Monthly Archives: February 2012

February 9, 2012, Obama lies continue, Economy and jobs, Diversions cloud true picture, Most people are worse off, Deficit soars

Posted on February 8, 2012 | 59 comments

February 9, 2012, Obama lies continue, Economy and jobs, Diversions cloud true picture, Most people are worse off, Deficit soars

“Guilford (Large NC County) appears on it’s way to a third consecutive year with annual jobless rates in double digits. Economists say that likely hasn’t happened since the Great Depression.”…Greensboro News Record December 2, 2011

“the Times of the nineteenth of December had published the official forecasts of the output of various classes of consumption goods in the fourth quarter of 1983, which was also the sixth quarter of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. Today’s issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston’s job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”...George Orwell, “1984″

Lies, Lies and more Obama Lies.

It’s the economy again stupid.

If Obama has improved economic conditions, you wouldn’t know it in NC, or most other states for that matter.

I have not noticed people in the streets rejoicing.
Let’s begin with gas prices, which affect the price of almost all other goods. Gas prices have risen again in NC and Obama just recently pandered to his core support, the far left, and said no to the Canadian pipeline.

From Citizen Wells  September 21, 2011.

“One of the biggest, if not biggest drains on the economy, one exacerbated by Obama and his cronies, is gasoline prices. This affects the cost of everything and is killing our economy. The left are so  concerned about theoretical environmental damage and emulating Europeans that they disregard the plight of average Americans. Below is a chart showing the rise in fuel prices during the Obama reign.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/middle-class-incomes-fell-in-past-decade-between-2000-and-2010-incomes-fell-in-2010-adjusted-for-inflation-gas-prices/

 

From Investors Business Daily February 8, 2012.
“The American public’s dependence on the federal government shot up 23% in just two years under President Obama, with 67 million now relying on some federal program, according to a newly released study by the Heritage Foundation.

The conservative think tank’s annual Index of Dependence on Government tracks money spent on housing, health, welfare, education subsidies and other federal programs that were “traditionally provided to needy people by local organizations and families.”

The increase under Obama is the biggest two-year jump since Jimmy Carter was president, the data show.”

http://news.investors.com/Article/600452/201202080802/government-dependence-jumps-under-president-obama.htm

From ABC News February 7, 2012.

“Corporate Profits Aren’t What They Seem”

“As companies close their books on the final three months of last year, the big ones that make up the Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index appear likely to earn about $230 billion. That would be $12.6 billion more than a year earlier.

But the increase, 5.8 percent, is less than half the speed at which quarterly profits grew the first nine months of 2011. In the average quarter since the beginning of 2010, earnings have grown five times as fast.

Analysts expect profit growth to accelerate later this year. But so far, almost all the growth comes from two companies, one of them among America’s most favorite, the other among its most hated — Apple and the bailed-out insurance company AIG.

Take away those two companies and profits for the remaining 498 are expected to grow a measly 1.1 percent, according to FactSet, a provider of financial data.”

“The immediate future looks about the same. For this quarter, which ends March 31, profits for the S&P 500 are expected to be up about 1 percent from the year before. And that’s with Apple and AIG thrown in.

“Were the economy to sustain a shock, this makes us more vulnerable,” says Barry Knapp, chief U.S. stock strategist at Barclays Capital.

In a report Thursday highlighting “unusually weak” results so far, Goldman Sachs strategist David Kostin noted that stock analysts have been cutting their estimates for what S&P companies will make for all of 2012.”

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/corporate-profits-15525353#.TzLac1wV33c

From Citizen Wells December 4, 2011.

“data released Thursday by the Employment Security Commission of North Carolina show that Guilford appears on it’s way to a third consecutive year with annual jobless rates in double digits.

Economists say that likely hasn’t happened since the Great Depression.

“I suspect we would have to go back to the 1930′s (to find that),” said Don Jud, professor emeritus at UNCG’s Bryan School of Business and Economics.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/nc-unemployment-worst-since-great-depression-uncg-and-government-spending-spree-other-peoples-money-obama-supporters-predictable/

Latest NC unemployment data.

“Unemployment rates increased in 93 of North Carolina’s 100 counties in December. Rates decreased in four counties and remained the same in three.”
 
 
 
From Citizen Wells December 3, 2011.
 

“The unemployment rate, derived from a separate survey of households, was forecast to hold at 9 percent. The decrease in the jobless rate reflected a 278,000 gain in employment at the same time 315,000 Americans left the labor force.

“While the rate is certainly a very favorable rate, I would highlight that a lot of it is because people pulled out of the workforce,” Eric Rosengren, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, said in a speech yesterday.”
“RUSH:”

“Well, Happy Holidays. They don’t do Merry Christmas in the media. But we’re back, it’s done, they got the headline: “Unemployment, 8.6%!” Now, the truth of the matter is — and Bloomberg News even points out that the only way — it’s a corrupt number. It is a corrupt number. Folks, the number of people who have quit looking for work in the last few weeks is 315,000. Those are the people have thrown up their hands after 99 weeks or more of being unemployed; and they’ve said, “I’m quitting. I’m not looking.” So they’re not counted. Therefore, the universe of jobs available in the country is down by 315,000. That is the labor force participation rate. The labor force participation rate is a meager 64%. It fell to 64% from 64.2%. So the 0.2% drop equals 315,000 people leaving the workforce.

That means there are 315,000 fewer jobs to have, so the universe of jobs has been steadily shrinking. What was the number of jobs created? It’s 120,000 jobs. It’s 120, 126,000, whatever. That’s in the ballpark. That number of jobs created can lower unemployment rate 0.4%, almost one half of a percent? Creating 120,000 new jobs can do that? That alone tells us how small the labor force participation rate is. That tells us how small the universe of available jobs in the country is, when creating 120,000 — and we still have, don’t forget, over 400,000 applications for unemployment compensation reported yesterday. So just 120,000 new jobs can lower the unemployment rate almost a half a point. That’s not possible without that 315,000 figure, the 315,000 people who have just walked away.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/nc-unemployment-worst-since-great-depression-uncg-and-government-spending-spree-other-peoples-money-obama-supporters-predictable/

From Rush Limbaugh January 06, 2012.
 
“But now back to this 8.5%, folks.  They are celebrating, even this as fraudulent as it is, this 8.5% is fraudulent.  The news is out there something like 200,000 jobs created, surging in December.  However, 42,000 of them are seasonally adjusted couriers and messengers.  In December, a category called couriers and messengers, they’re hired during the holiday season, they’re temps.  Forty-two thousand of them.  They will not be counted in January and February ’cause they’re let go.  But, look, we could nitpick here on the numbers.  That misses the point.  The point here is what we were talking about yesterday.  The truth is not what is important here; it’s what’s being reported.  I could sit here all day and tell you how these jobs numbers are not accurate.  It’s not gonna matter.  The news is Obama’s policies are working.  The news is it’s finally kicking in.  The news is the economy is growing. The news is jobs are being created.”
 

“So 8.5% unemployment, millions of unemployed people, millions of jobs lost, millions of people on government benefits because they can’t find jobs — and this is the progress we have, this is what we have to show for trillions of dollars in deficit spending. Trillions of dollars! The unemployment rate is still higher than when Obama took office. The media is reporting, “The unemployment rate lower than it’s been in three years!” They don’t tell you lower than since Obama was inaugurated, but that’s the truth: $5 trillion in deficit later, we have an 8.5% unemployment rate. That’s it? This is what we’re supposed to party down over? And of course we have to provide the perspective here because few others will.

So we’ve got $6 trillion in new deficits. We ignore the millions who have dropped out of the workforce, we ignore all those who are holding part time rather than full-time jobs, and the best Obama can come with — the best the Democrats can come up with, the best the media can come up with — is 8.5%, and we’re supposed to celebrate today. How much have these jobs cost? Morning news reports this is a good picture. There are six million fewer jobs today than there were in 2008, folks! There are six million fewer jobs available in this country than there were three years ago. The unemployment rate is 15.2% when you include those who have dropped out and those who want full-time jobs but have to take part-time jobs. That’s the latest figure. So the Obama plan: Shrink the workforce, expand the welfare state, and then claim economic progress. Then slash the military, take that money and subsidize public sector employees who vote reliably Democrat, like NEA members.”
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/06/it_s_party_time_8_5_unemployment

From News Max February 3, 2012.

 
“Rush: Obama’s Jobless Numbers Are ‘Corrupt’
Friday, 03 Feb 2012 01:18 PM
 
The jobless rate reported today is “corrupt as it can be” because President Barack Obama’s administration has decreased the size of the workforce, Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show.
 
According to the Department of Labor, employers added almost a quarter of a million jobs in January. According to Limbaugh, it eliminated 2 ½ million positions.
 
“The number of jobs not available to be filled exploded by an unprecedented, record number of 1.2 million,” he said. “That’s not a typo. That’s part of this 2 ½ million fewer jobs. It is corrupt as it can be.”
 
He said the shrinking of “the overall universe of jobs” led to the misconstrued dip in the unemployment rate, to 8.3, from 8.5 in December.
 
“No president has ever been re-elected when the unemployment rate’s over 8 percent, so guess what it’s going to be by the time we get to Election Day,” he said.”
 
 
Your assignment?
 
Make certain all of those around you know the truth.
 

59 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Economy, Election 2012, Employment, Government, Jobs, Lies, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Rush Limbaugh, The Case Against Barack Obama, US economy, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , , ,

Obama kept on GA ballot by Secretary of State Brian Kemp, Kemp upheld Judge Malihi ruling, Obama attorney Jablonski on Kemp Advisory Council

Posted on February 7, 2012 | 128 comments

Obama kept on GA ballot by Secretary of State Brian Kemp, Kemp upheld Judge Malihi ruling, Obama attorney Jablonski on Kemp Advisory Council

“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

“Why did Indiana Appeals Court Judge Elaine B. Brown place the following in her ruling: “The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.””...Citizen Wells

From the Obama Ballot Challenge February 7, 2012.

“Kemp Upholds Deeply Flawed Georgia Ballot Challenge Ruling”

“Well, it appears tha GA Secy of State Kemp has upheld Malihi’s denial of the ballot challenges.

Last Friday’s ruling (see hearing video, transcripts) on the Obama Eligibility Challenge cases of attorneys Hatfield, Irion and Taitz was so over the top absurd, that it may cause tectonic shifts in the movement’s aproach to Obama’s obvious ineligibility.

Attorney Mark Hatfiled offered his strong RESPONSE to the Friday ruling by Malihi.

Taitz offered her APPEAL. No attorney has fought more battles in this war, nor suffered more defeats and ridicule.

Kemp, who previously said he would follow the recommendations, was presented with a dilemma. The question was, would he follow recommendations which obviously not only ignored, but twisted law and facts into a pretzel shape? Now we know the sad answer. There are precedents for SOS overruling of administrative judge rulings, even for Judge Malihi.

There appeared to be reasons for hope, when the Secretary of State assigned the Ballot Challenge cases to Malihi, when Malihi struck down motions to dismiss, to cancel subpoenas for Obama’s appearance in court and to compel providing documents.

When Obama attorney Jablonski tried to make an end run around Mahili’s court and quash the entire hearing, Kemp fought back and even said Obama and his attorney’s boycott would be at their peril.

In judge’s chambers, Mahili supposedly wanted to declare default judgment and the attorneys resisted, favoring an open hearing with evidence formally read into the record. They had only two hours to plead the biggest political scandal in history.

At this point, reasonable people need to contemplate whether we even have rule of law anymore and whether it could even be restored via working within the system. I am hearing much talk of extraordinary measures. God help us.”

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/kemp-upholds-deeply-flawed-georgia-ballot-challenge-ruling

And what a surprise this will be to you….right.

Michael Jablonski, General Counsel, Democratic Party of Georgia, who represented Obama in the Georgia ballot challenge and who defiantly refused to attend the hearing with Judge Malihi, is on the GA Secretary of State Elections Advisory Council.

http://www.sos.ga.gov/GAEAC/

 

Thanks to commenter SueK

128 Comments

Posted in Attorney General, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, corruption, Courts, Election, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, Judges, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Secretary of State, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , ,

Obama GA ballot ruling Judge Malihi, Attorney Mark Hatfield letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp, Flaws in ruling

Posted on February 7, 2012 | 14 comments

Obama GA ballot ruling Judge Malihi, Attorney Mark Hatfield letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp, Flaws in ruling

“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 did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…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

From the letter from Attorney Mark Hatfield  to Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp, February 7, 2012.
“Dear Secretary Kemp:

As you are aware, Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi issued
a “Decision” in the above-referenced matters on this past Friday,
February 3, 2012, holding Defendant Barack Obama eligible as a
candidate for the presidential primary election. Because you are
now charged, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(c), with making a
final determination of Defendant Obama’s eligibility to appear on
the ballot in Georgia, I am writing to respectfully point out
several significant flaws in Judge Malihi’s findings and
conclusions.

Initially, I would note that although Judge Malihi ordered my
clients’ cases severed, as a unit, from the cases of Plaintiffs
Welden; Farrar; Lax; Judy; Malaren; and Roth, and although Judge
Malihi conducted a separate hearing as to my clients’ cases as
requested, he nevertheless erroneously issued a single “Decision”
applicable to all of the Plaintiffs’ cases, despite the fact that
the evidence; testimony; and legal argument advanced by my
clients differed from that offered by the other Plaintiffs.

The adverse impact upon my clients of Judge Malihi’s erroneous
issuance of a single “Decision” as to all Plaintiffs is
immediately apparent when one reviews certain alleged “facts”
which were “considered” by Judge Malihi (“Decision,” p. 6).
Specifically, Judge Malihi found as “fact”: 1) that Defendant
Obama was born in the United States; and 2) that Defendant
Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of
Defendant’s birth. Both of these “facts” found by Judge Malihi
constitute a second significant flaw in the judge’s ruling and
serve as the stated factual basis for his erroneous conclusion
that Defendant Obama is eligible for the presidency.

Simply put, a review of the record in my clients’ above -captioned
cases reveals no evidence of Defendant’s place of birth and no
evidence of Defendant’s mother’s citizenship at the time of
Defendant’s birth. My clients did not enter into evidence any
copy of Defendant Obama’s purported birth certificate in these
cases. And while my clients’ evidence did include a copy of the
divorce proceedings between Defendant Obama’s parents, and while
these divorce records did establish the identities of Defendant’s
parents and the date of Defendant’s birth, the divorce records
did not establish the location of Defendant’s birth or the
citizenship of his mother at the time of his birth.

As you know, Defendant Obama and his attorney, Michael Jablonski,
failed to appear for the trial of these actions and failed to
submit any evidence or testimony into the record. Moreover, they
failed to appear notwithstanding the fact that I timely served
defense counsel with a Notice to Produce, directing his client to
appear at trial and to produce certain documents and items to be
used as evidence by the Plaintiffs. Defense counsel, in fact,
never objected to the Notice to Produce and never moved to quash
same. He simply, and purposefully, ignored it.

However, as you are also aware, Mr. Jablonski did attempt to
“back door” into the record two (2) electronic images of
Defendant Obama’s purported “long form” and “short form” birth
certificates by attaching same to a letter addressed and emailed
to you on January 25, 2012, the day before the trial, essentially
informing you that he and his client would not appear for trial.

Nevertheless, Mr. Jablonski’s attempt to inject these “documents”
into the record is legally ineffective. O.C.G.A. § 50 – 13 – 15 (1)
provides in pertinent part that “[t]he rules of evidence as
applied in the trial of civil nonjury cases in the superior
courts shall be followed.” Additionally, O.C.G.A. § 50-13-15 (2)
provides that “[d]ocumentary evidence may be received in the form
of copies or excerpts if the original is not readily available.
Upon request, parties shall be given an opportunity to compare
the copy with the original or have it established as documentary
evidence according to the rules of evidence applicable to the
superior courts of this state” (emphasis supplied). In the
instant cases, Plaintiffs’ Notice to Produce, served on January
19, 2012, had already requested Defendant Obama to produce one
(1) of the two (2) original certified copies of Defendant’s “long
form” birth certificate in his possession, as well as all
medical; religious; administrative; or other records of or
relating to Defendant’s birth. Of course, Defendant Obama and
his lawyer deliberately ignored Plaintiffs’ valid requests, and
Mr. Jablonski’s misguided attempt to inappropriately place
documents into the record through the “back door” should likewise
be ignored.”

Read more:

http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/Powell-SwenssonvObamaAttorneyHatfieldLetterBrieftoGeorgiaSecretaryofStateRegardingDecisionbyJudgeMichaelMalihi2-7-2012.pdf

 

14 Comments

Posted in Attorney General, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Courts, Election, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, Judges, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Secretary of State, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , ,

India Muslims force removal of “objectionable” content from Google, Blocked from India search results, Muslims 13 percent of India population

Posted on February 7, 2012 | 12 comments

India Muslims force removal of “objectionable” content from Google, Blocked from India search results, Muslims 13 percent of India population

“Winston dialed “back numbers” on the telescreen and called
for the appropriate issues of the Times, which slid out of
the pneumatic tube after only a few minutes’ delay. The
messages he had received referred to articles or news items
which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to
alter, or, as the official phrase had it, to rectify. For
example, it appeared from the Times of the seventeenth of
March that Big Brother, in his speech of the previous day,
had predicted that the South Indian front would remain quiet
but that a Eurasian offensive would shortly be launched in
North Africa. As it happened, the Eurasian Higher Command
had launched its offensive in South India and left North
Africa alone. It was therefore necessary to rewrite a
paragraph of Big Brother’s speech in such a way as to make
him predict the thing that had actually happened.”…George Orwell, “1984”

“To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is
free, when men are different from one another and do not
live alone–to a time when truth exists and what is done
cannot be undone:

From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude,
from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink–
greetings!”…George Orwell, “1984″

Big Brother lives.

From Bloomberg February 7, 2012.

“Google Removes India Content on Court Order”

“India had about 89 million people using the Web at the end of 2010, compared with more than 450 million in China, the world’s largest Internet market, according to the International Telecommunication Union in Geneva. Photographer: Pankaj Nangia/Bloomberg
Google Inc. removed content from its India domains that was deemed objectionable by a New Delhi district court after a civil lawsuit against the owner of the world’s largest search engine.

The material was blocked from India search results, YouTube, Blogger and the social-networking site Orkut, said Gaurav Bhaskar, a spokesman for Google India. The content was deleted from domains .in and .co.in, while remaining accessible from other countries, Bhaskar said today. Google can’t take down content that appears on websites owned by other companies and individuals, he said.

India is stepping up scrutiny of Internet postings and mobile communications as it tries to eliminate provocative comments and curb discord between religious groups. The Hindu- majority South Asian country is home to more than 138 million Muslims, comprising about 13 percent of the world’s second- largest population.”
“The order follows a civil complaint filed by Mufti Aijaz Arshad Quasmi, an Indian activist who seeks the removal of videos and images that could be seen as offensive to Muslims, his lawyer Santosh Pandey said today.”

“The other companies named in the complaint — Facebook Inc., Yahoo! Inc. (YHOO) and Microsoft Corp. — have taken the position that they don’t have control over the content found objectionable, Pandey said.

The court yesterday gave the companies 15 days to submit compliance reports. The next hearing will take place on March 1.
Amber Allman, a spokeswoman for Yahoo, didn’t immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment. Kumiko Hidaka, a spokeswoman for Menlo Park, California-based Facebook, didn’t respond to an e-mail. Debjani Mukherji, a Hyderabad-based spokeswoman for Microsoft, didn’t immediately respond to an e- mail seeking comment.

Google’s deletions are in accordance with company policy of disabling illegal content on its property to comply with local laws, Bhaskar said.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-07/google-removes-search-youtube-content-from-india-domains-on-court-order.html

 

12 Comments

Posted in 1984, Big Brother, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Courts, doublespeak, Google, Judges, News, Orwell, Orwellian

Tagged , ,

Ankeny v Daniels Appeal Court ruling written by competent judge?, Judge Michael Malihi ruling, Flawed ruling based on flawed ruling, Natural born citizen lies

Posted on February 6, 2012 | 32 comments

Ankeny v Daniels Appeal Court ruling written by competent judge?, Judge Michael Malihi ruling, Flawed ruling based on flawed ruling, Natural born citizen lies

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln
“Why did Indiana Appeals Court Judge Elaine B. Brown place the following in her ruling: “The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.””...Citizen Wells

You gotta love Free Republic!

When I first discovered the Ankeny v Daniels Appeal ruling I smelled a rat. I am smelling a much larger rat now.

When I wrote the article yesterday on the GA Obama ballot challenge ruling by Judge Michael Malihi, I based my comments on the Ankeny v Daniels Appeal decision based purely on my reading and analyzing the Indiana “judge’s” ruling. In the article I wrote several times “Was this written by a judge?” There are obvious reasons for my doing so. In one instance, I call the author a liar.

I just came across a Free Republic article posted on January 10, 2012, several weeks before the Judge Michael Malihi ruling. As is often the case at Free Republic, it is interesting and insightful.

From Free Republic January 10, 2012.

“Why Wasn’t Ankeny v Daniels Appealed To The Supreme Court?”

“As the election for the presidency starts to heat up, the discussion if Barack Obama is a natural born citizen is also heating up. The Supreme Court case Minor v Happersett is being used as the main case to declare Obama not natural born in growing state ballot challenges to his candidacy. What I have noticed in the heated arguments on many political forum boards lately is that Obama supporters are countering Minor v Happersett with the Indiana case Ankeny v Daniels. That case declares this:

“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

Even though it is a state case, it is the gold standard case (along with the SCOTUS case Wong Kim Ark) that Obama supporters use to declare the issue case closed pertaining to Obama’s eligibility. As we all know, Minor v Happersett is binding precedent on what a natural born Citizen is, born in the country to citizen parents. My question is if the judges got it wrong in Ankeny v Daniels, why didn’t the plantiffs appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court? There seems to be no answer to this question.”

Some very interesting comments:

“posted on Tue Jan 10 2012 14:43:14 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by Mr. Lucky

To: Fantasywriter; LucyT; Elderberry; hoosiermama; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; Silentgypsy; …
This entire issue is like reading Dickens in the original newspaper serial format. It goes on forever. At least Dickens got a penny a word! All we get is a headache.
The Indiana Supreme Court is NOT where one ordinarily goes looking for precedent. But the fact that Team Obama does harp upon it, makes it worthy of some inquiry.

The lack of appeal is troubling. Could it have been a “set-up?””

“posted on Tue Jan 10 2012 15:15:27 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by Kenny Bunk ((So, you’re telling me Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts can’t figure out this eligibility stuff?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]
To: Obama Exposer
“Gold standard” is a misnomer for describing the case. There are a variety of problems with it that, when itemized, turns Obots into namecallers or makes them flee. The case was appealed to the state supreme court, but it’s not clear if new arguments were presented to the higher court. Not sure this would be eligible for SCOTUS appeal. And of course the decision to appeal is up to the plaintiff who filed the case, so it should be asked of him.

This appeals decision wisely does NOT declare Obama to be a natural-born citizen. Even by its own rationale, it can’t, because to date, there has been no legal evidence Obama was born in the United States. None was presented here and the court does NOT say Obama was born in Hawaii. This decision’s opinions on NBC are nothing more than window dressing. The meat of the decision is in the first part where it dismisses the case on a procedural obstacle … failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which is the state’s version of “standing.” It says the governor of Indiana can’t be held responsible for vetting presidential candidates.

Again, there are several problems and outright contradictions in the section on NBC. I’ve illustrated those before, but can do so again if need be.”
“posted on Tue Jan 10 2012 17:15:45 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]
To: Obama Exposer
The decision contradicts itself. First it claims guidance and then admits that the decision from which it divined that guidance doesn’t actually make the same conclusion:
We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution?s Article II language is immaterial.
The court in Wong Kim Ark did NOT pronounce the plaintiff to be a natural-born citizen. IOW, the Supreme Court didn’t follow this so-called “guidance.” Ankeny claims that this inconvenient fact is immaterial. Why do they say this??

For all but forty-four people in our nation?s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant.
They’re claiming this is irrelevant to everyone but the people who were elected president. This is sheer stupidity. The natural-born citizen requirement isn’t there for the benefit or the convenience of the electee. It’s there to ensure the best leadership for this government of the people. It’s not irrelevant to everyone else. We know this because of John Jay’s letter suggesting that it would help prevent foreign influence. The Ankeny decision does nothing to support this presumption.

The Ankeny decision cites this citation from Wong Kim Ark:

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.
This paragraph is talking about people born in the United States. It’s saying you can be born on U.S. soil and NOT be a U.S. citizen. This citation is describing a passage from Shanks v. Dupont which noted that the Treaty of 1783 said those who were natives or otherwise were either citizens OR British subjects depending on whether the parents adhered to the Crown or United States allegiance. You can’t be both. Under this citation, Obama is a British subject and NOT a U.S. citizen.

Ankeny makes this ridiculous claim about the Minor definition of NBC:

… the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.
A) This isn’t true. Such persons were characterized as foreigners or aliens in the passage they quoted. B) Minor went on to discuss the naturalization act of 1790 which said that the children of aliens could become citizens AFTER their fathers naturalized. Further, Ankney contradicts themselves in their own footnote on this point:

Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.
Here it says the court contemplated situations where both parents are aliens. Note, there’s nothing cited that says they left any questions open on these children, so how do they “contemplate” something and leave a question open?? Contemplate means “to consider at length.” IOW, if they contemplated the scenario, then they addressed it, rather than left the question open.

Then Ankeny says this:

The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.”
Minor does NOT say anything about considering anything in the light of the common law. The NBC definition is uses is from the Law of Nations, as it matches verbatim. The Law of Nations was a principle and history which were famiilarly known to the framers.

Ankeny stabs itself in the foot here:

In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
The 14th amendment IS the Constitution. IOW, the 14th amendment doesn’t say who shall be natural-born citizens. IOW, the guidance that Ankeny claims is simply NOT there.

Here’s another error. They quote Justice Story in Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbor.

Also, as quoted in Wong Kim Ark, Justice Joseph Story once declared in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors? Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99 (1830), that “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.”
That’s all well and good if we’re trying to determine who British subjects are. The person Story was talking about was born in the U.S. but he was considered to be a British subject (which would mean Obama is too, under this doctrine). This wasn’t about making someone a citizen by birth in the country.

It appears to me, that upon principles of public law as well as of the common law, he must if born a British subject, be deemed to adhere to, and retain the national allegiance of his parents, at the time of the treaty. Vattel considers the general doctrine to be, that children generally acquire the national character of their parents (Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19. sec. 212, 219); and it is certain, both by the common law and the statute law of England, that the demandant would be deemed a British subject.
Further, from the same decision, it is acknowledged in the opinion of the court, that citizenship descends from the father:

The facts disclosed in this case, then, lead irresistibly to the conclusion that it was the fixed determination of Charles Inglis the father, at the declaration of independence, to adhere to his native allegiance. And John Inglis the son must be deemed to have followed the condition of his father, and the character of a British subject attached to and fastened on him also, which he has never attempted to throw off by any act disaffirming the choice made for him by his father.
Finally, I just wanted to address a couple of the sloppy points in the Ankeny decision. They can’t seem to get the facts straight:

As to President Obama?s status, the most common argument has been waged by members of the so-called “birther” movement who suggest that the President was not born in the United States ….

The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs? argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there?s a very clear distinction between a „citizen of the United States? and a „natural born Citizen,? and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.”
Now, Ankeny says the plaintiffs aren’t arguing place of birth, but just a few pages earlier, the court said:

Specifically, Plaintiffs appear to argue that the Governor did not comply with this duty because: (B) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were “born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America . . . .”
Okay, so which is it?? The plaintiffs are or are NOT arguing where Obama was born??? And then stuff like this is just bizarre:

The bases of the Plaintiffs? arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate.11

11 Plaintiffs do not provide pinpoint citations to the congressional debate quotations to which they cite.
Now, I just showed where a Supreme Court case that Ankeny cited, Inglis, quoted Vattel from The Law of Nations. They don’t seem to understand the Supreme Court has regularly used Vattel as a legal resource. Second, the “ninenteenth century congressional debate” citations were being used as the original intent of the authors of the 14th amendment. Why does this court downplay original intent?? Then the Ankeny court quotes Wong Kim Ark citing things like Dicey’s “Conflict of Laws” …. how is that okay, but not Vattel?? The Ankney court concludes with this doozy:

To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court?s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs? arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
A) Vattel does NOT conflict with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of natural-born citizen. The ONE definition that Ankeny cited matches Law of Nations verbatim. B) This court basically just says it doesn’t have to accept the plaintiffs assertions as true, even though the Supreme Court regularly relies on such authorities as were used by the plaintiffs. This decision is simply an embarrassment to the legal profession.

27 posted on Tue Jan 10 2012 17:38:24 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]
To: Obama Exposer
You’re welcome. Please feel free to PM me if you ever have any questions or other issues, and I will be happy to answer if I can.

Happy FReeping!”

“posted on Tue Jan 10 2012 18:43:01 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]
To: Obama Exposer
Your link goes to the appellate review.

Not sure if you have been exposed to the term – dictum. It is background used by a judge to then form a ruling. The appellate judges ruling is 99% dictum to reach a simple decision:

“Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), pro se, appeal the trial courts grant of a motion to dismiss filed by Mitch Daniels, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Indiana (“Governor”). Plaintiffs raise nine issues, which we revise and restate as whether the trial court erred by granting the motion to dismiss under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6).1 We affirm. 2”

That is the entire ‘ruling’. Everything else after that is dictum. Nauseating dictum at that. And unnecessary dictum since the ruling above did not rely on any of it. It was all show to provide fodder for those who want this to stop – basically an politician or government official.

The ruling above relied on this simple rule in Indiana trial law:

“(B) How presented. Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required; except that at the option of the pleader, the following defenses may be made by motion:
…
(6) Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which shall include failure to name the real party in interest under Rule 17; “

See here for expanded specific to the Indian Trial Rules:

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/trial_proc/#_Toc313019775

So it is odd that a judge who makes a ruling citing only state trial law rules would go out their way to write so much dictum that used SCOTUS rulings and other material.

….unless someone wrote it for him……”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2831111/posts

Again, this was posted several weeks before the Judge Malihi ruling.

Also, the last sentence above:

“….unless someone wrote it for him……”

Law expert and attorney Mario Apuzzo has dissected the Indiana Appeal Court ruling and the improper references to English Common Law.

“Ankeny used English common law to define an Article II “natural born Citizen” when all U.S. Supreme Court cases, including Minor and Wong Kim Ark, have used American common law to do so.”

I urge you to read the entire article:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/02/all-that-is-wrong-with-georgia-state.html

Orly Taitz has provided an update on her appeal to Judge Michael Malihi’s ruling as well as some interesting comments:

“EMERGENCY APPEAL

PETITION TO SET ASIDE RECOMMENDATION ISSUED BY JUDGE MALIHI IN FARRAR V OBAMA OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALHI, AS RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE IN ERROR, WITH GROSS ABUSE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION AND IN FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF ALL LAW, PRECEDENTS AND FACTS OF THE CASE; AND FIND CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA INELIGIBLE TO APPEAR ON THE STATE OF GA BALLOT AS A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES”

“This behavior of judge Malihi was so outrageous, that not only his advisory opinion needs to be  set aside, as not grounded in any fact or law, but state and county grand juries and the Attorney General of Georgia need to launch a criminal investigation into actions of judge Malihi and possible direct or indirect undue influence by Obama. Decision by Malihi reads, as if it was entirely written by Obama’s personal attorneys Robert Bauer and Judith Corley of Perkins Coie and rubber stamped by Malihi. It is noteworthy, that both Robert Bauer and Judith Corley need to be criminally investigated as well, as both of them were complicit in aiding and abetting Obama  in presenting to the public on April 27, 2011 a computer generated forgery and claiming it to be a true and correct copy of Obama’s birth certificate. Such assumption by Malihi, that Obama was born in the U.S., without any documentary evidence to that extent from Obama, goes beyond an abuse of judicial disretion, it represents judicial misconduct.”

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=31271

We clearly have a flawed ruling in GA based on a flawed ruling in IN. It is not uncommon for lower court decisions to be reversed based on errors or misinterpretation of the law. However, the Indiana ruling was either written by a baised or incompetent judge.

Did Chief Judge Margret G. Robb read the ruling?

Judges Crone and May concurred with Judge Elaine B. Brown. Did they read it?

I will contact the Indiana Court of Appeals and find out.

32 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Court of Appeals, Courts, Election, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, Judges, Judicial misconduct, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Mario Apuzzo, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution

Tagged , , ,

Judge Michael Malihi ruling, Indiana Appeals court lies, US Constitution Vs English common law, Supreme court opinions, More Indiana corruption?

Posted on February 5, 2012 | 91 comments

Judge Michael Malihi ruling, Indiana Appeals court lies, US Constitution Vs English common law, Supreme court opinions, More Indiana corruption?

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

Indiana has been in the news recently for political corruption.

From Fox News October 18, 2011.

“Shocking election fraud allegations have stained a state’s 2008
presidential primary – and it took a college student to uncover them.

“This fraud was obvious, far-reaching and appeared to be systemic,”
22-year-old Ryan Nees told Fox News, referring to evidence he
uncovered while researching electoral petitions from the 2008
Democratic Party primary in Indiana.

Nees’ investigation centered on the petitions that put then-senators
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the ballot. As many as 150 of the
names and signatures, it is alleged, were faked. So many, in fact,
that the numbers raise questions about whether Obama’s campaign had
enough legitimate signatures to qualify for a spot on the ballot.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/18/college-student-credited-with-uncovering-possible-election-fraud-in-indianas
Who wrote the Indiana Appeals Court decision that Judge Michael Malihi of Georgia quoted? The Obama camp? Mainstream media?

Did a judge actually write this?
STEVE ANKENY AND BILL KRUSE, Appellants-Plaintiffs,

vs.

GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Respondent.

November 12, 2009
OPINION – FOR PUBLICATION
BROWN, Judge

CRONE, J., and MAY, J., concur.
“B. Natural Born Citizen

Second, the Plaintiffs argue that both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain are not “natural born Citizens” as required for qualification to be
President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 49 of the U.S. Constitution”

“As to President Obama‟s status, the most common argument has been waged by members of the so-called “birther” movement who suggest that the President was not born in the United States”

Did a judge actually write the above? If so it is at best unprofessional and inaccurate and at worst biased.

“Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs‟ argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there‟s a very clear distinction
between a „citizen of the United States‟ and a „natural born Citizen,‟ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign
allegiance. Appellants‟ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom,
President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.”

Once again, did a judge write the above? First, there is a clear distinction between citizen and natural born citizen. Secondly, the judge cannot possibly know what most people think. Thirdly, the law is not based on what a group of people think.

“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the
present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the
protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was
born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States
afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

The following

“and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

is a damn lie!

Anyone who has studied law and or history, anyone who has followed the natural born citizen debate, knows that although American Law was influenced by British Common Law, once we broke from the British Empire, we developed our own set of laws that are not identical to those of our ancestral lands.

For example:

US Constitution

Article I Section 2

“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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Third Congress,  1795 .

“…children of citizens  of the United States…shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…”

Further evidence can be found here:

Citizen Wells January 6, 2011.

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/112th-congress-ron-paul-et-al-do-your-damn-job-us-constitution-natural-born-citizen-obama-eligibility/

From Sam Sewell of The Steady Drip.

“The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

The first was decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated with the American Revolution.”

Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.

The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus, belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer.  But what the case said about citizenship, is what matters here.

WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP

In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…”

From attorneys and legal scholars:

From Attorney Mario Apuzzo February 3, 2012.

“Georgia State Administrative Law Judge, Michael M. Malihi, issued his decision on Friday, February 3, 2012, finding that putative President, Barack Obama, is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. Sec. 21-2-5(b). The decision can be read here, http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/judge-malihi-rules-against-plaintiffs.html

I must enter my objection to this decision which is not supported by either fact or law.

The Court held: “For purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny [sic meant Ankeny], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.”

But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States. The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record. The judge tells us that he decided the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. But he does not tell us in his decision what evidence he relied upon to “consider[]” that Obama was born in the United States. The judge “considered” that Obama was born in the United States. What does “considered” mean? Clearly, it is not enough for a court to consider evidence or law. It must make a finding after having considered facts and law. The judge simply does not commit to any finding as to where Obama was born. Using the word “considered” is a cop out from actually addressing the issue. Additionally, we know from his decision that neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing let alone introduced any evidence of Obama’s place of birth. We also know from the decision that the judge ruled that plaintiffs’ documents introduced into evidence were “of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiff’s allegations.” Surely, the court did not use those “insufficient” documents as evidence of Obama’s place of birth. Nor does the judge tell us that he used those documents for any such purpose. The judge also does not tell us that the court took any judicial notice of any evidence (not to imply that it could). The judge did find that Obama has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party. But with the rules of evidence of superior court applying, this finding does not establish anyone’s place of birth. Hence, what evidence did the judge have to rule that Obama is born in the United States? The answer is none.

The court did not engage in its own thoughtful and reasoned analysis of the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” but rather relied only upon Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct.App. 2009), transfer denied, 929 N.E.2d 789 (2010), a state-court decision which erred in how it defined a “natural born Citizen.””

Read more:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/02/all-that-is-wrong-with-georgia-state.html

From Attorney Leo Donofrio February 4, 2012.

“There is no “clearly expressed intention” to deem 14th Amendment citizens “natural born”. Those words were intentionally left out of the 14th Amendment. And Judge Malihi has simply overruled the U.S. Supreme Court by suggesting that the general citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment governs the specific requirement to be President in Article 2, Section 1.

Both clauses are not given separate effect by Malihi. His opinion holds that the 14th has the exact same effect as the natural-born citizen clause, while the 14th Amendment does not include the words “natural born Citizen”. Persons claiming citizenship under the 14th Amendment are deemed to be “citizens”. Malihi has added the words “natural born” into the Amendment. This is absolutely forbidden, according to Malihi’s own opinion in the Motion to dismiss, wherein he held:

“In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.’ ””

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/a-rat-called-tandem/

I recommend to the Georgia Secretary of State to have the Attorney General of GA read the Malihi ruling and that Judge Malihi be drug tested.

91 Comments

Posted in Attorney General, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Court of Appeals, Courts, Election, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, Judges, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Leo Donofrio, Lies, Mario Apuzzo, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Secretary of State, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, voters, Washington DC

Tagged , , , ,

FEC 2012 Presidential matching funds for Charles E. Buddy Roemer, Roemer declared eligible, Buddy Roemer for President

Posted on February 4, 2012 | 164 comments

FEC 2012 Presidential matching funds for Charles E. Buddy Roemer, Roemer declared eligible, Buddy Roemer for President

From the FEC February 3, 2012.

“Roemer First Presidential Candidate Declared Eligible for Primary Matching Funds in 2012 Race ”

“Charles E. “Buddy” Roemer III on Thursday became the first 2012 presidential candidate to be declared eligible by the Federal Election Commission to receive federal matching funds. Roemer is seeking the Republican nomination for president in 2012.

To become eligible for matching funds, candidates must raise a threshold amount of $100,000 by collecting $5,000 in 20 different states in amounts no greater than $250 from any individual. Other requirements to be declared eligible include agreeing to an overall spending limit, abiding by spending limits in each state, using public funds only for legitimate campaign-related expenses, keeping financial records and permitting an extensive campaign audit.

Based on documents filed by Buddy Roemer for President, Inc. on January 25, 2012, contributions from the following states were verified for threshold purposes: Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Washington. All of the materials included with this submission may be viewed here. Based on Roemer’s initial threshold submission, the Commission will request that the United States Treasury make an initial payment of $100,000 to Roemer’s campaign.

Once declared eligible, campaigns may submit additional contributions for matching funds on the first business day of every month.The U.S. Treasury Department may pay the Commission-certified amounts beginning this month.The maximum amount a primary candidate could receive is currently estimated to be about $22.8 million.

The presidential public funding program is financed through the $3 check-off that appears on individual income tax returns. The program has three elements: grants to parties to help fund their nominating conventions, grants available to nominees to pay for the general election campaign, and matching payments to participating candidates during the primary campaign.

In July and September of 2011, the Commission certified $17,689,800 each to the Republican and Democratic parties for their conventions.The Commission estimates that each general election nominee will be eligible for a grant of approximately $91.2 million.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent regulatory agency that administers and enforces federal campaign finance laws. The FEC has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Established in 1975, the FEC is composed of six Commissioners who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.”

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2012/20120202Roemer_MatchingFunds.shtml

 

164 Comments

Posted in Election, Election 2012, Election Law, FEC, News, Presidential candidate, Washington DC

Tagged , ,

NC elections 2012, Ballot challenges, North Carolina election law, SBOE, State Board of Elections, Laws bias or corruption, Part 1

Posted on February 3, 2012 | 152 comments

NC elections 2012, Ballot challenges, North Carolina election law, SBOE, State Board of Elections, Laws bias or corruption, Part 1

“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 did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…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

NC elections 2012

North Carolina election law

Laws, bias, corruption

Part 1

I begin Part 1 of this series on NC Elections 2012, NC election law at a historic moment. As I sit here in NC writing this, Judge Michael Malihi may still
be pondering his decision for a ruling on the Obama ballot challenges in Georgia. His ruling is expected soon and the GA Secretary of State, Brian P. Kemp,
has stated he will abide by the judge’s decision. Regardless, this is significant for 2 main reasons. First, it the the first time I am aware of that a judge
is ruling on Obama’s eligibility based on merits and not some other issue like standing. Second, regardless of the ruling, there are stated avenues of appeal
in the GA Statutes.

Another historic aspect of NC elections and election law in 2012 is the Democrat National convention being held in Charlotte, NC this year. Obama won NC by a
very narrow margin in 2008. So small that had the outcome made a difference in the election, I would have been more involved in disputing it. Nevertheless,
individuals were indicted in 2011 in the Raleigh area for flagrant voter fraud in 2008. There was much controversy in Alamance County and other areas about
illegal aliens beeing allowed to register to vote. There is no reason to believe this has diminished.

In 2008, I read the election statutes of approximately one half of the states, emailed nearly all Secretary of States or other appropriate departments and
contacted several offices by phone. My intent was to inform them of deficiencies in the eligibility of Barack Obama and to get clarification of their
statutes. I also insured that they were forewarned so as not to have ignorance as an excuse later.

I am now focusing my energy on NC statutes and performance of duties. Sadly, in my home state, the aura of corruption in high and lower places must be
addressed. This has become a multi part series for several reasons. One is the sheer volume of items to be addressed. Another is going through protocols,
channels in an orderly fashion. However, I did not want to let much time elapse before informing you of the methodology and progress.

In 2008 I and others contacted the NC Secretary of State as well as SBOE, State Board of Elections. I must admit that my expections were low and the state
met them. However as I stated above, they were warned and consequently will be held accountable. It is no wonder that since then, former Governor Mike
Easley has been indicted and convicted of other infractions. Current Governor Beverly Perdue just announced that she will not run again. It is no wonder she
is backing off. Her administration has been plagued with scandal, some of which is tied to the NC State Board of Elections.

I will be addressing 2 main areas of concern as I attempt to get clarification of our statutes. One is the powers and duties of the board, not as tradition
dictates but as the US Constitution and State Law demands. The other is the level of corruption and bias within the board and other departments.

What will rule the priorities of NC Government this year? Will it be the US Constitution, State Laws and the rule of law

or

will it be the Democrat Party and the desire to look good hosting the Democrat Convention.

Our state motto is:

“Esse quam videri”

To be rather than to seem.

I guess we will find out.

From John Hammer of the Rhino Times February 2, 2012.

“North Carolina Gov. Beverly “Dumpling” Perdue announced last week that to benefit the school children of North Carolina she was not going to run for reelection. One might assume that Perdue thinks the school children of North Carolina will be better off without Perdue in the governor’s mansion. I agree with her, but for some reason I don’t think that is what she meant.

She tried to say in her terse announcement that by being a lame duck governor she would be better able to fight for school children. It makes no sense. There is a reason why they call someone in office who is not running for reelection a lame duck and that is because they don’t have much power. They cannot threaten to make opponents’ lives miserable for the next four years or threaten to veto legislation coming up in the next session. They can beg and plead, but a governor can do that whether they are running or not.

There are only two reasons that come to mind that would explain why a sitting governor who has repeatedly said she was going to run for reelection would, two weeks before filing opens, announce she isn’t going to run. One is health. I have it on good authority that the governor is not stepping down because of any health issues.

The other is because she has learned that she is about to be indicted. Her mentor, former Gov. Mike Easley, was indicted after leaving office and was convicted of a felony.

Several of Perdue’s 2008 campaign staff have been indicted: Her finance chairman, Peter Reichard, who is the former president of the Greensboro Chamber of Commerce, was convicted of one felony in connection with the 2008 Perdue campaign. Two other people associated with the Perdue campaign were also indicted.

It is certainly possible that Perdue agreed not to run for reelection as part of a deal. Perhaps the US attorney agreed not to indict her until after she served her term if she agreed not to run for reelection

Of course it could be that Perdue realized there was no way she was going to beat Pat McCrory again and decided not to prolong the agony. However, that seems highly unlikely. Candidates almost always think they are going to win. They may say that they know they don’t have a chance but in their hearts they have this belief that somehow at the end of the night they will be declared the winner. I have interviewed candidates on the eve of the election who finished with less than 20 percent of the vote but they could explain in detail why despite the odds they were going to win.

Perdue beat McCrory once, even though the polls had said early on that McCrory was ahead.

One theory is that the National Democratic Party asked Perdue to step aside because she couldn’t win, and not having a strong candidate would hurt President Barack Hussein Obama’s chances of winning North Carolina. Right now it looks like Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton is going to be the Democratic candidate, and although he holds statewide office the vast majority of the people in the state have no idea who he is.

It just doesn’t seem possible that the National Democratic Party is so out of touch that it believes Dalton would help Obama more than Perdue. Of course, someone should tell the Obama campaign that they are not going to win North Carolina. Four years ago the Republicans ran an extremely poor candidate and the Democrats had an extremely charismatic one. Plus four years ago Obama was making history by becoming the first black person elected president of the United States. He can’t do that again.

Four years ago no one could blame Obama for the economy. Today people do blame Obama for the economy and it appears that his solutions have not worked, although he is going to campaign like they have.

It doesn’t look like Obama has much chance in North Carolina, but then again the Republicans could nominate a candidate who will give the race to Obama.”

http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/Articles-Columns-c-2012-02-01-210912.112113-Under-the-Hammer.html

 

152 Comments

Posted in Attorney General, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Courts, democratic convention, Democrats, Election, Election 2008, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, Government, Judges, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, NC, NC primary, NC voters, News, North Carolina, Obama, Presidential candidate, Secretary of State, US Constitution, voters

Tagged , , , , , ,

Reid Schar Rezko Blagojevich prosecutor leaving U.S. attorney’s office, Former Sidley Austin law firm attorney, Schar Hamilton Niewoehner convicted Rezko

Posted on February 3, 2012 | 11 comments

Reid Schar Rezko Blagojevich prosecutor leaving U.S. attorney’s office, Former Sidley Austin law firm attorney, Schar Hamilton Niewoehner convicted Rezko

“Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“There is enough corruption in Illinois so that all it takes is someone who is serious about finding it to uncover it. If a U.S. attorney is not finding corruption in Illinois, they’re not seriously looking for it.”…Northwestern Law Professor James Lindgren

From the Chicago Tribune January 27, 2012.

“Blagojevich prosecutor leaving U.S. attorney’s office
Reid Schar headed for private practice after 12 years of public service”

“Bringing down a governor or another high-profile defendant is one of those career-defining moments for prosecutors and usually hastens their exit from public service. So it goes forReid Schar.

Schar, the lead prosecutor in both corruption trials of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, will be leaving the U.S. attorney’s office after 12 years, said three people with direct knowledge of the matter.

He plans to go into private practice and has started interviewing with some large law firms, according to people familiar with his plans. Schar declined to comment on his future.

Schar, 39, has been a loyal lieutenant to U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald, staying longer than most assistant U.S. attorneys. Since September, Schar has served as an adviser to Fitzgerald, giving input on management, personnel, cases and a host of other issues. The promotion came soon after a jury in the second trial convicted Blagojevich of sweeping corruption, including allegations that he tried to sell President Barack Obama’s old U.S. Senate seat in 2008.

The Blagojevich conviction is the biggest of several notches on Schar’s belt. In 2008, the same trio of prosecutors that put Blagojevich behind bars — Schar,Carrie Hamilton and Christopher Niewoehner — convicted Tony Rezko, a former Blagojevich fundraiser.

Before Rezko, Schar led the prosecution of Muhammad Salah and Abdelhaleem Ashqar, who were accused of aiding the radical Palestinian groupHamas. The two men were acquitted of being members of Hamas and conspiring to support terrorism. They were convicted of lesser charges, including obstruction of justice.

“His work on the Hamas case, Rezko and Blagojevich are only the most visible ways in which he has been as asset to the office and the citizens of Illinois,” said Jeffrey Cramer, who worked with Schar for 10 years and left in 2009 to head the Chicago office of Kroll, which performs corporate investigations. “His talents will be missed.”

The Blagojevich and Rezko cases augmented the reputation of the U.S. attorney’s office for successfully prosecuting public corruption. Blagojevich’s predecessor in the governor’s mansion, George Ryan, also is behind bars. Patrick Collins, who led the prosecution of Ryan, left the office in 2007, shortly after the former governor was sentenced, to join the law firm of Perkins Coie.

Schar’s looming departure is hardly surprising to observers of the U.S. attorney’s office. There wasn’t much left for Schar to accomplish after successfully prosecuting Blagojevich. Prosecutors also can make a lot more money in private practice. Schar is married and has three young children.

There has been a revolving door between the office and big Chicago law firms for years. Former assistant U.S. attorneys are valuable to law firms and their clients for their ability to handle complex cases and knowledge of criminal and regulatory matters. The revolving door slowed down in the last few years because of the economy and the dearth of white-collar legal work in Chicago.

Schar is interviewing with Chicago-based firms as well as firms in San Francisco. He graduated from Stanford University and received his law degree in 1997 from Northwestern University. He clerked for U.S. District Judge Elaine Bucklo before briefly working at the Sidley Austin law firm.”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0127-chicago-law–20120127,0,941539.column

Reid Schar Sidley Austin.

Barack Obama Sidley Austin.

Robert Bauer Perkins Coie.

Patrick Collins Perkins Coie.

Ellen Weintraub Perkins Coie.

It’s one big happy family in Chicago.

11 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Blagojevich, Blagojevich trial, Chicago, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, corruption, Law firms, Lawyers, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Patrick Fitzgerald, Prosecution, Rezko, The Case Against Barack Obama, Tony Rezko, US Department of Justice

Tagged , ,

Obama Blagojevich News, Notice of Motion, Judge James Zagel, February 2, 2012

Posted on February 2, 2012 | 170 comments

Obama Blagojevich News, Notice of Motion, Judge James Zagel, February 2, 2012

“Why did the Illinois Senate Health & Human Services Committee, with Obama as chairman, create and push Bill 1332, “Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act,” early in 2003, which reduced the number of members on the Board from 15 to 9, just prior to rigging by Tony Rezko and Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

A Notice of motion is scheduled today, Thursday February 2, 2012, in the courtroom of Judge James Zagel for Rod Blagojevich.

Daily Calendar

Thursday, February 2, 2012 (As of 02/02/12 at 04:46:42 AM )

Honorable James B. Zagel                    Courtroom 2503 (JBZ)
1:08-cr-00888   USA v. Blagojevich                     10:15   Notice of Motion

http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/DailyCal/0.htm

I guess the Obama camp was resting under the false illusion that most of Obama’s corruption buddies were in prison or going through a lengthy appeal process that will inevitably drag on through the election cycle and stay out of the news. That is except for Daniel Frawley who linked Obama to a payment from Rezko in a deposition last year.

Of course, there is still the lingering question of why the prosecution of Blagojevich was delayed so long

and why Tony Rezko was never called as a witness

and where is Stuart Levine

and why Patrick Fitzgerald was aggressively pursuing Karl Rove and Scooter Libby

and why Colin Powell did not inform the Bush Administration of Rove’s innocence

and why Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama??????

170 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Blagojevich, Blagojevich trial, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, corruption, Federal Court, Illinois, Judges, Lawyers, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Patrick Fitzgerald, Pay to play politics, Rezko, Stuart Levine, The Case Against Barack Obama, Tony Rezko, US Department of Justice, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,