Monthly Archives: April 2012

RFK assassination witness Nina Rhodes Hughes confirms computer analysis of multiple shooters, Two guns firing, Sirhan Sirhan, 13 shots detected

RFK assassination witness Nina Rhodes Hughes confirms computer analysis of multiple shooters, Two guns firing, Sirhan Sirhan, 13 shots detected

From CNN April 30, 2012.
“RFK assassination witness tells CNN: There was a second shooter”
“As a federal court prepares to rule on a challenge to Sirhan Sirhan’s conviction in the Robert F. Kennedy assassination, a long overlooked witness to the murder is telling her story: She heard two guns firing during the 1968 shooting and authorities altered her account of the crime.

Nina Rhodes-Hughes wants the world to know that, despite what history says, Sirhan was not the only gunman firing shots when Kennedy was murdered a few feet away from her at a Los Angeles hotel.

“What has to come out is that there was another shooter to my right,” Rhodes-Hughes said in an exclusive interview with CNN. “The truth has got to be told. No more cover-ups.”

Her voice at times becoming emotional, Rhodes-Hughes described for CNN various details of the assassination, her long frustration with the official reporting of her account and her reasons for speaking out: “I think to assist me in healing — although you’re never 100% healed from that. But more important to bring justice.”

“For me it’s hopeful and sad that it’s only coming out now instead of before — but at least now instead of never,” Rhodes-Hughes told CNN by phone from her home near Vancouver, British Columbia.

Sirhan, the only person arrested, tried and convicted in the shooting of Kennedy and five other people, is serving a life sentence at Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California.

The U.S. District Court in Los Angeles is set to rule on a request by the 68-year-old Sirhan that he be released, retried or granted a hearing on new evidence, including Rhodes-Hughes’ firsthand account.

At his 1969 trial, Sirhan’s original defense team never contested the prosecution’s case that Sirhan was the one and only shooter in Kennedy’s assassination. Sirhan testified at his trial that he had killed Kennedy “with 20 years of malice aforethought,” and he was convicted and sentenced to death, which was reduced to life in prison in 1972.

After the trial, Sirhan recanted his courtroom confession.

In the recent federal court filings, state prosecutors led by California Attorney General Kamala Harris argue that even if there were a second gunman involved in the Kennedy shooting, Sirhan hasn’t proven his innocence and he’s still guilty of murder under California’s vicarious liability law.”

“In a response also filed in federal court in Los Angeles, the defense team led by New York attorney William Pepper contends that the FBI misrepresented Rhodes-Hughes’ eyewitness account and that she actually had heard a total of 12 to 14 shots fired.

“She identified fifteen errors including the FBI alteration which quoted her as hearing only eight shots, which she explicitly denied was what she had told them,” Sirhan’s lawyers argued in February, citing a previously published statement from Rhodes-Hughes.
In this NBC photo taken in 1965, TV actress Nina Roman, today known as Nina Rhodes-Hughes, left, and her “Morning Star” co-star Elizabeth Perry, right, meet Robert F. Kennedy at NBC’s Burbank studios. Two and a half years later, Rhodes-Hughes witnessed Kennedy’s assassination.The FBI and the California attorney general’s office both declined to comment to CNN on the controversy over Rhodes-Hughes’ witness account since the matter is now being reviewed by a federal judge.

Rhodes-Hughes was a television actress in 1968 who worked as a volunteer fundraiser for Kennedy’s presidential campaign.

The FBI report indicates that Rhodes-Hughes was indeed inside the kitchen service pantry of the Ambassador Hotel during the crucial moments of the Kennedy shooting, but she contends the bureau got details of her story wrong, including her assertions about the number of shots fired and where the shots were fired from.

Rhodes-Hughes, now 78, tells CNN she informed authorities in 1968 that the number of gunshots she counted in the kitchen pantry exceeded eight — which would have been more than the maximum Sirhan could have fired — and that some of the shots came from a location in the pantry other than Sirhan’s position.

Robert Kennedy was the most seriously wounded of the six people shot inside the hotel pantry on June 5, 1968, only moments after the New York senator had claimed victory in California’s Democratic primary election. The presidential candidate died the next day; the other victims survived.

The Los Angeles County coroner determined that three bullets struck Kennedy’s body and a fourth passed harmlessly through his clothing. Police and prosecutors declared the four bullets were among eight fired by Sirhan acting alone.

Rhodes-Hughes tells CNN the FBI’s eight-shot claim is “completely false.” She says the bureau “twisted” things she told two FBI agents when they interviewed her as an assassination witness in 1968, and she says Harris and her prosecutors are simply “parroting” the bureau’s report.

“I never said eight shots. I never, never said it,” Rhodes-Hughes told CNN. “But if the attorney general is saying it then she’s going according to what the FBI chose to put into their report.”

“There were more than eight shots,” Rhodes-Hughes said by phone. She says that during the FBI interview in her Los Angeles home, one month after the assassination, she told the agents that she’d heard 12 to 14 shots. “There were at least 12, maybe 14. And I know there were because I heard the rhythm in my head,” Rhodes-Hughes said. She says she believes senior FBI officials altered statements she made to the agents to “conform with what they wanted the public to believe, period.”

“When they say only eight shots, the anger within me is so great that I practically — I get very emotional because it is so untrue. It is so untrue,” she said.

Contacted by CNN for comment, Sirhan lead attorney William Pepper called the alleged FBI alteration of Rhodes-Hughes’ story “deplorable” and “criminal” and said it “mirrors the experience of other witnesses.”

Other witnesses also mentioned more than eight shots

Law enforcement investigators have always maintained that only eight shots were fired in the RFK assassination, all of them by Sirhan. His small-caliber handgun could hold no more than eight bullets.

But released witness interview summaries show at least four other people told authorities in 1968 that they heard what could have been more than eight shots. The following four witness accounts appear not in FBI reports but in Los Angeles Police Department summaries:

— Jesse Unruh, who was speaker of the California Assembly at the time, told police that he was within 20 to 30 feet behind Kennedy when suddenly he heard a “crackle” of what he initially thought were exploding firecrackers. “I don’t really quite remember how many reports there were,” Unruh told the LAPD. “It sounded to me like somewhere between 5 and 10.”

— Frank Mankiewicz, who had been Kennedy’s campaign press secretary, told police that he was trying to catch up to the senator when he suddenly heard sounds that also seemed to him to be “a popping of firecrackers.” When an LAPD detective asked Mankiewicz how many of the sounds he’d heard, he answered: “It seemed to me I heard a lot. If indeed it had turned out to have been firecrackers, I probably would have said 10. But I’m sure it was less than that.”

— Estelyn Duffy LaHive, who had been a Kennedy supporter, told police that she was standing just outside the kitchen pantry’s west entrance when the shooting erupted. “I thought I heard at least about 10 shots,” she told the LAPD.

— Booker Griffin, another Kennedy supporter, told police that he had just entered the pantry through its east entrance and suddenly heard “two quick” shots followed by a slight pause and then what “sounded like it could have been 10 or 12” additional shots.

An analysis of a recently uncovered tape recording of the shooting detected at least 13 shot sounds erupting over a period of less than six seconds. The audiotape was recorded at the Ambassador Hotel by free-lance newspaper reporter Stanislaw Pruszynski and is the only known soundtrack of the assassination.

Audio expert Philip Van Praag told CNN that his analysis establishes the Pruszynski recording as authentic and the 13 sounds electronically detected on the recording as gunshots.

“The gunshots are established by virtue of my computer analysis of waveform patterns, which clearly distinguishes gunshots from other phenomena,” he said in an e-mail. “This would include phenomena that to human hearing are often perceived as exploding firecrackers, popping camera flashbulbs or bursting balloons.””

Read more:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/28/justice/california-rfk-second-gun/?hpt=hp_c2

Advertisements

Apple avoids taxes with 29.66 percent profit margin, Oil companies pay high taxes on small profit margin, Obama and left demonize oil companies

Apple avoids taxes with 29.66 percent profit margin, Oil companies pay high taxes on small profit margin, Obama and left demonize oil companies

“But in among all this terrible poverty there were just a few great big beautiful houses that were lived in by rich men who had as many as thirty servants to look after them. These rich men were called capitalists. They were fat, ugly men with wicked faces, like the one in the picture on the opposite page. You can see that he is dressed in a long black coat which was called a frock coat, and a queer, shiny hat shaped like a stovepipe, which was called a top hat. This was the uniform of the capitalists, and no one else was allowed to wear it. The capitalists owned everything in the world, and everyone else was their slave. They owned all the land, all the houses, all the factories, and all the money. If anyone disobeyed them they could throw them into prison, or they could take his job away and starve him to death. When any ordinary person spoke to a capitalist he had to cringe and bow to him, and take off his cap and address him as ‘Sir’.” …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″

Obama and the left continue to demonize oil companies, foster class warfare with lies of taxing the rich and destroy the US economy with their socialist anti business agenda.

From Citizen Wells April 3, 2012.

“Obama Says Oil Profits Justify Ending U.S. Tax Breaks”

“President Barack Obama said oil company profits justify abolishing $4 billion in annual oil and natural gas subsidies and shifting those savings to research on clean-energy fuels.”

“Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, in an e-mailed statement, said Obama’s proposal is a political gambit in an election year and called the plan a “tax hike on American energy manufacturers” that he’d oppose.

Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Republican Speaker John Boehner, said today in an e-mail that the president is giving a speech “with gas prices at $3.92 per gallon, calling for policy that would make gas more expensive and increase foreign dependence on oil. You wouldn’t believe it, right? Yet this is happening.”

“And how big are the oil company profits?

Net profit margins:

Oil & Gas Refining & Marketing 3.00 %

Oil & Gas Pipelines 6.00 %

Compare these profit margins to other industries.

http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html

“Companies (corporations, LLC’s, partnerships, sole proprietors) do not paytaxes!

Consumers pay for the tax increases.

Taxes are part of the cost of doing business.

A tax increase to a company results in some combination of the following:

Product and service price increases.

Employee and hours cutbacks.

Reduced hiring.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/obama-lies-on-oil-companies-taxes-profits-and-impact-on-consumers-obama-energy-policy-based-on-chicago-pay-to-play-politics-truth-team-notification/

Has Obama and the left been questioning Apple?

Apple’s profit margin is 29.66 percent with net profits of $24.7 billion on revenues of $85.5 billion in the first half of the fiscal year.

http://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/profit_margin

Is Apple paying it’s fair share of taxes?

From the NY Times April 28, 2012.

“How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes”

“Apple, the world’s most profitable technology company, doesn’t design iPhones here. It doesn’t run AppleCare customer service from this city. And it doesn’t manufacture MacBooks or iPads anywhere nearby.

Yet, with a handful of employees in a small office here in Reno, Apple has done something central to its corporate strategy: it has avoided millions of dollars in taxes in California and 20 other states.

Apple’s headquarters are in Cupertino, Calif. By putting an office in Reno, just 200 miles away, to collect and invest the company’s profits, Apple sidesteps state income taxes on some of those gains.

California’s corporate tax rate is 8.84 percent. Nevada’s? Zero.

Setting up an office in Reno is just one of many legal methods Apple uses to reduce its worldwide tax bill by billions of dollars each year. As it has in Nevada, Apple has created subsidiaries in low-tax places like Ireland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and the British Virgin Islands — some little more than a letterbox or an anonymous office — that help cut the taxes it pays around the world.”

“Without such tactics, Apple’s federal tax bill in the United States most likely would have been $2.4 billion higher last year, according to a recent study by a former Treasury Department economist, Martin A. Sullivan. As it stands, the company paid cash taxes of $3.3 billion around the world on its reported profits of $34.2 billion last year, a tax rate of 9.8 percent. (Apple does not disclose what portion of those payments was in the United States, or what portion is assigned to previous or future years.)

By comparison, Wal-Mart last year paid worldwide cash taxes of $5.9 billion on its booked profits of $24.4 billion, a tax rate of 24 percent, which is about average for non-tech companies.”

“Such lost revenue is one reason California now faces a budget crisis, with a shortfall of more than $9.2 billion in the coming fiscal year alone. The state has cut some health care programs, significantly raised tuition at state universities, cut services to the disabled and proposed a $4.8 billion reduction in spending on kindergarten and other grades.”

“Indeed, Apple’s decisions have yielded benefits. After announcing one of the best quarters in its history last week, the company said it had net profits of $24.7 billion on revenues of $85.5 billion in the first half of the fiscal year, and more than $110 billion in the bank, according to company filings.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html?pagewanted=all

Obama News April 30, 2012, Economics 101 companies do not pay taxes, Consumers pay in higher prices job cuts and reduced pay, US economy slowdown caused by Obama taxes and policies

Obama News April 30, 2012, Economics 101 companies do not pay taxes, Consumers pay in higher prices job cuts and reduced pay, US economy slowdown caused by Obama taxes and policies

“What do you think a stimulus is? It’s spending – that’s the whole point! Seriously.”…Barack Obama

“…and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them.”…Margaret Thatcher

“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″

Citizen Wells has been writing for some time about the impact of high gas prices and taxation on the economy. One of the most important ideas presented here is the fact that companies do not pay taxes, consumers do.

From Citizen Wells April 3, 2012.

“First, the corporate tax rate in the US is near or at the top in the world.

US oil companies pay enormous amounts of taxes. How does this compare to one of Obama’s pay to play buddies GE? Check this out for yourself.

Here is the really important point about raising taxes on oil companies and other companies.

Companies (corporations, LLC’s, partnerships, sole proprietors) do not pay taxes!

Consumers pay for the tax increases.

Taxes are part of the cost of doing business.

A tax increase to a company results in some combination of the following:

Product and service price increases.

Employee and hours cutbacks.

Reduced hiring.

Does any of this sound familiar?”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/obama-lies-on-oil-companies-taxes-profits-and-impact-on-consumers-obama-energy-policy-based-on-chicago-pay-to-play-politics-truth-team-notification/

Here is another example.

From McClatchy News April 27, 2012.

“Weak growth of U.S. economy in first quarter renews fears of stalled recovery”

“The U.S. economy’s weaker-than-expected growth in the first three months of this year renewed concerns Friday that the nation’s fragile recovery might stall. ”
“The real disappointment in Friday’s report was a drop in business fixed investment of 2.1 percent and in spending on business structures of a whopping 12 percent. Spending on equipment was up by only a weak 1.7 percent, which partly reflects the end of a tax break for business investment last year.”

““I think what it says is consumers are coming back a bit, but firms are still holding back. They don’t feel confident enough in the recovery to start adding to capacity” and expanding, said Bill Craighead, an economics professor at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn. Consumers appear to be making up for cautious spending in recent years, more confident that the worst is over, he suggested.

The same can’t be said for American businesses.

“Given corporate profits, you might have hoped for more investment growth,” Craighead said. The economy continues to “hit the snooze button. … It’s acceptable growth in the normal economy, but given how many people are unemployed it is disappointing.””

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/04/27/146970/us-economy-slows-to-22-percent.html

From McClatchy News April 23, 2012.

“U.S. economy faces likely slowdown, big year-end decisions”

“The U.S. economy is expected to slow later this year, dragged down by slowing global growth, rising anxiety about the elections and the specter of gridlock in Washington over urgent tax, spending and debt deadlines. The Bush-era tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 and the payroll tax cut of the past two years expire at year’s end, when last year’s debt deal also will force across-the-board cuts in federal spending unless Congress and the president strike new deals, but there’s no consensus on that.

A spate of recent indicators punctuated fears that the economy is stalling. March delivered only 120,000 new jobs, and the latest manufacturing and real estate data softened. Some economists say the economy’s strong six-month run through March might not be sustainable.

“If we’re right and growth was overstated in the first quarter and we see payback in the second and third quarters of this year, then it’s going to raise a lot of questions of just how much progress we’ve made over the past few years,” said Mark Vitner, a senior economist at Wells Fargo Securities in Charlotte, N.C.”

“Recent U.S. data have been discouraging for what remains the world’s largest economy.

In the two weeks after the April 6 release of the weak March employment numbers, first-time jobless claims rose. The Labor Department said last Thursday that the four-week average for unemployment claims stood at 374,750 _ the highest since January.

Additionally, the job placement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas reported earlier this month that employers announced 9.4 percent more layoffs in the first three months of this year than the same period last year. Last year’s numbers, however, were the smallest number of layoffs since 1995.

It all points to slower hiring.

“Were we on the verge of a breakout? I think the answer is no,” said Kevin Logan, the chief U.S. economist for the global bank HSBC.

Noting that the economy is adding jobs in a monthly range of 100,000 to 200,000, Logan expects hiring to bump along the bottom. “The next few months, we’ll fall back into this slower pattern,” he said, adding that several drivers of the U.S. economy remain impaired.

Chief among them is the moribund housing market, which remains mired in a foreclosure crisis. What little housing is moving in many major U.S. cities is foreclosure sales and short-sales, dragging down home prices and erasing the potential wealth of neighbors.”

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/04/23/v-print/146393/us-economy-faces-likely-slowdown.html

 

Breitbart coroner poisoned?, Micheal Cormier may have died from Arsenic Poisoning, Los Angeles County coroner office official, Possible foul play

Breitbart coroner poisoned?, Micheal Cormier may have died from Arsenic Poisoning, Los Angeles County coroner office official, Possible foul play

“Why was Christopher Kelly transported past 2 trauma facilities on the way to Stroger Hospital?”…Thomas R. Bennett

“Why did Donald Young, Bill Gwatney, Christopher Kelly, Andrew Breitbart and others with information about Obama all die under mysterious circumstances?”…Citizen Wells

From CBS Los Angeles April 27, 2012.

“LAPD: Coroner’s Official May Have Died From Arsenic Poisoning”

“An official with the Los Angeles County coroner’s office may have been poisoned with arsenic, police said Friday.

KNX 1070′s John Brooks reports investigators are taking a closer look at the death of 61-year-old Micheal Cormier.

Cormier, a respected autopsy and forensic technician who also was a photographer with the special operations response team, was rushed to St. Joseph’s Medical Center in Burbank from his North Hollywood home one week ago.
Hospital staff eventually advised police that there may be “suspicious circumstances” surrounding Cormier’s death, said LAPD Lt. Alan Hamilton.

“We have information that could potentially include foul play,” Hamilton said.

After Cormier’s body was back at the county morgue where he worked until last week, toxicology tests are being run to determine the cause of his death.

Police along with a hazardous materials team have also reportedly searched his home on Auckland Avenue.”

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/04/27/lapd-coroners-official-may-have-died-from-arsenic-poisoning/

Obama signature on Selective Service Registration fraud?, Debbie Schlussel first investigated document, Sheriff Joe Arpaio investigation, Video

Obama signature on Selective Service Registration fraud?, Debbie Schlussel first investigated document, Sheriff Joe Arpaio investigation, Video

“At this time, the current major issue is the Solomon Bill, the latest legislation from Congress to obtain compliance to registration. The law requires that
all male students applying for federal financial aid submit proof of registration, or else the government coffers will close. Yale, Wesleyan, and Swathmore
have refused to comply, and plan to offer non-registrants other forms of financial aid. SAM hopes to press Columbia into following suit, though so far
President Sovern and company seem prepared to acquiesce to the bill.”

“they may help deprive us of a spectacular experience – that of war. But then, there are some things we shouldn’t have to live through in order to want to avoid the experience.”…Barack Obama, Columbia University Sundial, March 10, 1983

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”…Thomas Paine

To the best of my knowledge, Debbie Schlussel was the first investigative journalist to question Obama’s Selective Service Registration. She deserves a lot of credit for doing so.

There is a new video out questioning the signature on the Selective Service form.

The following article was presented at Citizen Wells on November 14, 2008.

Yesterday, Thursday, November 13, 2008, Citizen Wells reported on a
breaking story from Debbie Schlussel of the debbieschlussel.com website. Debbie Schlussel revealed what are certainly irregularities on Barack Obama’s Selective Service Application as well as suspicious facts regarding accessing the record via a FOIA request. It was brought to my attention yesterday by a great commenter on this site, Lurker, that the signature on the Selective Service Application did not look like any others available for Obama (of course Obama has kept hidden many of his older records). Consider the following statement from Debbie Schluessel’s article and then compare the signatures below for yourself.
Perhaps a handwriting expert can evaluate them and provide an analysis.

“The Selective Service Data Mgt. Center Stonewalled for Almost a Year on Obama Registration, Until Right Before the Election.

The retired federal agent who FOIA’d Barack Obama’s Selective Service Registration Form notes:

Early this year, when I first started questioning whether Obama registered I was told:
Sir: There may be an error in his file or many other reasons why his registration cannot be confirmed on-line. However, I did confirm with our Data Management Center that he is, indeed, registered with the Selective Service System, in compliance with Federal law.
Sincerely,

Janice L. Hughes/SSS
Then, they suddenly found the record on September 9, 2008 (prior to my October 13, 2008 request), and stated that his record was filed on September 4, 1980. Did they temporarily change the date on the computer database?

On the previous FOIA response, they stated that it was filed on September 4, 1980. In my second request I mentioned that Obama could not have filed it in Hawaii on September 4, 1980 as he was attending Occidental College in California, the classes of which commenced August 24, 1980.”

Read the rest of the article here:

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_did_n.html

obamaselectiveserviceregist.jpg

bosignatures

October 28, 1998                           June 30, 2004                      Wikipedia

Obama signature on letter to professor Derrick Bell.
 

Obama campaign calls Romney Donors Less Than Reputable, Obama had criminal donors and associations, Tony Rezko, Lawyers and Law firms Obama biggest 2008 donors

Obama campaign calls Romney Donors Less Than Reputable, Obama had criminal donors and associations, Tony Rezko, Lawyers and Law firms Obama biggest 2008 donors

“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 has David Wilhelm supported and protected Obama?”…Citizen Wells

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

The Obama campaign has accused Mitt Romney donors as being less than reputable. Are they on drugs! Wait a minute, they are.

From ABC News April 20, 2012.

“Obama Campaign Flags ‘Less-Than-Reputable’ Romney Donors”

“President Obama’s re-election campaign is circulating a list of eight “wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records” who have donated to presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

“Quite a few have been on the wrong side of the law, others have made profits at the expense of so many Americans, and still others are donating to help ensure Romney puts beneficial policies in place for them,” the campaign said in a statement from its “Truth Team.”

Team Obama alleges four men, who have each given more than $100,000 to support Romney and an affiliated super PAC, have benefited from “betting against America” – specifically through outsourcing.

The list includes Paul Schorr, a partner at Blackstone Group, the nation’s largest private equity firm; investors Sam and Jeffrey Fox of the Harbour Group; and T. Martin Fiorentino, who has lobbied for Lender Processing Services, a firm that has been penalized by the government for its mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices.

The Obama campaign also suggests that contributions from a group of deep-pocket “special-interest donors” are aimed at pushing a specific agenda, specifically on behalf of the U.S. oil industry.

The campaign’s blog post names oil investor Louis Moore Bacon, oil refining company CEO Thomas O’Malley, registered oil industry lobbyist Kent Burton and businessman Frank Vandersloot as figures “donating to help ensure Romney puts beneficial policies in place for them.”

President Obama, unlike Romney, voluntarily discloses the names and contribution amounts of all his top volunteer fundraisers — “bundlers” — not just those who are registered lobbyists, as required by law. Obama also refuses donations from registered lobbyists or PACs.

But Obama has received support from hundreds of wealthy Americans – including some with less-than-reputable records of their own.

Former New Jersey Gov. and Obama bundler Jon Corzine has been under investigation for his role in the collapse of investment firm MF Global, where he was chairman and CEO and from which more than $1 billion disappeared.

The Obama campaign and Democratic National Committee later announced they would refund more than $70,000 in contributions from Corzine and his wife. Officials said they would examine on a case by case basis whether to refund some of the more than $430,000 in additional funds Corzine delivered to the campaign from other supporters.

In February, the Obama campaign refunded more than $200,000 from Carlos and Alberto Cardona after the New York Times reported the brothers’ ties to a Mexican casino magnate and fugitive from the U.S. who had sought a presidential pardon.

Earlier this month, another major Obama donor, Abake Assongba, made headlines for a civil lawsuit alleging that she stole $650,000 in an email scam to help build a multimillion-dollar home. Assongba has bundled more than $50,000 for the campaign.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/obama-campaign-flags-less-than-reputable-romney-donors/

What about Tony Rezko?

Obama not only had numerous contributions from crime and corruption figures,    he had long time associations with them and was complicit in some of the corruption.

“President Obama, unlike Romney, voluntarily discloses the names and contribution amounts of all his top volunteer fundraisers — “bundlers” — not just those who are registered lobbyists, as required by law.”

Excuse me!

FEC audit reveals Obama for America failed to file notice of nearly 2 million dollars in contributions in 2008.

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/fec-audit-reveals-obama-for-america-failed-to-file-notice-of-nearly-2-million-dollars-in-contributions-in-2008-1312-contributions-prohibited-sources/

Check out the number 1 contribution industry to Obama in 2008.

This is another reason you will never see tort reform as part of health care reform from a Obama regime.

Natural Born Citizen must be defined by courts, US District Judge S. Thomas Anderson, Obama eligibility case, Qualification for presidency important not trivial

Natural Born Citizen must be defined by courts, US District Judge S. Thomas Anderson, Obama eligibility case, Qualification for presidency important not trivial

“Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”

“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”…Chief Justice Marshall opinion, Marbury Vs Madison

“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

From WND April 26, 2012.

“JUDGE WANTS DEFINITION OF ‘NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'”

“A federal judge has determined in a case challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility for a state ballot that the meaning of the constitutional phrase “natural born citizen” is “important and not trivial.”

U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson of Tennessee said the courts ultimately must define “natural born citizen,” affirming that the “issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the presidency is certainly substantial.”

“This specific question has been raised in numerous lawsuits filed since President Obama took office,” Anderson wrote in his opinion. “The outcome of the federal question in this case will certainly have an effect on other cases presenting the same issue about whether President Obama meets the constitutional qualifications for the presidency.”

Van Irion, whose Liberty Legal Foundation brought the case, alleges the plan by Tennessee Democrats to register Obama as their nominee for president opens a case, under state law, of negligent misrepresentation and fraud or intentional misrepresentation because of doubts about Obama’s eligibility.

Irion was pleased the court recognized the significance of the claims.

“The court made several very positive statements about our case,” he noted.

He cited Anderson’s statement that the court “finds that the federal question presented, the meaning of the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ as a qualification for the presidency set out in Article II of the Constitution, is important and not trivial.”

“It is clear that the stated federal issue of President Obama’s qualifications for the office are ‘actually disputed and substantial,” the judge said.

Anderson said it also is “clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor.”

Irion told supporters, “While it is certainly dangerous to read too much into such an opinion, the statements from this federal court are encouraging. The court appears to understand the most critical issues presented by our complaint.”

He told WND that the issue identified by Anderson is what virtually all of the dozens of cases challenging Obama’s eligibility have been seeking: a ruling on accusations that Obama is unqualified.

Previously, cases have been dismissed based on standing or other technicalities, not on the merits.

The decision from Anderson came in a case brought by Irion on behalf of voters and political candidates in Tennessee. The plaintiffs argue Obama’s name cannot be submitted because he is ineligible.

The defendants had moved the case from state court, where Irion wanted to argue the state issues, to federal court, where Obama virtually has batted a thousand in preventing cases from reaching the point at which the merits are assessed.

Irion had submitted a motion to have the case returned to the state courts, a request Anderson denied.

But Irion was heartened by the comments from the judge, who said that without a determination on the questions facing the court, there easily could be differing results in court jurisdictions around the nation.

“There is a risk of inconsistent adjudications on the federal issue presented,” the judge said.

Irion also had raised questions about “Obama’s dual citizenship” and allegations that his Social Security number is fraudulent.

“The court construes these allegations about President Obama … as corroboration of plaintiffs’ main allegation that President Obama is not a natural born citizen or otherwise qualified to be president,” the judge wrote.

Anderson’s opinion included a notation that the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett defined “natural born citizen” as “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.”

“It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of president Obama’s birth, the president is a ‘natural born citizen,’ a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law,” he wrote.

The case is developing just as a new petition urges members of Congress to take the issue seriously by investigating it. The number of names on the document has surged past 40,000 and soon will be approaching 50,000.

WND reported just a day ago that members of Congress, regarding Obama’s eligibility, still are relying on statements from Hawaii officials, “vetting” by voters and his own word.

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio., for example has said. “I will continue to take the president at his word that he is a natural born citizen of the United States.”

Obama released an image of a Hawaiian long-form birth certificate on April 27, 2011, after years of stating that the document was not available. But at that time, the Hawaii Department of Health and governor’s office refused to confirm for WND that the image released was an accurate representation of the state’s records.

However, Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s law enforcement investigators have found probable cause that the document is a forgery. Others, meanwhile, argue that the document affirms Obama is not eligible, because it lists his father as a foreigner. The Founders, they argue, understood “natural born citizen” to be the offspring of two American citizens.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/judge-wants-definition-of-natural-born-citizen/

More on Natural Born Citizen from Citizen Wells December 28, 2008.

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/natural-born-citizen-obama-is-not-eligible-obama-birth-certificate-us-constitution-founding-fathers-intent-lawsuits-obama-kenyan-vattel%E2%80%99s-the-law-of-nations-john-jay-berg-donofrio-k/

Reprinted from Citizen Wells December 7, 2008.

Donofrio versus Wells is before all nine Justices of the US Supreme Court
and it is expected that they will decide by Monday morning, December 8,
2008 whether or not they will accept the case for a possible opinion or ruling.
The Leo Donofrio case is based on the natural born citizen provision of the
US Constitution and the failure of New Jersey Secretary of State, Nina Wells to ensure
that Barack Obama is qualified under that provision. Having the US Supreme
Court give serious consideration to this case and uphold the US Constitution
is of utmost importance. However, this case demands attention to other
aspects of upholding the Constitution and clarifying duties that may in the
long term have more far reaching consequences. Here are three distinct
aspects of the Donofrio case that must be addressed and clarified by the
US Supreme Court Justices:

  • The Natural Born Citizen provision of the US Constitution as applicable to the 2008 election.
  • The powers given to state officials in the election process and inherent duties to uphold the
    US Constitution and Federal Election Laws.
  • The oath of office taken by federal and state officers, election officials and judges and the
    duty to uphold the US Constitution.

Not addressed specifically in the Donofrio lawsuit and therefore
not before the US Supreme Court, but a matter of much confusion,
is the statutes in some of the states and pledges by some
political parties to dictate how Electoral College Electors must
vote. This violates the letter and spirit of constitutional law
and the intent of the founding fathers to give carefully chosen
Electors the leeway to make wise choices.

Here is the basis in fact of Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit:

“On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being “natural born citizens” as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution.”

“The cause of action first accrued on September 22, 2008, when Secretary Wells certified to county clerks, for ballot preparation, a written “statement”, prepared under her seal of office, that was required by statute to contain names of only those candidates who were “by law entitled” to be listed on ballots in New Jersey.  The statement is demanded by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22.

The law suit raises a novel contention that the statutory code undergoes legal fusion with the Secretary’s oath of office to uphold the US Constitution thereby creating a minimum standard of review based upon the “natural born citizen” requirement of Article 2, Section 1, and that the Supremacy clause of the Constitution would demand those requirements be resolved prior to the election.

The key fact, not challenged below, surrounds two conversations between the plaintiff-appellant and a key Secretary of State Election Division official wherein the official admitted, twice, that the defendant-Secretary just assumed the candidates were eligible taking no further action to actually verify that they were, in fact, eligible to the office of President.  These conversations took place on October 22nd and 23rd.”

“Now, post-election, plaintiff is seeking review by the United States Supreme Court to finally determine the “natural born citizen” issue. Plaintiff alleged the Secretary has a legal duty to make certain the candidates pass the “natural born citizen” test.  The pre-election suit requested that New Jersey ballots be stayed as they were defective requiring replacements to feature only the names of candidates who were truly eligible to the office of President.”

HERE ARE THE THREE DISTINCT ASPECTS OF DONOFRIO’S LAWSUIT THAT SHOULD BE REVIEWED AND CLARIFIED
BY THE US SUPREME COURT JUSTICES:

The Natural Born Citizen provision of the US Constitution as applicable to the 2008 election.

Leo Donofrio states:

“Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.”

Read more from Leo Donofrio

The powers given to state officials in the election process and inherent duties to uphold the
US Constitution and Federal Election Laws.

There is much confusion and misunderstanding about the duties and powers of state officers and election
officials involved in presidential elections.

Read more here

The oath of office taken by federal and state officers, election officials and judges and the
duty to uphold the US Constitution.

From the opinion by Chief Justice Marshall on Marbury Vs Madison:


“The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on the subject. It is in these words, “I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States.”

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

For the Justices of the US Supreme Court to disregard this important
lawsuit by Leo Donofrio, I am certain that all nine Justices would
violate their oath to uphold the US Constitution and duty to review,
consider and clarify the important principles outlined above. We are
accountable not only to uphold  the US Constitution and rule of law
in regard to the 2008 election, but the future integrity of the
Constitution, our system of checks and balances and stability of our
government. I strongly urge the Supreme Court Justices to help keep
our Constitution and government intact.
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”

Chief Justice Marshall opinion, Marbury Vs Madison