Monthly Archives: February 2016

Blagojevich US Supreme Court appeal opposition brief filed by Solicitor General, Donald B. Verrilli Jr. former Obama Deputy Counsel, Brief filed Feb 19 but does not show up on site, Fox guarding the hen house

Blagojevich US Supreme Court appeal opposition brief filed by Solicitor General, Donald B. Verrilli Jr. former Obama Deputy Counsel, Brief filed Feb 19 but does not show up on site, Fox guarding the hen house

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

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

 

More mysterious goin ons in the Rod Blagojevich prosecution and incarceration.

I don’t expect efficiency or accountability from government.

I see it on the local and national level.

If you follow Citizen Wells, you know that we follow closely the Blagojevich cases.

Friday, February 19, 2016 was the extended deadline for a response.

There was none listed on Friday or over the weekend.

Just checked this morning and found:

No. 15-664
Title:
Rod Blagojevich, Petitioner
v.
United States
Docketed: November 19, 2015
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  Case Nos.: (11-3853)
  Decision Date: July 21, 2015
  Rehearing Denied: August 19, 2015

 

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 17 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 21, 2015)
Dec 16 2015 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 20, 2016.
Dec 21 2015 Brief amici curiae of Current and Former Elected Officials, et al. filed.
Jan 7 2016 Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including February 19, 2016.
Feb 19 2016 Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.

The brief is no where to be found.

http://www.justice.gov/osg/supreme-court-briefs

By the way, the US Solicitor General is Donald B. Verrilli Jr. former Obama Deputy Counsel.

Think that might be a problem?

The fox guarding the hen house.

Ted Cruz Vermont eligibility lawsuit update, February 19, 2016, Plaintiff H. Brooke Paige, Cruz not natural born citizen, Cruz born in Canada in 1970, Canadian Citizenship Act of 1976 Cruz born a Canadian Citizen AND a British Subject

Ted Cruz Vermont eligibility lawsuit update, February 19, 2016, Plaintiff H. Brooke Paige, Cruz not natural born citizen, Cruz born in Canada in 1970, Canadian Citizenship Act of 1976 Cruz born a Canadian Citizen AND a British Subject

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

 

 

Just in from Mr. H. Brooke Paige, plaintiff in the Vermont Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio eligibility challenge:

“UPDATE – Paige v. State of Vermont, et al (Secretary of State, Jim Condos,
Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz and Marco Antonio Rubio)

Citizen Wells,

February 18, 2016 – All parties, the Vermont State Defendants, Cruz and
Rubio,  have responded each   with their own Motions to Dismiss, the first
effort of a disingenuous and desperate lawyer who wants to shield his
client from having to face the music.

It is exciting to have defendants who, because of their divergent
political leanings refuse to cooperate in developing a unified strategy to
extinguish the humble, tenacious plaintiff. Unfortunately, the attorneys
for Rubio and Cruz seem amazingly unfamiliar with the “natural born
citizen(ship)” subject matter – regurgitating the tripe and drivel
regularly posted on “obot” websites; while Daloz, the state’s Asst. A/G,
appears to be doing a “cut and paste” job from his 2012 effort. Truly sad
to see such vacuous “work product” for these high priced “Blackstone
Lawyers.” (Thomas Jefferson complained that “many a law student finds
Blackstone’s writings – a smattering of everything, and his indolence
easily persuades him that if he understands Blackstone , he is a master of
the whole body of law.”)

I have filed separate Opposition Briefs for each of the defendants’
Motions to Dismiss as each develops a differing approach to defend their
favorites particular “flavor” of natural born citizenship.

•       Vermont Assistant Attorney General Todd Daloz offering “born in country
with at least one citizen parent” to defend the democratic darling, Mr.
Obama.

•       “K’ Street Mouthpiece (D.C.) Brady Toensing, representing Rubio, arguing
that “native birth” (14th Amendment citizenship) alone is sufficient to
qualify his “son of Cuban parents” to serve as President.

•       Lastly, Gregory D. Cote, Esq., the Beantown Lawyer (“Redacted”) makes a
valiant attempt to convince anyone who will give him “the time of day”
that his Canadian Citizen client, Cruz,   is somehow more than merely a
“citizen of the United States” a condition granted to him by Congress, not
by his birth circumstances alone the condition necessary to be a Natural
born citizen (i.e. born in country to two citizen parents – Vattel, 1758).

Further it has come to light that since Cruz was born in Canada in 1970,
prior to the Canadian “Citizenship Act of 1976,” he was born a “Canadian
Citizen AND a “British Subject”  having “the right of abode” whereby he
could moved to the “British Isles” and gotten a job and taken up permanent
residence without needing to take any further action .
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/cit/overview/hist.asp

The Vermont Primary Election is held on Town Meeting Day, March  1st, and,
since the defendants have argued that the issues are not “ripe” until the
passing of the election,  our next move will be to ask the court to
prevent the Secretary of State from releasing the results of that election
until the court determines the qualification of candidates Cruz and Rubio
AND  whether their names appearing on the ballot has cause damage to the
other candidates, sufficient to alter the results of the election.”

Ted Cruz Illinois court eligibility appeal, Lawrence Joyce plaintiff, Cruz not natural born citizen, Judge Maureen Ward Kirby will hear arguments at Circuit Court of Cook County in Chicago, Cruz born in Canada

Ted Cruz Illinois court eligibility appeal, Lawrence Joyce plaintiff, Cruz not natural born citizen, Judge Maureen Ward Kirby will hear arguments at Circuit Court of Cook County in Chicago, Cruz born in Canada

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

 

 

From New York Magazine February 18, 2016.

“Lawsuit Over Ted Cruz’s Eligibility to Run for President Heads to Court”

“During Wednesday night’s CNN town hall, Ted Cruz dismissed the latest legal threat from Donald Trump, assuring a voter that he’s definitely eligible to run for president. “Under the law the question is clear,” he said. “There will still be some who try to work political mischief on it, but as a legal matter this is clear and straightforward.” Unlike Cruz’s right to air old footage of Trump on Meet the Press in a campaign ad, the issue raised by Cruz’s birth in Canada to an American mother actually isn’t settled — but now it looks like we may finally get an answer. CNN reports that an Illinois judge has agreed to hear arguments in a lawsuit challenging Cruz’s eligibility on Friday.

The lawsuit in question actually has nothing to do with Trump (though, it’s unlikely we’d be debating the obscure legal arguments over whether Cruz is a “natural born citizen” if it weren’t for the ex–reality star). Suburban lawyer Lawrence Joyce initially filed an objection to Cruz’s placement on the primary ballot with the Illinois Board of Elections, but it was dismissed earlier this month. Now the Circuit Court of Cook County in Chicago has agreed to hear the case.

Legal challenges over Cruz’s eligibility have been filed in at least three states. Joyce seems primarily concerned about the political fallout from the questions surrounding Cruz’s candidacy, rather than the possibility of a secret Canadian infiltrating the U.S. government. He told Chicago’s WLS that he’s concerned about what would happen if the challenge came from a Democrat in the fall after Cruz secured the GOP nomination. “At that point, all of his fundraising would dry up. And his support in the polls would drop dramatically. He may be forced at that point to resign the nomination,” he said.”

Read more:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/ted-cruz-eligibility-case-heads-to-court.html

Scalia dead with pillow over head, No autopsy, Blagojevich appeal before conference Feb 19, Ted Cruz eligibility ruling likely which affects Obama, Obama has been eager to appoint SCOTUS justice, Strongest constitutional justice gone, Reason for conspiracy theories?

Scalia dead with pillow over head, No autopsy, Blagojevich appeal before conference Feb 19, Ted Cruz eligibility ruling likely which affects Obama, Obama has been eager to appoint SCOTUS justice, Strongest constitutional justice gone, Reason for conspiracy theories?

“We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bed clothes were unwrinkled,”…John Poindexter, owner of ranch

“Who benefited most from the suicide/murder of Orlando Jones?
Who benefited most from the murder of Donald Young?
Who benefited most from the murder of Lt. Quarles Harris Jr.?
Who benefited most from the suicide/murder of Christopher Kelly?
Who benefited most from the murder of Bill Gwatney?
Who benefited most from the death/murder of Andrew Breitbart?
And now
Loretta Fuddy?”…Citizen Wells

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

 

Justice Scalia was found dead with a pillow over his head.

There was no autopsy.

This Friday, February 19, 2016, the Blagojevich appeal is scheduled for conference.

The US Supreme Court will likely be called on to rule on Ted Cruz’s eligibility as a natural born citizen. This of course affects Obama too.

The SCOTUS justice with the strongest record of adhering to the US Constitution is gone.

Obama has been eager to appoint another liberal justice to add to his left wing legacy.

Any reason for conspiracy theories?

Nah.

Read more about how Justice Scalia was found here:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Texas-ranch-owner-recalls-Scalia-s-last-hours-6830372.php

Read more about the Blagojevich appeal and associated Amicus Brief:

https://citizenwells.com/2016/02/15/justice-scalia-blagojevich-obama-blagojevich-appeal-response-due-by-february-19-in-us-supreme-court-no-scalia-to-respond-has-protecting-obama-reached-a-new-high/

Justice Scalia Blagojevich Obama, Blagojevich appeal response due by February 19 in US Supreme Court, No Scalia to respond, Has protecting Obama reached a new high?

Justice Scalia Blagojevich Obama, Blagojevich appeal response due by February 19 in US Supreme Court, No Scalia to respond, Has protecting Obama reached a new high?

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

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

 

As reported at Citizen Wells, a response from the US Supreme Court on the Rod Blagojevich appeal is due February 19, 2016.

“The US Supreme Court website reveals the following status of the Rod Blagojevich appeal:

No. 15-664
Title:
Rod Blagojevich, Petitioner
v.
United States
Docketed: November 19, 2015
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  Case Nos.: (11-3853)
  Decision Date: July 21, 2015
  Rehearing Denied: August 19, 2015

 

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 17 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 21, 2015)
Dec 16 2015 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 20, 2016.
Dec 21 2015 Brief amici curiae of Current and Former Elected Officials, et al. filed.
Jan 7 2016 Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including February 19, 2016.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15-664.htm

An amicus brief was filed on December 21, 2015 by attorney Alan R. Friedman on behalf of Current and Former Elected Officials, et al.”

“From the brief:

“Summary of Argument

Amici urge the Court to grant the writ on the first
question presented by Petitioner in order to address an
issue of national importance. Although amici take no
position on Mr. Blagojevich’s innocence or guilt on any
of the counts of conviction, they submit that this Court’s
guidance is needed to distinguish the lawful solicitation of
campaign contributions from criminal violations of federal
extortion, bribery, and fraud laws.”

https://citizenwells.com/2016/01/18/blagojevich-amicus-brief-urges-supreme-court-to-hear-case-blagojevich-scotus-appeal-update-january-18-2016-time-to-file-response-to-petition-extended-twice-brief-amici-curiae-of-current-and-former/

A Justice Scalia position in 1998 affected the Blagojevich trial.

From the American Spectator.
“BLAGOJEVICH AND SCALIA”

“A federal jury convicted Governor Rod Blagojevich yesterday of one single count, remaining undecided on the other 23. And for that one guilty charge, we can thank Justice Scalia.

No, Justice Scalia had nothing to do with the Blagojevich case. But in a way, he had everything to do with it.

Governor Blagojevich was convicted of making false statements to federal agents. He told the FBI that he did not track campaign contributions and kept a “firewall” between his campaign and his official duties as Governor. In other words, federal agents asked him if he broke the law — and just like any child who is caught with his hand in the cookie jar — he said “no.”

Before 1998, this decision might have been different. Until then, federal courts routinely excused people for what they called the “exculpatory no.” If a federal agent came to your house and asked if you did something illegal, and you said “no,” you were off the hook for making false statements.”

“Brogan argued that a defendant had to be excused for his denial to federal agents because the spirit of the Fifth Amendment would be violated when someone is “cornered” and given a “cruel trilemma”: tell the truth (and admit guilt), remain silent, or lie (and falsely deny guilt).

Scalia snapped back, saying lying is not an option. An innocent person, after all, would not face the same trilemma. The innocent person only has two options: tell the truth or remain silent.”

Read more:

http://spectator.org/articles/39072/blagojevich-and-scalia

From the Washington Post December 7, 2009.

“Supreme Court to take up corruption law”

“At issue is the law’s language that it is illegal for public or private employees to “deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” The flexible standard has been part of the law for more than 20 years, but lately it has been subject to a slew of contradictory lower-court rulings and criticism, not the least of which has come from Justice Antonin Scalia.

Last term, in dissenting from his colleagues’ decision not to review the law, Scalia said the provision “invites abuse by headline-grabbing prosecutors in pursuit of local officials, state legislators and corporate C.E.O.’s who engage in any manner of unappealing or ethically questionable conduct.”

He said the assertion that “officeholders and employees owe a duty to act only in the best interests of their constituents and employers” was so loose it could be construed to “cover a salaried employee’s phoning in sick to go to a ballgame.”

Apparently, the court took Scalia’s alert to heart, accepting appeals for two high-profile convictions in the corporate world and the case of an obscure Alaska lawmaker.”

Read more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/06/AR2009120602390.html

And now we have a decision affecting the prison sentence of Blagojevich and ultimately Obama, and no Justice Scalia to speak up.

What a curious time for Justice Scalia to die of “natural causes.”

NH voters cast vote for ineligible candidate Cruz?, New Hampshire ballot commission rejected efforts to remove Ted Cruz, Law of eligibility murky, Neither US Supreme Court nor any authority has explicitly ruled on natural born citizen

NH voters cast vote for ineligible candidate Cruz?, New Hampshire ballot commission rejected efforts to remove Ted Cruz, Law of eligibility murky, Neither US Supreme Court nor any authority has explicitly ruled on natural born citizen

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

 

 

Two state ballot entities recently ruled on Ted Cruz remaining on their ballots.

The Illinois state board of elections ruled that Ted Cruz is eligible as a natural born citizen.  IL is consistently listed as one of the most corrupt states in the US and the home of Obama, another non natural born citizen.

No surprise.

The New Hampshire ballot commission took a more honest approach.

“If there is a clear ruling on some issues that somebody clearly doesn’t meet, we would apply it. If there is a constitutional uncertainty about the meaning of something – which from my research and from all the stuff that was thrown at us at the commission there certainly is about the natural born citizen thing — we don’t undertake to make that decision,”

I was disappointed to find what I consider to be the most inaccurate article I have uncovered at American Thinker, February 5, 2016.

“Illinois and New Hampshire Agree Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen”

“Trump persists that Cruz’s citizenship is still an open question. It is not, and the election boards of two states, New Hampshire and Illinois, have now ruled, in response to complaints, that Sen. Ted Cruz is indeed, under the laws and Constitution of the United States, a “natural born citizen” fully eligible to be President of the United States. As the Washington Examiner reported:”

“A ballot commission in New Hampshire also ruled in favor of Cruz in January, but the language in Monday’s decision by the Illinois board took a stronger tone than the previous ruling, warning other skeptics, “Further discussion on this issue is unnecessary.””

“Indeed, it is unnecessary. The question of Cruz’s citizenship has been asked and answered. Is Trump saying that a baby born in Paris to a vacationing American family is not eligible to run for president and must be “naturalized” like some illegal alien from Guadalajara?

Some noted legal scholars would beg to differ from Trump’s concern that Cruz is not in fact a “natural born” citizen.

Jonathan Adler, who teaches courses in constitutional, administrative, and environmental law at Case Western University School of Law, writes in the Washington Post:

Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His mother was a U.S. citizen. His father, a Cuban, was not. Under U.S. law, the fact that Cruz was born to a U.S. citizen mother makes him a citizen from birth. In other words, he is a “natural born citizen” (as opposed to a naturalized citizen) and is constitutionally eligible.”

“Also agreeing with Cruz’s eligibility are two constitutional scholars who have argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Washington Post reported:

Writing in the Harvard Law Review, two former top Supreme Court litigators, Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, said: “All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.”

“Now two state boards of election have certified Cruz’s eligibility, which is beyond dispute, no matter how much Trump whines, pouts, and throws out groundless accusations.”

Read more:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/illinois_and_new_hampshire_agree_cruz_is_a_natural_born_citizen.html

Aside from being wrong on the definition of natural born citizen, this article is blatantly inaccurate:

New Hampshire did not rule that Cruz is a natural born citizen.

It omitted the opinion of constitutional expert Laurence Tribe of Harvard:

“Cruz says this is all settled law, but Harvard’s Laurence Tribe disagrees.

“It clearly is not settled law,” Tribe said in recent an interview.”

“That’s because Tribe says Cruz is a constitutional “originalist,” who believes the document should be followed to the letter. Tribe says jurists who share such a view might well conclude that Cruz is not eligible to be president — because he was not born in America.

According to Tribe, this shows that Cruz is trying to have it both ways.”

http://www.wbur.org/2016/01/15/donald-trump-ted-cruz-laurence-tribe-citizenship

From The Dallas Morning News November 24, 2015.

“The New Hampshire ballot commission today rejected efforts to kick Canada-born Sen. Ted Cruz off the primary ballot based on his birth outside the United States.

That clears a key legal and political obstacle as the Texas Republican seeks the GOP nomination for president. But it’s not a clear win on the question of eligibility.

Rather, the panel found that with the law of eligibility so murky, it can’t second-guess the senator’s own claims that he passes constitutional muster. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any other authority has explicitly ruled that someone like Cruz — born on foreign soil, with one American parent – can or cannot be president.

“It would be really nice if somebody would get this issue of law decided who has authority to decide constitutional issues, so every four years we don’t have this come up again,” said Manchester attorney Brad Cook, a Republican who chairs the 5-member New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission.”

Read more:

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/11/regardless-of-canadian-birth-ted-cruz-survives-ballot-challenge-in-new-hampshire.html/

AMERICAN THINKER OWES THE PUBLIC AN APOLOGY.

Obama White House media boast 4.9 percent unemployment rate, Record job growth? not if you are white, White labor force participation dropped 3.2 % under Obama, White Civilian noninstitutional population dropped 1.5 million Hispanic rose almost 8 million

Obama White House media boast 4.9 percent unemployment rate, Record job growth? not if you are white, White labor force participation dropped 3.2 % under Obama, White Civilian noninstitutional population dropped 1.5 million Hispanic rose almost 8 million

“In December 2014 there were 18 million immigrants (legal and illegal) living in the country who had arrived since January 2000. But job growth over this period was just 9.3 million — half of new immigration.”…Center for Immigration Studies February 2015

“There’s no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.”…Gallup CEO Jim Clifton 

“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”

 

 

Citizen Wells began warning you in 2008. The signs were all around. Obama and the Obama camp were spewing lies, Orwellian lies and the masses were entranced, captivated, brainwashed.

Obama’s promises of jobs, improved and cheaper healthcare, all lies.

And the lies continue and the Obama Ministry of Truth, the mainstream media keeps helping him.

From WhiteHouse.gov, aka Big Brother, February 5, 2016.

“Summary:
In January, the unemployment rate fell below 5 percent for the first time in eight years as the longest streak of private-sector job growth on record continued.”

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/02/05/employment-situation-january

From Obama, the liar in chief, February 5, 2016.

“THE PRESIDENT:  TGIF, everybody.  I wanted to stop by, because as you’re aware by now, America’s businesses created another 158,000 jobs last month.  After reaching 10 percent in 2009, the unemployment rate has now fallen to 4.9 percent — even as more Americans joined the job market last month.  So this is the first time that the unemployment rate has dipped below 5 percent in almost eight years.  Americans are working.

All told, over the past six years, our businesses have added 14 million new jobs.  Seventy-one straight months of private-sector job growth extends the longest streak on record.  Over the past two years, 2014 and 2015, our businesses added more jobs than any time since the 1990s.”

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/05/statement-president-economy

NOT IF YOU ARE A WHITE AMERICAN!

From the US Labor Dept.:

From January 2009 to January 2016.

Civilian noninstitutional population (potential employees)

White:  1,459,000 decrease.

Hispanic:   7,798,000  increase.

Labor force participation rate

White: 3.2 % decrease.

Hispanic: 2.1 % decrease.

Employed

White:  2,166,000 increase.

Hispanic: 5,099,000  increase.

Not in labor force

White: 8,873,000 increase.

Hispanic: 3,361,000 increase.

Square these numbers with what Obama, the White House and the mainstream media are telling you.

Now you can understand why over 30 percent of millennials live with family members and hunger is rampant in this country.

 

Unemployment rate drop coincides with white American labor force plummet, 6 million gain under Bush, 1.5 million drop under Obama, Why is media hiding this US Labor Dept. fact?, Protecting Obama continues

Unemployment rate drop coincides with white American labor force plummet, 6 million gain under Bush, 1.5 million drop under Obama, Why is media hiding this US Labor Dept. fact?, Protecting Obama continues

“In December 2014 there were 18 million immigrants (legal and illegal) living in the country who had arrived since January 2000. But job growth over this period was just 9.3 million — half of new immigration.”…Center for Immigration Studies February 2015

“There’s no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.”…Gallup CEO Jim Clifton 

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

Don’t take my word for it, go straight to the US Labor Dept. website and look for yourself.

Why haven’t you heard this?

The mainstream media is still protecting Obama and the Democrat presidential candidates.

So, the unemployment rate is 4.9% ???

Here is one of the reasons why.

The White American labor force plummeted 1.5 million under Obama.

Under George Bush, the White American labor force rose 6 million.

There has been the expected net growth in White Americans of employment age, millions.

But they are not getting jobs.

A high percentage of the over 30 % of millennials living with family members are white.

Donald Trump, you should be shouting this from the rooftops.

From Citizen Wells September 4, 2015.

Regardless of the unemployment rate and jobs data provided by the US Labor Department this morning, September 4, 2015, the real employment situation can also be found in their data.

White employment.

WhiteEmployment

Hispanic employment.

HispanicEmployment

I found this article by Business Insider from February 10, 2011.

“No One Looking At This Chart Could Possibly Call It A Recovery”

“Currently the problem in the US jobs market mainly lies with, what I call, the maintenance rate. This is the minimum monthly job creation rate that our enormous system–our economy and government with its revenues and liabilities–must have in order to maintain itself as population grows. Getting lost in the weeds, therefore, of monthly unemployment rates is a waste of time. After having lost 8+ million jobs from the top of the last expansion, nitpicking one’s way through the additions, revisions, and changes to the presumed size of the work force misses the point. And that’s this: any month in which the US does not create at least 125,000 jobs, from a systemic point of view, is negative. It’s less than zero.”

“Now you know why annual government budgets have blown out into the the trillions: the economic flows normally provided by a functioning economy are now provided through unemployment checks, food stamps, FDR style spending and other distributions. In short, the “economy” cannot be experiencing a recovery when, after 10 years of population growth and growth in future liabilities, the number of people employed is hovering around levels last seen in 2002-2004. Whether you chose to look at just Non-Farm Employment, or Total Employment, the US Labor Market is essentially flat-lining since a deep trough was reached in late 2009, early 2010.

Those who would make sweeping claims about a recovery in the entire economy should place these two charts shown here in their printed columns, along with the fact that the US population has grown by over 25 million people since the year 2000.”

https://citizenwells.com/2015/09/04/us-labor-dept-employment-charts-reveal-no-jobs-recovery-for-native-born-americans-september-4-2015-low-wage-part-time-jobs-going-to-immigrants-business-insider-warning-from-2011-economic-flows-p/

Illinois Cruz ballot challenge dismissal not court ruling, Citizen not equal or equivalent to natural born citizen, Citizen only worked in 1789 when constitution adopted, Citizen Wells rectifies Rush Limbaugh statements, Graham update

Illinois Cruz ballot challenge dismissal not court ruling, Citizen not equal or equivalent to natural born citizen, Citizen only worked in 1789 when constitution adopted, Citizen Wells rectifies Rush Limbaugh statements, Graham update

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

 

 

***  Update February 4, 2016 at 1:45 PM  See Below  ***

I caught part of the Rush Limbaugh show yesterday and then went to the transcripts.

I thought that I heard Rush mumble something derogatory about the Cruz ballot challenge in Illinois and challenges to Cruz’s eligibility as a natural born citizen.

From Rush Limbaugh February 3, 2016.

Illinois Election Board Declares Cruz Eligible to Run

RUSH: It was, by the way, the Illinois Board of Elections that has declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen.  “The state’s [Board of Elections] ruled that Cruz met the citizenship criteria to appear on the state’s primary ballot.  Two state residents, William Graham and Lawrence Joyce, challenged Cruz’s eligibility with the board, claiming his name should not appear on the March 15 primary ballot because his candidacy did not comply with Article II of the US Constitution.” The Board of Elections in Illinois told those two guys to pound sand. ”

Read more:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/02/03/quick_hits_page

Rush links to a Hotair article which quotes the Washington Examiner.

“Ruling: Ted Cruz is a ‘natural born citizen'”

“Texas Sen. Ted Cruz secured two major victories Monday, winning the Republican Iowa caucuses and also receiving a favorable decision from the Illinois Board of Elections, which confirmed his U.S. citizenship met the state’s primary ballot requirements.”

“Two Illinois objectors, Lawrence Joyce and Williams Graham, also agreed that Cruz’s citizenship did not meet guidelines in the Article II of the Constitution. But the board of elections disagreed and cleared Cruz’s name for the March 15 primary.

“The Candidate is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth,” the board said, explaining Cruz met the criteria because he “did not have to take any steps or go through a naturalization process at some point after birth.””

“A ballot commission in New Hampshire also ruled in favor of Cruz in January, but the language in Monday’s decision by the Illinois board took a stronger tone than the previous ruling, warning other skeptics, “Further discussion on this issue is unnecessary.”

Joyce told the Huffington Post Tuesday that he does not plan to appeal the board’s decision.”

Read more:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ruling-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/article/2582259

Did the folks in Illinois go to Harvard too?

There is only one time in the history of the US that one could be president as just a citizen. 1789, the adoption of the US Constitution.

“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 . . . .”

A US citizen is not equal to or equivalent to a natural born citizen.

The US Constitution eligibility clause has not been amended.

Provisions in US law to clarify citizenship do not alter the meaning of NBC.

Period!

From Bill Graham February 3, 2016 4:13 PM

“Graham v. Cruz, Graham v. Rubio. Was advised by an experienced IL election lawyer that an appeal by Monday would be logistically difficult and expensive. In the case of these objections, partly overruled because they were inconsistent with regulation, reversal of the Board’s decision would be very unlikely. Within Illinois politics, few individuals will make the career-ending risk to resist what we call the ‘Combine’.

This effort has been worthwhile as the qualification of natural born citizen has been raised on many major news sites and has increased voter awareness. Even Mr. Trump mentioned the IL challenge. It is unfortunate that so many discard the Constitution of our Founders, but the battle will continue and those who defend the Constitution will prevail. Please consider discussing this issue openly with family and friends. Voters can reject Presidential candidates who are not qualified and who lie about their status, such as Cruz and Rubio.

‘Natural born citizen’ was intended by the founders to mean born in the America of citizen parents; no law or regulation is required to endow or rescind such citizenship. Founders wanted to discourage foreign influence on our Commander in Chief, as had caused problems in Europe. Nothing, no Board ruling or court opinion or Harvard article, can change this qualification except for an amendment to the Constitution.”

***  Update  ***

From Mr. H. Brooke Paige, plaintiff in Cruz Rubio eligibility lawsuit in Vermont:

“Praise to Mr. Graham for his noble effort to “protect, uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.” Regardless of cost or loss each citizen should, as Mr. Graham understands, make every effort to insure that all branches of government submit to the authority and directions provided by the founders and framers of our great nation in their Declaration of Independence and the Constitution they authored, debated and ratified,

Mr. Graham, take solace in knowing that you are correct in you stand and no court, no legislature and no civil board has the right to alter or adulterate our great Constitution – except through the process of Amendment delineated in that document.

God Bless you Bill Graham !

H. Brooke Paige
Washington, Vermont”

 

Sanders requests raw vote count release, I can only hope and expect that the count will be honest, Investigation desired, Washington Post reports Clinton wins at least six Iowa precincts by coin flip

Sanders requests raw vote count release, I can only hope and expect that the count will be honest, Investigation desired, Washington Post reports Clinton wins at least six Iowa precincts by coin flip

“In a handful of Democratic caucus precincts Monday, a delegate was awarded with a coin toss.
It happened in precinct 2-4 in Ames, where supporters of candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton disputed the results after 60 caucus participants apparently disappeared from the proceedings.
As a result of the coin toss, Clinton was awarded an additional delegate, meaning she took five of the precinct’s eight, while Sanders received three.”…DesMoines Register

“More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008”… Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES)

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

From The Guardian February 2, 2016.

“Bernie Sanders wants raw vote count released after tight finish in Iowa caucuses”

“Bernie Sanders has called on the Democratic party to release a raw vote count in Iowa after a nail-biting finish left lingering doubts over the first, much tighter-than-expected, clash with Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination.”

“He threw little light on an unfolding controversy over certain Iowa precincts that did not have enough Democratic party volunteers to report delegate totals for each candidate but did call on officials to take the unusual step of revealing underlying voter totals. Delegates are awarded in the Iowa Democratic contest on a precinct-by-precinct basis, irrespective of the state-wide vote for each candidate.

“I honestly don’t know what happened. I know there are some precincts that have still not reported. I can only hope and expect that the count will be honest,” he said. “I have no idea. Did we win the popular vote? I don’t know, but as much information as possible should be made available.”

Sanders’ campaign director, Jeff Weaver, told reporters he did not “anticipate we are going to contest” specific results but hoped there would be an investigation into what happened.”

Read more:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/02/bernie-sanders-requests-vote-count-tight-finish-iowa-caucus-clinton

From the Washington Post February 2, 2016.

“Clinton wins at least six Iowa precincts by coin flip”

“Letting chance decide, even in a small way, who becomes president sounds bizarre, but it didn’t just happen eight years ago. It happened Monday night in at least a handful of Iowa precincts where Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), now locked in what Sanders called a “virtual tie” in the state, fought to a deadlock. And, in at least six of those precincts, Clinton won spare delegates, based on reporting from the Des Moines Register and video posted to social media.

In another race, those heads-or-tails contests may not have mattered. But, early Tuesday, Clinton was ahead of Sanders in Iowa by just four “state delegate equivalents,” by that state’s particular jargon. Given that slim margin and the unknown intentions of Martin O’Malley’s eight SDEs now that the former Maryland governor has suspended his presidential campaign, those coin flips are looking mighty significant.

Or not.

It’s best to let the Iowa Democratic Party explain: “On caucus night, Iowans in each precinct elect delegates to their county conventions, but the winner of the caucuses will be the candidate who accrues the most state delegate equivalents. State delegate equivalents are calculated using a ratio of state to county convention delegates. In other words, the ratio determines how many delegates the candidate would receive for the state convention based on the number of county convention delegates a candidate receives.”

Whew.

Either way, people were flipping coins in Iowa, and it was weird.

One vocal Sanders supporter filmed a coin toss in Des Moines. At first, he seemed excited — perhaps in disbelief that a candidate many had written off months ago had given Clinton a run for her money.

“It’s an actual tie,” Benjamin O’Keefe said. “You can’t even write this.”

Then, the caucus got down to business. It had split, 61-61; Clinton was awarded two delegates, and Sanders was awarded two. What would become of the fifth delegate?

Enter the coin. Tails — Clinton won.

“What?” O’Keefe said. “… Can you explain this to us?” Someone did, adding insult to injury by saying “Touchdown Seahawks!” — a reference to a 2012 NFL controversy over what many consider to be a terribly random call.

“So by coin flip, Hillary Clinton has won this precinct,” O’Keefe said. He shrugged and smiled — the smile of a man consigned to his fate by powers beyond his understanding or control. “I don’t even know,” he said, gesturing confusedly at unfazed caucus-goers as the result was announced and Clinton supporters cheered.

“That’s the official rule,” a woman who announced the result added.”

Read more:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/02/clinton-wins-at-least-six-iowa-precincts-by-coin-flip/