David Farrar V Barack Obama, Georgia ballot, Obama not natural born citizen, Obama attorney Michael Jablonski motion, GA election laws

David Farrar V Barack Obama, Georgia ballot, Obama not natural born citizen, Obama attorney Michael Jablonski motion, GA election laws

“Why did Obama, prior to occupying the White House, employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to assist him in avoiding the presentation of a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

Obama has engaged private attorney Michael Jablonski to respond to the Pre Trial order filed by David Farrar. The order requests that Barack Obama’s name be removed from the Georgia State ballot because Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore not qualified for the office of the president.

Some information on Attorney Michael Jablonski.

“Michael Jablonski represents select clients in matters related to politics: campaigns with contract problems; candidates facing ethics charges; political consultants charged with trademark and copyright violations; media buyers and candidates confused by the FCC’s lowest unit charge rules; businesses with campaign contribution problems; citizens using the Georgia Open Records Act or the Federal Freedom of Information Act; and others that have been caught in the mire of campaign finance and ethics law.”

Read more:


Looks like Obama has picked the right attorney.

From David Farrar V Barack Obama.
“(4) The issues for determination by the Court are as follows:
A. Is the candidate’s proffered birth certificates, authentic state-issued documents that verify his actual, physical birth in Hawaii?
B. Is the candidate an Article II natural born citizen of the United States as established in US. Supreme Court case: Minor vs Happersett 1875 Page 88 U. S. 163
C. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-560 Making of False Statements Generally. Is the candidate’s Social Security number, authentic?”

Two segments from Mr. Jablonski’s motion.

“The Democratic Party of Georgia determines names to include on its Presidential Preference Primary ballot at its sole discretion. O.C.G.A. 21 -2-193. A state political party “enjoys a constitutionally protected freedom which includes the right to identify the people who constitute this association to those people only.”
“Furthermore, the citizenship issue the plaintiff seeks to raise was soundly rejected by 69,456,897 Americans in the 2008 elections, as it has been by every judicial body ever to have considered it.”

My response.

The GA Democratic Party may put anyone they want on the ballot. However, that right does not trump the US Constitution dictate that the president must be a natural born citizen. GA election law clearly provides the Secretary of State and electors the power to challenge the qualifications of candidates. Also, to my knowledge, no court in this country has ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen.

I was born and raised in NC, have some experience reading legal documents and we also have some good dictionaries in NC. I have read the motion from Mr. Jablonski as well as the 2008 and 2011 versions of Georgia election laws. I will leave it for the reader to evaluate the accuracy of the following statements by Michael Jablonski in the hope that good dictionaries and logical thought capabilities exist in other parts of the country.

From the motion filed December 16, 2011 by attorney  Michael Jablonski.

“President Obama asks for dismissal of this attempt to deprive the Democratic Party of Georgia of its statutory right to name candidates to the Presidential Preference Party held to apportion Gerogia’s delegates to the Democratic National Convention. No provision of Georgia law authorizes a challenge to a political party’s identification of names it wishes its members to consider in a preference primary for purposes of apportioning delegates to its National Convention.The Democratic Party of Georgia properly identified Barack Obama as a candidate to whom National Convention delegates will be pledged based upon votes in the preference poll. Georgia law does not authorize the Secretary of State to exercise any discretion or oversight over the actions of a political party participating in a preference primary. Indeed, any review by the Secretary of State would interfere with associational rights of the Democratic Party guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
“The Time Limit for filing any challenge under O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 (if it appplies) specifies a two week period after qualifying in which a challenge can be filed.”
“The Secretary of State’s involvement in the Presidential Preference Primary process, other than conducting balloting, is limited to receiving names submitted by political parties for inclusion in the preference primary, publishing the submitted names on a website, and including the names on the ballot.”
“O.C.G.A. 21-2-193. The Presidential Preference Primary statute does not empower the Secretary of State to review submissions of names by political parties.”
“O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 does not apply to the Presidential Preference Primary because the preference primary is not an election”
“Nothing in the context of O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 “clearly requires” applicability to the preference primary.”

From the Georgia Election Statutes.

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193  (2011)

§ 21-2-193.  List of names of candidates to appear on ballot; publication of list
   On a date set by the Secretary of State, but not later than 60 days preceding the date on which a presidential preference primary is to be held, the state executive committee of each party which is to conduct a presidential preference primary shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of the names of the candidates of such party to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot. Such lists shall be published on the website of the Secretary of State during the fourth week immediately preceding the date on which the presidential preference primary is to be held.”

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-200  (2011)

§ 21-2-200.  Applicability of general primary provisions; form of ballot
   A presidential preference primary shall be conducted, insofar as practicable, pursuant to this chapter respecting general primaries, except as otherwise provided in this article. In setting up the form of the ballot, the Secretary of State shall provide for designating the name of the candidate to whom a candidate for delegate or delegate alternate is pledged, if any.”


O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5  (2011)

§ 21-2-5.  Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications
   (a) Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.

(b) The Secretary of State upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate. Within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying, any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate may challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State giving the reasons why the elector believes the candidate is not qualified to seek and hold the public office for which he or she is offering. Upon his or her own motion or upon a challenge being filed, the Secretary of State shall notify the candidate in writing that his or her qualifications are being challenged and the reasons therefor and shall advise the candidate that he or she is requesting a hearing on the matter before an administrative law judge of the Office of State Administrative Hearings pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 13 of Title 50 and shall inform the candidate of the date, time, and place of the hearing when such information becomes available. The administrative law judge shall report his or her findings to the Secretary of State.

(c) The Secretary of State shall determine if the candidate is qualified to seek and hold the public office for which such candidate is offering. If the Secretary of State determines that the candidate is not qualified, the Secretary of State shall withhold the name of the candidate from the ballot or strike such candidate’s name from the ballot if the ballots have been printed. If there is insufficient time to strike the candidate’s name or reprint the ballots, a prominent notice shall be placed at each affected polling place advising voters of the disqualification of the candidate and all votes cast for such candidate shall be void and shall not be counted.”


O.C.G.A. § 21-2-191  (2011)

§ 21-2-191.  Parties entitled to hold primaries; dates; decision to elect delegates to presidential nominating convention in primary; qualifying periods for candidates for delegate
   As provided in this article, a presidential preference primary shall be held in 2012 and every four years thereafter for each political party or body which has cast for its candidates for President and Vice President in the last presidential election more than 20 percent of the total vote cast for President and Vice President in this state, so that the electors may express their preference for one person to be the candidate for nomination by such person’s party or body for the office of President of the United States; provided, however, that no elector shall vote in the primary of more than one political party or body in the same presidential preference primary. Such primary shall be held in each year in which a presidential election is to be conducted on a date selected by the Secretary of State which shall not be later than the second Tuesday in June in such year. The Secretary of State shall select such date no later than December 1 of the year immediately preceding such primary. A state political party or body may by rule choose to elect any portion of its delegates to that party’s or body’s presidential nominating convention in the primary; and, if a state political party or body chooses to elect any portion of its delegates, such state political party or body shall establish the qualifying period for those candidates for delegate and delegate alternate positions which are to be elected in the primary and for any party officials to be elected in the primary and shall also establish the date on which state and county party executive committees shall certify to the Secretary of State or the superintendent, as the case may be, the names of any such candidates who are to be elected in the primary; provided, however, that such dates shall not be later than 60 days preceding the date on which the presidential preference primary is to be held.”

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-521  (2011)

§ 21-2-521.  Primaries and elections which are subject to contest; persons who may bring contest
   The nomination of any person who is declared nominated at a primary as a candidate for any federal, state, county, or municipal office; the election of any person who is declared elected to any such office (except when otherwise prescribed by the federal Constitution or the Constitution of Georgia); the eligibility of any person declared eligible to seek any such nomination or office in a run-off primary or election; or the approval or disapproval of any question submitted to electors at an election may be contested by any person who was a candidate at such primary or election for such nomination or office, or by any aggrieved elector who was entitled to vote for such person or for or against such question.”

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-522  (2011)

§ 21-2-522.  Grounds for contest
   A result of a primary or election may be contested on one or more of the following grounds:

   (1) Misconduct, fraud, or irregularity by any primary or election official or officials sufficient to change or place in doubt the result;

   (2) When the defendant is ineligible for the nomination or office in dispute;

   (3) When illegal votes have been received or legal votes rejected at the polls sufficient to change or place in doubt the result;

   (4) For any error in counting the votes or declaring the result of the primary or election, if such error would change the result; or

   (5) For any other cause which shows that another was the person legally nominated, elected, or eligible to compete in a run-off primary or election.”

David Farrar filing:

Attorney Michael Jablonski filing


67 responses to “David Farrar V Barack Obama, Georgia ballot, Obama not natural born citizen, Obama attorney Michael Jablonski motion, GA election laws

  1. Great stuff CW !!
    Thank you so much for the info and claifications.

  2. Thanks NBC


    Katie Pavlich
    News Editor, Townhall
    December 19, 2011


    “When in doubt, pull the race card. Attorney General Eric Holder has been under a lot of pressure lately about his role in Operation Fast and Furious, the Department of Justice program that put 2000 high powered weapons into the hands of ruthless Mexican drug cartels. Two federal agents and more than 300 Mexican citizens have been killed as a result. Holder claims he didn’t know about gunwalking techniques being used in the operation until the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, telling House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa on May 3, 2011 he had known about Fast and Furious for “a couple of weeks.”

    However, five memos addressed directly to Holder, detailing Operation Fast and Furious, are dated July and August 2010, nearly a year before Holder admitted he knew under oath. The Justice Department continues to stonewall the investigation into the lethal operation and still hasn’t given the Terry family details about their son’s murder one year later.

    Now, as the possibility of a Holder impeachment looms, he’s pulling the race card as the New York Times’ Charlie Savage adamantly defends him.”


    Of that group of critics, Mr. Holder said he believed that a few — the “more extreme segment” — were motivated by animus against Mr. Obama and that he served as a stand-in for him. “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” he said, “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”

    “There you have it folks. If you want answers to why the federal government under Barack Obama and Eric Holder’s leadership would deliberately arm the most ruthless criminals in the Western Hemisphere, you’re obviously a racist. I have a feeling I know which “bloggers” Charlie Savage is referring to and no, we aren’t racists and we won’t stop writing or talking about Fast and Furious/MurderGate until we get answers. It is convenient Savage, a journalist at the New York Times, fails to mention Brian Terry by name and blatantly leaves out the death tole of Fast and Furious in Mexico.”

    Read More Here: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2011/12/19/want_answers_about_fast_and_furious_youre_a_racist

  4. Bottom line is, Obama is not a natural born Citizen, of the United States of America, and is not Eligible for the office of President of the U.S.A.. The founding fathers decided that the president and the vice president must have sole allegiance to the USA, a Citizen, born from Citizen parents.
    Obama’s lack of sole allegiance to the USA has resulted in what we have today in the middle east, and our relations with the British, and Israel. Obama’s father,s roots were at war with the British, now Obama has ruined our relations with the British because of his foreign (Kenyan) allegiance influence, by being the son of a British (Kenyan) father. This influence, is what the founding fathers had the wisdom to exclude as a possibility, in Stating “No Person Except a natural born Citizen” shall be eligible to be president..


    Respected Christian scholar offers
    stunning guide to ‘Spiritual Warfare’


    * * * *

    Jamie Owens Collins ~ Charity

    * * * *

    Amazing Grace by Susan Boyle Must hear… wow.

    * * * *

    Angels We Have Heard on High – Andrea Bocelli and David Foster

    * * * *

  6. Homeless Boy Steals The Talent Show

    (In Korea!)

    “Singing For Freedom”

    * * * *

    Unbelievable Susan Boyle Britains Got Talent 2009 A germ from the village

    “Singing For Freedom”

    * * * *

  7. Like I said before, a Ron Paul win in Iowa means nothing.

    His supporters are taking advantage of an open primary.They are not Republicans.

    It would be nice to see Iowa lose their spot as #1. It’s all good.


  8. Ron Paul: The One you can trust!

  9. great article
    January 2012
    One Nation, Under Arms

    The private papers of the late George F. Kennan, Cold War architect and diplomat extraordinaire, reveal his anguish over the way his famous 1947 warning about Soviet expansionism helped transform the America he loved into one he no longer recognized: a national-security state. A half-century after a similarly historic warning—President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s speech about the dangers of a powerful “military-industrial complex”—Todd S. Purdum shows how completely Kennan’s and Eisenhower’s worst fears have been realized, warping almost every aspect of society, deflecting attention from urgent problems, and splitting the country into two classes.


  10. Why doesn’t our government VET possible candidates who run for ANY public office??? Like when you go to the DMV to get your license you have to bring several forms of I.D., birth certificate, social security, proof of address…Before a candidate even get’s his signatures he/she should bring ALL documents needed to run for that particular office…It doesn’t have to be a thorough vetting, just the basics; your parents b.c., your b.c., your social security, proof of address for the past 10 years…What is so hard about that??? WHY do we (the citizens of the United States) leave the vetting process up to the bias media and the candidates????

  11. Anonymous: Night Raid Equipment-Maker Lobbied for NDAA, Singles Out Sen. Rob Portman.


    The geeks at Anonymous probably think they are having more fun publishing the Twitter handles of the 83 senators who approved the NDAA, National Defense Authorization Act, last Thursday, on Bill of Rights Day, which okays indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial. But buried in the information dump is a truly amazing piece of information, which could have been put together from public records, but which Anonymous actually brought to the fore.

    Anonymous singles out Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) for receiving a particularly large sum from companies and PACs lobbying for the NDAA. From the RT report:

    Robert J. Portman…we are truly disturbed by the ludicrous $272,853 he received from special interest groups supporting the NDAA bill that authorizes the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

    Even in Washington terms, over a quarter million is a ridiculous amount of money from special interest groups supporting an issue to any single legislator. Congressmen have been bought for far less, with around $50,000 considered a serious ante at anyone’s table, and much less merely keeping you in the game.

    Then RT reports:

    “Among the supporters of NDAA are California-based manufacturer Surefire, L.L.C., who won a $23 million contract from the Department of Defense three months ago.

    OpenSecrets.org shows Surefire lobbying for HR 1540 which is the House counterpart to the Senate bill, S. 1867, which was passed on Bill of Rights Day and which two retired Marine generals affirm, in a New York Times op-ed, abolishes the Bill of Rights. Retired four-star Generals Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar write in opposing the new law:

    One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past.

    IMAGE From the guardian of democracy OpenSecrets.org:

    Surefire retains DC lobbyists Upstream Consulting to do its lobbying on Capitol Hill.

    So what does Surefire make? In a word, night-raid equipment, with a fresh new $23 million contract from the DoD even as we saw troops pulling out of Iraq and they are about to pull out of Afghanistan. The product catalog main categories read things like “weapon lights, helmet lights, sound suppressors, high capacity magazines.” The equipment is relatively cheap, not big ticket items in Defense Department terms. That means this is a big contract. A $23 million contract would buy enough of these things to outfit maybe 50,000 soldiers.

    If we are pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, what is all this stuff for? Night-raid gear? These are basically made to blind people as they awake from you busting down their door, not for open combat. In a night firefight you don’t want any lights near you whatsoever. That gives the other guy an easy target.

    This is as Obama is about to sign NDAA into law, if he hasn’t already at the time of this writing, the unconstitutional detention provisions of which we now know he specifically requested. We know because some sharp-eyed CSPAN junkie flicked on the record switch when she heard Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) saying these words. Levin on the Senate floor during debate:

    Sen. Levin (addressing Senate president): “And I’m wondering whether the senator is familiar with the fact that the language, the language which precluded the application of section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved in the Armed Services Committee, and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section?

    Is the senator familiar with the fact that it was the administration which asked us to remove the very language we had in the bill which passed the committee and that we removed it at the request of the administration… that would have said that this determination would not apply to US citizens and lawful residents? I’m just wondering is the senator familiar with the fact it was the administration which asked us to remove the very language [excluding US citizens], the absence of which, is now objected to by the senator from Illinois?”

    The Hive Daily gives a fuller report on this at “Military Contractors Funded Detention Bill.”

    SureFire Marketing Videos:

    Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Charging Obama Requested Americans be Included in Indefinite Military Detention Provisions:

  12. Ron Paul on National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA): ‘Biggest Story’ Nobody’s Talking About

    Ron Paul: “This [act] is really, really bad,” and “very dangerous.”

    Although it was the last question of the night during a Monday night campaign stop at the Executive Court in Manchester, it was the one Ron Paul took the most time to explain – what is the National Defense Authorization Act and what should people understand about changes made for 2012.

  13. Pat 1789:

    His supporters are taking advantage of an open primary.They are not Republicans.

    FYI : Iowa is a closed caucus and you must be registered Republican

    Iowa caucuses – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucusesCached – Similar
    You +1’d this publicly. Undo
    The Iowa caucuses are an electoral event in which residents of the U.S. state of Iowa …. When the voting is closed, a final head count is conducted, and each …

  14. Pat 1789 | December 20, 2011 at 11:35 am |
    Like I said before, a Ron Paul win in Iowa means nothing.
    Pat, that was a very interesting article. Iowa’s pride over their status as the “first state” in the caucus process may come back to bite them.

    Caucus goers are very susceptible to persuasion right “on the spot”, and they often have to openly voice among their peers their support for a candidate. This can put undue, unreasonable pressure on the voters. Paul supporters are depending on what I would call this “flaw”, this duress, as well as a strong organized effort to get them to the caucuses.


    By Josh Peterson – The Daily Caller
    Published 10/27/2011


    “La Rue’s statements on Internet freedom caused alarm among conservatives who believe “net neutrality” is a vehicle for a government takeover of the Internet.

    Advocates of net neutrality, a position championed by the billionaire Soros and by the U.N., argue governments must regulate private censorship and bandwidth online to ensure it remains open and free. Soros, a philanthropist known for supporting liberal causes, has articulated his belief in the need for greater U.S. government regulation of the Internet.

    While Soros is known among supporters as an advocate of pro-democracy causes, critics see the Open Society Institute — which he founded and chairs — as his instrument for funding and supporting his preferred causes.

    For example, Canada’s Adbusters Media Foundation, credited for initially organizing the Occupy Wall Street protests, has benefited from the Tides Foundation, a frequent Open Society Institute grantee. Tides is organized in a fashion that typically obscures the relationship between incoming and outgoing philanthropic dollars.”

    Read More Here: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/27/un-internet-agenda-tied-to-george-soros/#ixzz1h6NTBFHF

    * * * *


    “The globalists at the UN have announced plans to move forward with regulating the Internet. At a UN General Assembly, China, Russia, and 77 other countries demanded that the UN act as a global Internet policing entity. Guess who is pulling the strings on this freedom-grabbing operation? George Soros and his Open Society Institute!”

    Be sure to MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD TODAY! Thank you!

    Defend America,

    Alan M. Gottlieb
    Chairman, AmeriPAC

  16. Pat 1789 | December 20, 2011 at 11:35 am |

    Like I said before, a Ron Paul win in Iowa means nothing.

    His supporters are taking advantage of an open primary.They are not Republicans.

    It would be nice to see Iowa lose their spot as #1. It’s all good.


    Totally agree that the #1 spot should be taken from Iowa. They are a very strong anti-war/military crowd which puts them to the left of the mainstream GOP and much of the country, and they rarely pick the GOP president. I actually think a vote for Ron Paul in the long run will end up being a vote for Romney as it will scare everyone else to another choice.

    However strong the support is for Ron Paul in Iowa, he doesn’t represent the mainsteam GOP when he wants to legalize pot, pull support from Israel, is anti border fence and is so pro Iran that he even went on Iranian TV once. If Iowans don’t realize that, they should not be in the business of picking the GOP nominee when we have a chance to defeat such a terrible president in BO. But again, in the end, I think a vote for Ron Paul is just a vote for Romney. They hate Romney so much they want to vote for Paul, but they will end up with the opposite result. Just MHO.

  17. If we want to save money, we should pull all the corn subsidies from the Iowan farmers too. After all, Paul believes it’s every man for himself. He’ll say the churches should take care of the farmers.

  18. Courageous – Casting Crowns with lyrics

  19. Reba Rambo Gardner – He Gives Me Joy And Wonderful

    * * * *

    Reba Rambo – Child of the Music Maker

    * * * *

    My God Is Mighty To Save

    “John 13:34-35 – “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.”

  20. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Obama/Ron Paul debate.

    Ron Paul: I love Iran. I went on Iranian TV once.
    Obama: I love Iran too. I gave a speech to the Muslims once.
    Ron Paul: I hate the Patriot act.
    Obama: I hate the Patriot Act too.
    Ron Paul: I don’t like border fences.
    Obama: I don’t like border fences either.
    Ron Paul: I want to pull support from Israel.
    Obama: I want to pull support from Israel too.
    Ron Paul: I hate the military and want to stay away from all wars.
    Obama: I hate the military too.
    Ron Paul: I don’t want to regulate porn.
    Obama: I don’t want to regulate porn either.
    Ron Paul: I want to legalize pot.
    Obama: I know, I smoked pot too.

  21. Tina | December 20, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
    If we want to save money, we should pull all the corn subsidies from the Iowan farmers too. After all, Paul believes it’s every man for himself. He’ll say the churches should take care of the farmers.
    Why has no one asked the candidates about those subsidies in the debates?

    Everyone who participates in each of the Iowa caucuses must be registered to vote with the party for whom they will be caucusing. Democrats and Republicans have separate caucuses with their own rules. Participants who want to register with a party may do so at the caucus location on the day of the caucus. The Iowa caucus allows underage voters to participate if they will be 18 years of age by the general election. The caucuses are typically held in January of the presidential election year.

    Read more: Iowa Caucus Rules | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6322331_iowa-caucus-rules.html#ixzz1h6vd3QcG

    The same thing applies in my state, all you have to do is show up and declare which Party you want to get that ballot.
    The only downside is that you are on the books a being a member of that Party until next Primary election. And then you can change back.

  22. Good points everyone. Maybe Iowa should tighten up the rules regarding their debates. Not that I can tell them, but if they want to avoid future discussion about them, it might help to improve their rules.

    On the farm subsidies, we’d save many billions if we erased them. In some cases, farmers are paid billions not to grow crops. If voters are Ron Paul supporters and if Ron Paul is a consistent conservative, as he claims, with wanting to reduce spending, then he should look at eliminating the farm subsidies.

  23. Sorry. Got ahead of myself. They should tighten the rules on who can vote in their Republican caucuses.

  24. Michael Moore and Barry Manilow, hardcore liberals, love Ron Paul.

  25. Tina | December 20, 2011 at 2:53 pm |

    Totally agree that the #1 spot should be taken from Iowa. They are a very strong anti-war/military crowd….
    I’m a lifelong Republican and I’m “anti war”. But then again, I”m a Christian. Who is “pro-war”?

  26. Also, it’s assinine to say that “Iowans are anti-military”. The garbage doesn’t stop spewing out of your mouth. What state are you from Tina? Please tell us.

  27. Interested Bystander

    Hey All,

    Thought this was interesting.

    Tina and Pat state that Paul isn’t “conservative”, but of the 3,320 members of Congress since 1937 through 2004, who of those 3,320 members of Congress had the most CONSERVATIVE voting record?

    Read it and weep Tina and Pat:


    Tina, your hate of Paul is obvious, even when you are faced with the TRUTH about Paul. You have the ability to learn the TRUTH about Paul, and my question to you would be:

    Why do you stay so IGNORANT?

  28. Because I know the truth, IB. And I do hate racists and anti-semites, or which I believe Paul is, or similar to them, and some of his positions are to the left of Obama as Michael Moore and Barry Manilow will happily tell you. By the way, Romney neither smokes, drinks or watches porn and he refused to handle companies that dealt with R rated movies at Bain. I think that’s the definition of a real conservative, and the type of role model I want my kids to follow. But I’ll support any true social conservative, not some libertarian who boasts he wants to watch porn, smoke, look at playboy and drink. Paul is a false conservative, in my mind, despite your ratings.

  29. Ron Paul Endorsed by Nationally Syndicated Radio Talk Show Host Jerry Doyle

    Today it is official! Jerry Doyle just endorsed Ron Paul for President 2012 live on the air: “I moved to endorsing Congressman Ron Paul for the President of the United States,” Doyle said. “Ron Paul’s time has come, Ron Paul’s movement has come!” He went on to point out that “it’s not just Ron Paul, it’s the movement…a Revolution”

    Let the fireworks at one of the largest conservative radio syndication networks TRN begin. Listen to the show live here. Email Jerry Doyle here and call into the show 1-800-876-4123 to show your support for his endorsement. Jack Hunter will be a guest in the second hour.

  30. CNN / Cafferty: People in Iowa are rallying around someone who, for the first time in a long time, represents real change.

    FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

    Two weeks from today we’ll know the answer…but as of this moment, Ron Paul is the odds-on favorite to win the Iowa caucuses. And that has many mainstream Republicans positively apoplectic.

    Despite being largely ignored by the mainstream media, the 76-year-old Texas congressman is at – or near –the top of polls in Iowa as we enter the homestretch in the first 2012 race for the White House.

    What’s refreshing is Paul has done it the old-fashioned way, with a consistent message and the best outreach operation in Iowa.

    Andrew Sullivan writes for the Daily Beast that Paul is generating enthusiasm and support among young voters and Democrats and Independents… in other words, voters who could actually help the Republicans defeat President Obama in November.


  31. If Paul were a consistent conservative, as he claims, who wants to save money, he would advocate cutting all farm subsidies which he has not done. That would likely make him lose in Iowa. If he does not advocate cutting farm subsidies, he’s a hypocrite.

  32. For GOP, It’s Paul or Obama – Yahoo article

    While Romney has certainly held steady at or near the top since the process began, his numbers have been anything but inspiring for likely voters. Virtually everyone not named Huntsman or Santorum has flirted with frontrunner status over the past six months, only to see the numbers crash back down leaving Romney on top again with his paltry 20%. Now, we receive word that Ron Paul, yes Ron Paul, has taken the lead in Iowa. So what does this mean for GOP voters as we approach Iowa and New Hampshire in the coming weeks? Simple. It’s Ron Paul or four more years of Obama.

    – end snip –

    Read the whole thing:


  33. Ron Paul Campaign Names New ‘Farmers for Ron Paul’ Nationwide Coalition Members
    Nationally-known Virginia farmer and Iowa farmer support Paul through a ‘growing’ coalition

    LAKE JACKSON, Texas – The Ron Paul 2012 Presidential campaign announced today new members its “Farmers for Ron Paul” nationwide coalition formed to energize voters in America’s unrivaled agricultural sector.

    The new members include a nationally-known proponent of holistic farming methods, and a farmer from the key early voting state of Iowa.

    “I’ve been a fan of Ron Paul for years, since the first day I learned about his positions. He’s the only one with enough backbone to take on the entrenched corporate-government fraternity by attacking with the power of freedom, thereby unleashing entrepreneurial dreams on the marketplace. Currently cowering under the withering fire of guns, badges, and bureaucracy, America’s home-based and back-yard innovators have plenty of antidotes to the problems that plague our culture,” said Joel F. Salatin, who raises livestock using chemical-free holistic methods and co-owns with his family Polyface Farm in Swoope, Virginia.

    “Paul understands the power of bottom-up creativity. Reducing the military, both foreign and domestic, reducing regulatory power, and reducing the penetration of prejudicial government interests in the culture is the balanced approach to restore constitutional normalcy. Paul is the only national figure willing to go to the mat for these precious principles that will ensure tomorrow’s opportunities,” said Mr. Salatin.

    Mr. Salatin authored eight books, including the most recent Folks, This Ain’t Normal. He was featured in the film documentary Food, Inc. and most recently in TIME magazine on October 24, 2011. The New York Times dubbed Mr. Salatin “the high priest of the pasture” and he is often introduced as the “most famous farmer in America.”

    Reflecting Dr. Paul’s support in the first-in-nation voting state of Iowa, farmer Kevin Wolfswinkel of Sibley, Osceola County also joined the pro-Paul farmers’ coalition.

    “Ron Paul and I both agree that liberty and big government cannot co-exist for very long. Government dislikes the idea of independent minded individuals having free reign over their own lives. At the same time agriculture is one of the few remaining bastions of freedom loving entrepreneurs, and unless a new course is charted farmers risk losing everything they and their families have spent generations working for,” said Mr. Wolfswinkel, who produces corn, soybeans and pork.

    “The hard work and personal sacrifice required to succeed in agriculture is at risk of being erased either by crippling regulation, the government’s financial mismanagement, or a combination of both. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who possesses the expertise, personal will, and integrity to begin us on the road to regaining control of our lives and livestock,” added Mr. Wolfswinkel.

    Messrs. Salatin and Wolfswinkel now serve on the “Farmers for Ron Paul” national advisory board. As a first basic step, those wanting to join the “Farmers for Ron Paul”coalition should visit http://www.RonPaul2012.com/Farmers.

  34. Andrew Sullivan, another one who does not like Israel. No surprise he likes Paul. The Israel haters all like Paul. Wonder why?

  35. the OP article is about Georgia law, not some idiot named ron paul who will never get the nomination.

    to close the loop on this matter, one should consider infiltrating the democratic primary meeting in Georgia, declaring Obama in eligible by protest, then suing them — in addition — for putting an unqualified candidate on the ballot.

    as far as ron paul is concerned i lost him when #1 he said he was for the constitution yet knows noting about natural born citizen and considers obama a NBC from his email #2 when he doesn’t support ISraeL #3 his moronic and naive foreign policies views. He is NOT presidential material. The GOP will not nominate this moe.

  36. Tina | December 20, 2011 at 5:56 pm |

    But I’ll support any true social conservative, not some libertarian who boasts he wants to watch porn, smoke, look at playboy and drink.
    Why are you such a liar, Tina? When have you ever heard Ron Paul “boast” that he wants to watch porn, smoke, look at playboy or drink? I’d be willing to bet anything that he does none of the above.

    Also, in what state do you reside?

  37. I’m not even a Ron Paul supporter. I just hate liars.

  38. No Paxson. I was responding to IB who says he watches porn, smokes, looks at Playboy and drinks. Ron Paul is a libertarian. He says clearly he won’t regulate personal behavior. I prefer people who don’t drink and smoke as I’ve said many times. I’m in the south. Where do you think I reside?

  39. Before you start screaming again, Paxson, I know you don’t like regulating personal behavior. I’m not saying any candidate will. It’s just I prefer someone who strongly opposes porn, playboy, adultery, etc. Everytime you get on blogs that are for Ron Paul they get all upset when someone wants to regulate porn or some other terrible behavior. Our country is in decline and they are screaming that they want their porn.

  40. There is a difference between a person’s personal preferences and their desire to intrude upon the lives of others. Lautenberg recently wrote a letter asking that they ban “flavored” cigars. I am athletic and like to be in shape, but every now and again I like to smoke a “swisher sweet” while on the golf course. As a grown man, I find it offensive that government is trying to regulate my behavior in this fashion. I am opposed to ALL big government intrusion into our private lives. If that means that I have to accept the behavior of some individuals whom I find to be distasteful, so be it. The alternative is far worse. I know as a lifelong Democrat that you feel that government should play a massive role in our personal lives. This is not conservative.

  41. Nope I just don’t like supporters of candidates who scream about porn all the time. Go look at Hot Air. They are having a huge debate right now as to whether the government should get involved in incest. Rather stupid, if you ask me. It makes those Mormon candidates look better all the time.

  42. Liberlals would love to see Ron Paul win the GOP nod, he would get creamed in the General election. Even Rush Libtard knows that.

    As far as this op..

    Who wins if b-ho is knocked off the ballot at this point ?

    Hillary Clinton

  43. If anyone noticed, Rush Libtard is continuing to carry the water for the Socialist Bush family. He’s now trying set the stage for Jeb Bush to run.
    That’s what we need another Bush to continue the dynasty, just like North Korea.

  44. Not ready for another Bush; although, Jeb would be better than Obama. George Bush 1 was almost as anti-Israel as Carter was. His son was much more pro-Israel.

  45. “swisher sweet”
    Sign up for PUFF.com, I will send you some good stogies.

  46. The problem is that while we’re talking about how weird Ron Paul is, Obama’s poll numbers are climbing higher. It’s been all about Ron Paul, his crazy ideas and his Alinsky like supporters who will out shout anyone in a caucus. Ron Paul must know this. I’m not sure why he’s doing it. He wants to make a point, but he could easily get Obama re-elected.

  47. Starla………………
    Thank you very much for posting the Pavoratti-Bocelli video. Both are favorites of mine. I look upon both of them as examples of the world’s finest singers. In the same breath I have to mention the late Beverly Sills as well. She had a voice that nobody has yet equalled. My first wife who died in 1981 studied briefly at the New York School of the Arts, at Lincoln center. She gave up her scholarship to marry me and ultimately come to Indiana. I can’t forget her. She could sing like an angel.

  48. Pat 1789 | December 20, 2011 at 7:45 pm |
    “swisher sweet”
    Sign up for PUFF.com, I will send you some good stogies.
    I was embellishing to make a point. I don’t really smoke any cigars. Maybe one every 3 years.

  49. But you are correct, there is a huge difference when you smoke a good cigar and at times it is actually pleasant. It’s just not my gig…

  50. Oldsalt79, Check out this little angel.

  51. OldSalt79, Here’s another song by the 10 yr old angel. O Holy Night

  52. One more Christmas song.

  53. I’ve noticed that certain posters want to ignore the issue of Obama’s ineligibility, to be on the 2012 ballot. Instead they want to change the subject and talk about the republican primary campaign. I can’t help but think this blog has been infected by obots, obfuscating for Obama, and covering up another illegal election, by an illegal alien.

  54. Bob, if there is a way to get Obama off the ballot, great. I have been praying for that since 2007 when he tried to run the first time. Everyone has ignored it from the US supreme court on down. In the face of this continued failure, and what I think, is dereliction of duty of our elected officials to further examine the issue, we need another plan which is to beat Obama in the elections. So far nothing else is working despite brave efforts. I wonder what our brave sheriff in Arizona will come up with in his report? Any ideas?

  55. Tina | December 20, 2011 at 11:51 pm |
    Tina challenging Obama on the upcoming primary election ballots is a good way to raise awareness of his ineligibility. There are certain conditions that grant standing to examine Obama’s eligibility, these must be exploited. I can’t help but hope the people will come up with a legal remedy to enforce the Constitution’s Article 2 restrictions, on who may be President of The United States of America.

  56. bob strauss | December 21, 2011 at 12:14 am |
    Tina | December 20, 2011 at 11:51 pm |
    Tina challenging Obama on the upcoming primary election ballots is a good way to raise awareness of his ineligibility. There are certain conditions that grant standing to examine Obama’s eligibility, these must be exploited. I can’t help but hope the people will come up with a legal remedy to enforce the Constitution’s Article 2 restrictions, on who may be President of The United States of America.


    Yes. Totally agree.

  57. Tina | December 20, 2011 at 11:51 pm
    I wonder what our brave sheriff in Arizona will come up with in his report? Any ideas?
    Sheriff Joe says what ever it is their posse has found will be devastating. If it is devastating to Obama, he may be forced to pay for his crimes, and the fraud (Obama) may be totally exposed. I can’t wait, I hope the truth comes out.

  58. Interested Bystander


    You want to restrict ADULTS from doing something LEGAL, but yet you consider yourself a “conservative”.

    The GOP can have the likes of YOU.

    I’ll stick to voting on people considering the ISSUES, and not how tall they are, or how “electable” they are.

    You continue to stay ignorant Tina, and watch this Country continue it’s downward spiral, and when all is said and done, maybe then YOU can answer why YOUR little UTOPIA didn’t work out.

    And Tina, IGNORANCE will not be an acceptable excuse, I have tried to inform you, and you insist on staying ignorant.


    The best bet we have of proving Obama’s ineligibility will probably come years AFTER he is out of office.

    The Supreme Court KNOWS to be a natural born citizen you have to be born of TWO US citizens.

    WHY they continue to ignore the CONSTITUTION baffles me.

  59. Interested Bystander

    And Tina,

    I agree, ALL subsidies need to be ELIMINATED, I don’t care who is subsidized, INCLUDING Israel.

    Why should the government pay farmers NOT to farm? It really is ridiculous.

    Hey Tina,

    Just a little secret between you and me, and no one else……………………….We don’t have ANY money to pay farmers, Israel, or ANYONE or ANYTHING else that we subsidize. We BORROWED 40 cents of every dollar we spent LAST YEAR alone.

    How long could you survive BORROWING 40 cents out of every dollar you spent Tina? I’m thinking not very long, but yet you ADVOCATE doing just exactly that.

    I don’t believe I have seen one comment from you suggesting where CUTS (not decreases in the automatic increases) are supposed to come from.

    Your ignorance shows through in almost every comment you make.

  60. Question:

    Which Article in the U.S. Constitution grants authority to regulate “Personal Behavior”? To my knowledge there is none.

    Certainly individual States have the Constitutional provisions to regulate certain aspects not granted to the feds, but that is entirely different.

  61. My opinion is that ALL Subsidies should be eliminated. Only the wealthy, including rich farmers, receive subsidies. While true that one party favors subsidies for businesses such as the oil industry and the other demonizes it as the wealthy benefiting from it, the same is true with the other side favoring the rich farm owners and farming corporations benefiting as well.

    If this were ever truly debated in a public forum, it would be hard press for either party to justify their favorite subsidy programs as neither assist the poor and all subsidies benefit the wealthy.

  62. bob strauss | December 20, 2011 at 11:36 pm |

    I’ve noticed that certain posters want to ignore the issue of Obama’s ineligibility, to be on the 2012 ballot. Instead they want to change the subject and talk about the republican primary campaign. I can’t help but think this blog has been infected by obots, obfuscating for Obama, and covering up another illegal election, by an illegal alien.

    Yes that must be it……………………….

    Were all covering for Obama trying to get him re elected to destroy the US,


  63. People must realize the reason they will not challenge the birth issue is because the United States is a Corporation. Obummer can be the president of the corporation. People need to wake up and realize that this country was hijacked.

  64. bob strauss | December 20, 2011 at 11:36 pm |

    “I’ve noticed that certain posters want to ignore the issue of Obama’s ineligibility….”


    Of course this is true Bob! One needs only to review comments made by posters to understand such nonsensical repertoire posted in such a defensive posture lacking knowledge.

    I agree with you.

  65. you must understand his eligibility is not going to be questioned. Check for yourself. This Country is considered a business and we are the employees. The Thief politicians are not going to come out and tell you the truth. Please wake up and see that this country has been hijacked. Do your research and you will find out.

  66. Pingback: Obama motion to dismiss Georgia ballot challenge denied, David Farrar et al vs Barack Obama, Judge Michael M. Malihi | Citizen WElls

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s