constitution, they have the right to remove the usurper from the White house to uphold the constitution, and we still have our second amendment right and we might need to use it to defend our rights and freedoms, guaranteed to us by our constitution.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Response to the anonymous
There is something I have to explain to anonymous and his statement "people have spoken", which echoes a similar statement I hear from the MSM. I recall that in the USSR the communist party bragged about the fact that the people have spoken and voted for them- some 99%. They were not talking about the fact that corrupt and controlled media wasn't telling people the truth. I see the same thing today in the States. Our corrupt and bought media didn't report a drop of truth about BO's ineligibility. They didn't explain to people, that Hi statue 338 allows Hi citizens to register their children born abroad in HI and get Hi birth certificate for them, they didn't report that the Natural Born citizen has to have both parents, that are citizens. People running the media need to wake up and smell the coffee before their empires are taken apart and they are slapped with fraud law suits. Wake up people, start reporting the truth and cut your losses.
Do not be discouraged: we need to fight on
Over and over, people tell me they are discouraged because of the "failed" lawsuits. It is true that lawsuit after lawsuit was dimissed, one after another (Cort, Donofrio, etc). However, this is not the time to lose heart.
According to the Michigan Law Review special issue a few months ago on the "natural born citizenship" challenges to both Obama and McCain, it is unlikely that these controversies will be settled in court, because of the "standing" issue and something called "judiciability".
The reason "standing" prevents many of these lawsuits from being heard is that there is apparently a long-standing precedent that ordinary citizens cannot challenge a candidate who might be ineligible in a court because the ordinary citizens supposedly have not suffered any direct personal loss because of any potential ineligibility.
"Judiciability" is something that the courts struggle with all the time. Judges ask, is a given complaint something that should be settled by the courts, or is it best addressed politically? If an issue is not "judiciable", then the courts will not rule on it, but pass it on to the political process instead.
These two difficulties with legal challenges (which were anticipated months ago and therefore are no surprise to at least some observers and experts) seem to suggest that few (if any courts) would be willing to hear these sorts of complaints. However, these academic opinions might not be correct of course, and events might unfold in a different way than the legal experts writing in the Michigan Law Review anticipated.
However, even if the lawsuits were dismissed, that does not mean that the lawsuits were worthless. The lawsuits were and are invaluable and even crucial. Six weeks ago, I read that only 20 percent or so of the Republican readers of a conservative Orange County Register columnist had even heard of the eligibility issue, according to an informal survey. Now, I suspect that the fraction that have heard of this eligibility problem is likely far far greater.
I track the number of "Google news hits" a Google news search returns for the term "obama birth certificate" each day. I have tracked this number for weeks. This ccrude statistic is a count of the number of stories on the topic, over the last few days. About half of the news hits are from stictly online sources, and initially many were just blogs. I noticed that the number of "Google news hits" rose from about 170 over 2 months ago, to about one thousand around the time of the election. Then it dropped precipitously to approximately 300 two weeks ago. With the recent lawsuit news, it rose again to a peak of 3000, and yesterday this "Google news hits" number was in the neighborhood of 1500 or so. This suggests that this story is of growing interest generally, and is still present in the public eye in a substantial way.
Because the US mainstream press has been very reluctant to cover this issue, people often do not know about it. Even the conservative media has been essentially silent on this topic. Where are our vaunted icons of conservative talk radio? Where is the belligerent and foaming-at-the-mouth, rabidly right-wing Fox News? For the most part, these two media segments have also "drank the purple koolaid". Those following this eligiblity issue and promoting it have been repeatedly dismissed as belonging to a lunatic fringe, or pejoratively called "conspiracy theorists". However, these charges are getting tougher and tougher to make as momentum builds. This is thanks partly to these lawsuits and the attention they place on the eligibility controversy.
There are signs our message is getting out there. One of our volunteers called an Illinois elector last weekend, and was informed that all of the Illinois electors were being called to the state capital for a meeting Sunday night before the voting, to discuss the situation with lawyers. This meeting apparently was to help them address their fears of the legal consequences of voting for Obama. Even if they all voted for Obama (and we have not yet heard if there were any faithless electors yet, something previously so rare that there were less than half a dozen in over two centuries), the fact that the Illinois electors had this meeting at all speaks volumes for the impact we are having. And a large number of the concerns these electors have are the result of the impact of our calls and letters and the lawsuits (even the dismissed lawsuits).
A second indication of the influence we are having is from another call that another volunteer made last night to a congresswoman. This congresswoman indicated her willingness and enthusiasm to speak out about this issue in Congress when it meets in January. Of course, this does not indicate that she will actually do what she said she would, but this sort of assertion never would have happened if it had not been for our movement raising the profile of this controversy. With the mainstream media and the conservative media essentially silent, we had to get the word out using "any means necessary"; phone calls, FAXes, emails, mail, lawsuits, petitions, etc. Even the dismissed lawsuits serve as an integral part of this effort, although that was clearly not the reason they were filed. Now is not the time to give up!
A third indication of the value of our approach comes from an amazing speech by left wing icon Noam Chomsky. Chomsky attacks Obama over and over for his lack of transparency, and for behaving differently than they expected (signalling his intention to pursue a bellicose foreign policy and showing evidence of being controlled by big money interests). Amazingly, this crowd of leftists cheered enthusiastically when Chomsky made these charges! I personally had pointed out these same shortcomings over and over for well over a year, but my complaints fell on deaf ears. No one wanted to hear that there were any problems with the "Messiah". Almost everyone laughed at me as a lunatic, and called me a "right wing nut", stupid, or worse. Now, our complaints about a lack of openness are gaining traction. We cannot stop now!
A fourth indication that momentum is building is the revelation that law enforcement, including the FBI, has been keeping close tabs on Obama and his criminal associates. A few weeks ago, when I was discussing my concerns with Obama with an FBI analyst, he dismissed me as a conspiracy theorist on the fringe, essentially parroting statements in the media. I doubt if he would do the same now. The emergence of serious legal charges swirling around the Obama Camp and its associates has made our claims far more credible, and adds to the general air of distrust that is accumulating.
Some of the electors we contacted have expressed their frustration at our efforts with expletive-filled replies. I would suggest that this is a hopeful sign; we are not being ignored. We are raising the issue. We want people to be aware of the eligibility controversy and to discuss it. There is no such thing as bad publicity, because we want this controversy to be examined carefully by the public. Most of the public is unaware of this controversy and has not studied the evidence yet. If people complain bitterly to their friends and the media about our efforts, so much the better. It will keep this topic in the public eye, and more will investigate the actual controversy. Some will reach the same conclusion we have reached, swelling our ranks. It is even worse for us to be ignored, as we were previously.
Finally, we have signs that the Republican party is finally waking about some of these issues and might be willing to pursue them. Because the Republicans were unable or unwilling to focus on Obama's eligibility problems, the fox almost got into the henhouse. The primary checks and balances to prevent something like this eligibility issue from being ignored and left unaddressed are (1) the challenges from the opposing party and (2) the scrutiny of the media. In the case of the eligibility controversy, both of these two important factors were inexplicably almost totally absent. If the Republicans will step up to the plate with their resources, the game will be very different. And the only reason they will commit to this project is because we have raised the profile of this controversy through grassroots efforts, including the lawsuits (even including the dismissed lawsuits, as disappointing as those results are). Let's not give up hope now!
What is needed now is to mount a concerted attack on these eligibility issues as Obama faces the next hurdles before becoming inaugurated at the end of January. The media, Secretaries of State, Election Commissions, State Governors, State Attorneys General, and State and Federal Legislators need to hear from us; FAXes, emails, phone calls, and snail mail. Let's keep up the momentum and continue to express our concern with these issues!
Tips for contacting legislators
I am no expert in this, but here are some useful suggestions I have culled from my reading.
Form letters are less effective. After seeing the first one or two, recipients will just ignore the rest.
Congressmen and Senators and state legislators are less interested in hearing from people who are not in their districts. So bear that in mind when you contact them.
Gmail will not reveal your location through your IP address, but many other email programs will.
Direct dialing Congressional and Senate offices will often reveal your location, but using the central congressional switchboards will supposedly not. You can also set your telephone to not reveal your originating number. There are many toll free numbers for reaching the Congressional switchboard. For example, a quick search turned up:
1-877-851-6437
1-888-335-3588
1-888-818-6641
1-800-828-0498
1-800-459-1887
1-800-614-2803
1-866-340-9281
1-866-338-1015
1-866-220-0044
The name of the game in lobbying is irritation and impact. The more staff time it takes to deal with our contact efforts, the more aware our elected officials will be that we are concerned. And the more concern that is expressed, the more nervous these elected officials will be that they will lose their positions, replete with power and perks, if they do not respond to us appropriately.
So how do we have an impact? Email is easily blocked or deleted, but can be sent out in immense volumes, and with great frequency. If you have the option of requesting a response in your email, you should do so. This will force someone to expend effort and energy to deal with your message, and therefore have more of an impact. Faxes and snail mail occupy space and consume time and effort and resources. Phone calls draw on staff resources. The advantage of telephone calls is that they often can produce more useful feedback of the effectiveness of our efforts than other contact methods.
Therefore, I would guess that emails are not as effective as faxes, which are less effective than snail mail, which is less effective than certified letters. Telephone calls are also pretty effective, but I am not sure how they compare to regular physical mail.
Email attachments are often never opened. Email with attachments is sometimes discarded because attachments often contain viruses. Embed any attachments in the body of the email if possible. Gmail allows one to place images in the email body quite easily, for example.
Many elected officials are starting to use web-based tools to cut down on email spam. Looking at the source code of these webpages with email forms can sometimes reveal the true email address of the intended recipient. However, many of these emails sent from these sorts of tools are filtered to reject those that are outside the legislator's district. Even regular email to a legislator's office can go through a similar filter. Bear that in mind when you use these web-based tools. Many of the aides and staff of these legislators, who are often quite influential, still have regular email addresses and so can be contacted by conventional bulk email.
Shorter email messages and letters are typically better because there is a greater chance they will be read.
Placing a long list of email addresses in the "To" slot in your email program is not helpful. An email obviously sent to a long list of people might be discarded automatically as spam in some cases. Even if the software does not reject this sort of email, people receiving such an email might ignore it as spam. If they do read it, they will feel more comfortable ignoring the issues raised since they believe that surely someone else on this huge list will tend to the problem. Therefore, put any long list of email addresses in the "bcc" slot in your email program, and mail the message to yourself. That way the recipients will not know how many are on your email list and what their addresses are. Some email software is designed for bulk emailing and will do this automatically for you.
Robert Stevens
According to the Michigan Law Review special issue a few months ago on the "natural born citizenship" challenges to both Obama and McCain, it is unlikely that these controversies will be settled in court, because of the "standing" issue and something called "judiciability".
The reason "standing" prevents many of these lawsuits from being heard is that there is apparently a long-standing precedent that ordinary citizens cannot challenge a candidate who might be ineligible in a court because the ordinary citizens supposedly have not suffered any direct personal loss because of any potential ineligibility.
"Judiciability" is something that the courts struggle with all the time. Judges ask, is a given complaint something that should be settled by the courts, or is it best addressed politically? If an issue is not "judiciable", then the courts will not rule on it, but pass it on to the political process instead.
These two difficulties with legal challenges (which were anticipated months ago and therefore are no surprise to at least some observers and experts) seem to suggest that few (if any courts) would be willing to hear these sorts of complaints. However, these academic opinions might not be correct of course, and events might unfold in a different way than the legal experts writing in the Michigan Law Review anticipated.
However, even if the lawsuits were dismissed, that does not mean that the lawsuits were worthless. The lawsuits were and are invaluable and even crucial. Six weeks ago, I read that only 20 percent or so of the Republican readers of a conservative Orange County Register columnist had even heard of the eligibility issue, according to an informal survey. Now, I suspect that the fraction that have heard of this eligibility problem is likely far far greater.
I track the number of "Google news hits" a Google news search returns for the term "obama birth certificate" each day. I have tracked this number for weeks. This ccrude statistic is a count of the number of stories on the topic, over the last few days. About half of the news hits are from stictly online sources, and initially many were just blogs. I noticed that the number of "Google news hits" rose from about 170 over 2 months ago, to about one thousand around the time of the election. Then it dropped precipitously to approximately 300 two weeks ago. With the recent lawsuit news, it rose again to a peak of 3000, and yesterday this "Google news hits" number was in the neighborhood of 1500 or so. This suggests that this story is of growing interest generally, and is still present in the public eye in a substantial way.
Because the US mainstream press has been very reluctant to cover this issue, people often do not know about it. Even the conservative media has been essentially silent on this topic. Where are our vaunted icons of conservative talk radio? Where is the belligerent and foaming-at-the-mouth, rabidly right-wing Fox News? For the most part, these two media segments have also "drank the purple koolaid". Those following this eligiblity issue and promoting it have been repeatedly dismissed as belonging to a lunatic fringe, or pejoratively called "conspiracy theorists". However, these charges are getting tougher and tougher to make as momentum builds. This is thanks partly to these lawsuits and the attention they place on the eligibility controversy.
There are signs our message is getting out there. One of our volunteers called an Illinois elector last weekend, and was informed that all of the Illinois electors were being called to the state capital for a meeting Sunday night before the voting, to discuss the situation with lawyers. This meeting apparently was to help them address their fears of the legal consequences of voting for Obama. Even if they all voted for Obama (and we have not yet heard if there were any faithless electors yet, something previously so rare that there were less than half a dozen in over two centuries), the fact that the Illinois electors had this meeting at all speaks volumes for the impact we are having. And a large number of the concerns these electors have are the result of the impact of our calls and letters and the lawsuits (even the dismissed lawsuits).
A second indication of the influence we are having is from another call that another volunteer made last night to a congresswoman. This congresswoman indicated her willingness and enthusiasm to speak out about this issue in Congress when it meets in January. Of course, this does not indicate that she will actually do what she said she would, but this sort of assertion never would have happened if it had not been for our movement raising the profile of this controversy. With the mainstream media and the conservative media essentially silent, we had to get the word out using "any means necessary"; phone calls, FAXes, emails, mail, lawsuits, petitions, etc. Even the dismissed lawsuits serve as an integral part of this effort, although that was clearly not the reason they were filed. Now is not the time to give up!
A third indication of the value of our approach comes from an amazing speech by left wing icon Noam Chomsky. Chomsky attacks Obama over and over for his lack of transparency, and for behaving differently than they expected (signalling his intention to pursue a bellicose foreign policy and showing evidence of being controlled by big money interests). Amazingly, this crowd of leftists cheered enthusiastically when Chomsky made these charges! I personally had pointed out these same shortcomings over and over for well over a year, but my complaints fell on deaf ears. No one wanted to hear that there were any problems with the "Messiah". Almost everyone laughed at me as a lunatic, and called me a "right wing nut", stupid, or worse. Now, our complaints about a lack of openness are gaining traction. We cannot stop now!
A fourth indication that momentum is building is the revelation that law enforcement, including the FBI, has been keeping close tabs on Obama and his criminal associates. A few weeks ago, when I was discussing my concerns with Obama with an FBI analyst, he dismissed me as a conspiracy theorist on the fringe, essentially parroting statements in the media. I doubt if he would do the same now. The emergence of serious legal charges swirling around the Obama Camp and its associates has made our claims far more credible, and adds to the general air of distrust that is accumulating.
Some of the electors we contacted have expressed their frustration at our efforts with expletive-filled replies. I would suggest that this is a hopeful sign; we are not being ignored. We are raising the issue. We want people to be aware of the eligibility controversy and to discuss it. There is no such thing as bad publicity, because we want this controversy to be examined carefully by the public. Most of the public is unaware of this controversy and has not studied the evidence yet. If people complain bitterly to their friends and the media about our efforts, so much the better. It will keep this topic in the public eye, and more will investigate the actual controversy. Some will reach the same conclusion we have reached, swelling our ranks. It is even worse for us to be ignored, as we were previously.
Finally, we have signs that the Republican party is finally waking about some of these issues and might be willing to pursue them. Because the Republicans were unable or unwilling to focus on Obama's eligibility problems, the fox almost got into the henhouse. The primary checks and balances to prevent something like this eligibility issue from being ignored and left unaddressed are (1) the challenges from the opposing party and (2) the scrutiny of the media. In the case of the eligibility controversy, both of these two important factors were inexplicably almost totally absent. If the Republicans will step up to the plate with their resources, the game will be very different. And the only reason they will commit to this project is because we have raised the profile of this controversy through grassroots efforts, including the lawsuits (even including the dismissed lawsuits, as disappointing as those results are). Let's not give up hope now!
What is needed now is to mount a concerted attack on these eligibility issues as Obama faces the next hurdles before becoming inaugurated at the end of January. The media, Secretaries of State, Election Commissions, State Governors, State Attorneys General, and State and Federal Legislators need to hear from us; FAXes, emails, phone calls, and snail mail. Let's keep up the momentum and continue to express our concern with these issues!
Tips for contacting legislators
I am no expert in this, but here are some useful suggestions I have culled from my reading.
Form letters are less effective. After seeing the first one or two, recipients will just ignore the rest.
Congressmen and Senators and state legislators are less interested in hearing from people who are not in their districts. So bear that in mind when you contact them.
Gmail will not reveal your location through your IP address, but many other email programs will.
Direct dialing Congressional and Senate offices will often reveal your location, but using the central congressional switchboards will supposedly not. You can also set your telephone to not reveal your originating number. There are many toll free numbers for reaching the Congressional switchboard. For example, a quick search turned up:
1-877-851-6437
1-888-335-3588
1-888-818-6641
1-800-828-0498
1-800-459-1887
1-800-614-2803
1-866-340-9281
1-866-338-1015
1-866-220-0044
The name of the game in lobbying is irritation and impact. The more staff time it takes to deal with our contact efforts, the more aware our elected officials will be that we are concerned. And the more concern that is expressed, the more nervous these elected officials will be that they will lose their positions, replete with power and perks, if they do not respond to us appropriately.
So how do we have an impact? Email is easily blocked or deleted, but can be sent out in immense volumes, and with great frequency. If you have the option of requesting a response in your email, you should do so. This will force someone to expend effort and energy to deal with your message, and therefore have more of an impact. Faxes and snail mail occupy space and consume time and effort and resources. Phone calls draw on staff resources. The advantage of telephone calls is that they often can produce more useful feedback of the effectiveness of our efforts than other contact methods.
Therefore, I would guess that emails are not as effective as faxes, which are less effective than snail mail, which is less effective than certified letters. Telephone calls are also pretty effective, but I am not sure how they compare to regular physical mail.
Email attachments are often never opened. Email with attachments is sometimes discarded because attachments often contain viruses. Embed any attachments in the body of the email if possible. Gmail allows one to place images in the email body quite easily, for example.
Many elected officials are starting to use web-based tools to cut down on email spam. Looking at the source code of these webpages with email forms can sometimes reveal the true email address of the intended recipient. However, many of these emails sent from these sorts of tools are filtered to reject those that are outside the legislator's district. Even regular email to a legislator's office can go through a similar filter. Bear that in mind when you use these web-based tools. Many of the aides and staff of these legislators, who are often quite influential, still have regular email addresses and so can be contacted by conventional bulk email.
Shorter email messages and letters are typically better because there is a greater chance they will be read.
Placing a long list of email addresses in the "To" slot in your email program is not helpful. An email obviously sent to a long list of people might be discarded automatically as spam in some cases. Even if the software does not reject this sort of email, people receiving such an email might ignore it as spam. If they do read it, they will feel more comfortable ignoring the issues raised since they believe that surely someone else on this huge list will tend to the problem. Therefore, put any long list of email addresses in the "bcc" slot in your email program, and mail the message to yourself. That way the recipients will not know how many are on your email list and what their addresses are. Some email software is designed for bulk emailing and will do this automatically for you.
Robert Stevens
comment on press confwerence from free Republic
2:28:00 - You may especially wish to hear Orly Taitz at this point. She gets to the point with the news media. A very refreshing point in a very informative and challenging segment.
Just one potential admonition if you will allow. I did not hear the term "fictitious presidency" used, but maybe I just missed it. I did hear "usurper," though. Both apply. Come to think of it, I.O. should have been using these terms more its prior articles, too...
Just one potential admonition if you will allow. I did not hear the term "fictitious presidency" used, but maybe I just missed it. I did hear "usurper," though. Both apply. Come to think of it, I.O. should have been using these terms more its prior articles, too...
comment on press conference
To: albie
Orly is great. One of the women who works for ABC’s Nightline told orly to go home (USSR). Typical disgusting contempt by the MSM.
Orly is great. One of the women who works for ABC’s Nightline told orly to go home (USSR). Typical disgusting contempt by the MSM.
From free republic
To: savedbygrace
“Wow, Orly Taitz really gives the reporters hell, doesn’t she?”
...she’s terrific! One of the very few times that these scumbag reporters have been called to task. It seems to take someone who has lived with or knows socialism from the inside and through life experience to really get worked up. They realize how important and fragile freedom and the free market is. Most of America’s dummies don’t even know what it is and don’t care. They’re more concerned that Oprah is up to 200 lbs.
“Wow, Orly Taitz really gives the reporters hell, doesn’t she?”
...she’s terrific! One of the very few times that these scumbag reporters have been called to task. It seems to take someone who has lived with or knows socialism from the inside and through life experience to really get worked up. They realize how important and fragile freedom and the free market is. Most of America’s dummies don’t even know what it is and don’t care. They’re more concerned that Oprah is up to 200 lbs.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Idea for President's executive order in re to Obama
I talked today with the audience on Andrea Shea-King show in Florida.
two new ideas came up:
1. Writing to President Bush and Vice President Chaney and demanding an executive order, deeming Obama ineligible for presidency, due to the fact that his father was a foreigner.
2. Issuing an executive order, demanding that Obama sign a consent to produce documents, verifying his citizenship, such as his original birth certificate, passports, immigration and naturalization records, school and college enrollment records and so on.
Another idea is to have stickers for cars: "Obama is not a Natural born Citizen". "Obama ois not eligible for presidency", "I sued Obama and proud of it"
Let me know if you would like to participate in this effort
two new ideas came up:
1. Writing to President Bush and Vice President Chaney and demanding an executive order, deeming Obama ineligible for presidency, due to the fact that his father was a foreigner.
2. Issuing an executive order, demanding that Obama sign a consent to produce documents, verifying his citizenship, such as his original birth certificate, passports, immigration and naturalization records, school and college enrollment records and so on.
Another idea is to have stickers for cars: "Obama is not a Natural born Citizen". "Obama ois not eligible for presidency", "I sued Obama and proud of it"
Let me know if you would like to participate in this effort
Chicago corruption investigation
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm
Grand Jury Subpoenas Issued for Rezko/Obama Land Deal
A former Illinois bank official, now claiming whistleblower status, says bank officials replaced a loan reappraisal that he prepared for a Chicago property that was purchased by the wife of now-convicted felon Tony Rezko, part of which was later sold to next-door neighbor Barack Obama.
In a complaint filed Thursday in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Kenneth J. Connor said that his reappraisal of Rita Rezko's property was replaced with a higher one and that he was fired when he questioned the document.
"Connor's internal whistle-blowing activity at Mutual Bank implicates Mutual Bank and the potentially guilty officers thereof to prosecution under federal and Illinois statutes," said the complaint, filed by attorney Glenn R. Gaffney.
The complaint said Mutual Bank officials could be guilty of making false statements, willfully overvaluing property, bank fraud, witness retaliation, willful violation of a lawful subpoena, FDIC violations, and state banking regulations.
_____________________________________________________
I Know Nothing!
On December 11th, Obama said, "I am quite confident that no representatives of mine would have had any part in any deals related to this seat."
However, The Chicago Tribune reported on Saturday, the 13th, confirms FOX News Chicago's report from Thursday, December 11th:
A source said that contact between the Obama camp and the governor’s administration regarding the Senate seat began the Saturday before the Nov. 4 election, when Emanuel made a call to the cell phone of Harris (Blagojevich's Chief of Staff, John Harris). The conversation took place around the same time press reports surfaced about Emanuel being approached about taking the high-level White House post should Obama win.
Emanuel delivered a list of candidates who would be "acceptable" to Obama, the source said. On the list were Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Chicago, the source said. All are Democrats.
Sometime after the election, Emanuel called Harris back to add the name of Democratic Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan to the approved list, the source said.
Another source told the Tribune that "communications between Emanuel and the Blagojevich administration were captured on court-approved wiretaps."
Grand Jury Subpoenas Issued for Rezko/Obama Land Deal
A former Illinois bank official, now claiming whistleblower status, says bank officials replaced a loan reappraisal that he prepared for a Chicago property that was purchased by the wife of now-convicted felon Tony Rezko, part of which was later sold to next-door neighbor Barack Obama.
In a complaint filed Thursday in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Kenneth J. Connor said that his reappraisal of Rita Rezko's property was replaced with a higher one and that he was fired when he questioned the document.
"Connor's internal whistle-blowing activity at Mutual Bank implicates Mutual Bank and the potentially guilty officers thereof to prosecution under federal and Illinois statutes," said the complaint, filed by attorney Glenn R. Gaffney.
The complaint said Mutual Bank officials could be guilty of making false statements, willfully overvaluing property, bank fraud, witness retaliation, willful violation of a lawful subpoena, FDIC violations, and state banking regulations.
_____________________________________________________
I Know Nothing!
On December 11th, Obama said, "I am quite confident that no representatives of mine would have had any part in any deals related to this seat."
However, The Chicago Tribune reported on Saturday, the 13th, confirms FOX News Chicago's report from Thursday, December 11th:
A source said that contact between the Obama camp and the governor’s administration regarding the Senate seat began the Saturday before the Nov. 4 election, when Emanuel made a call to the cell phone of Harris (Blagojevich's Chief of Staff, John Harris). The conversation took place around the same time press reports surfaced about Emanuel being approached about taking the high-level White House post should Obama win.
Emanuel delivered a list of candidates who would be "acceptable" to Obama, the source said. On the list were Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Chicago, the source said. All are Democrats.
Sometime after the election, Emanuel called Harris back to add the name of Democratic Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan to the approved list, the source said.
Another source told the Tribune that "communications between Emanuel and the Blagojevich administration were captured on court-approved wiretaps."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
