What will bring down Barack Obama and when will it happen?
Barack Obama, the candidate that was not vetted by the DNC, the
candidate that gained the nomination of the Democrat Party by
voter fraud, a free ride from the MSM, Obama thugs attacking those questioning him and by Nancy Pelosi ramroding him through the convention, will be taken down by his past. If Obama is not removed before or after the election, we will know that the powers controlling him have disabled the checks and balances that were designed to prevent this type of “manchurian candidate” from being elected.
I have never seen this level of corruption and unamerican activity
in a presidential election in my lifetime. In the past, this was read
about happening only in unstable countries outside the US.
How is it that a candidate that refuses to prove US citizenship, is
connected in so many long time ties to Tony Rezko and other Chicago and Illinois crime and corruption figures and even has a wife tied to Chicago corruption, is still running for president. How is it that a candidate tied to the middle east, Kenyan thugs and terrorists such as William Ayers, is still running for president. How is it that a candidate that lied on a Illinois Bar Application is still running for president. How is it that a candidate known to have used drugs and still using drugs is running for president.
We no longer have the press to protect us. Will Congress or the Judicial Branch do their job? Which of the following, documented, fact based issues will remove Barack Obama and when will it occur. Will we suffer a constitutional crisis as Philp J Berg has warned?
- Philip J Berg filed a lawsuit in Federal Court on August 21, 2008
stating that Obama is not qualified to be president. Berg states, and I agree, that Obama was born in Kenya. Obama filed a motion recently to dismiss the lawsuit. Why did Obama not produce a vault COLB? The answer is he was born in Kenya. John McCain presented a vault COLB to congress. Mr. Berg will respond on Monday, September 29, 2008 to the presiding judge. - The judge could rule that Obama has to produce a vault COLB and/or a pledge of allegiance to the US.
- Mr. Berg is prepared to take the case to the US Supreme Court.
- Tony Rezko, Stuart Levine and Dr. Robert Weinstein have all been indicted in the Rezko corruption “pay for play” scandal. Rezko has been convicted and is awaiting sentencing. Rezko has been talking and it is believed that Governor Blagojevich will be indicted soon. Obama endorsed Blagojevich when he ran for office. Obama is tied to Rezko, Levine, Weinstein and Blagojevich. Barack Obama may be indicted soon.
- There is a Petition to Impeach, expel Senator Obama. The petition is gaining numbers as more and more people find out about the real Obama.
- Remember Al capone? The feds tried for years to convict him on corruption and racketeering. They finally nailed him on tax evasion. Well, Mr. Obama may experience something similar. Obama lied on his Illinois Bar Application. Obama had 17 unpaid traffic violations and did not list any aliases. Andy Martin filed a complaint on March 13, 2007 with the Illinois Board of Admissions to the Bar, but found out that Obama had relinquished his law license. According to Mr. Martin “They can’t punish someone who has resigned, which is why so many corrupt lawyers in Illinois resign before they are disbarred.” This would qualify for expulsion from the senate.
- There is no proof that Obama complied with Selective Service Laws.
So, is the system going to work. We already know the MSM and the Democrat Party have failed us. Will our system of checks and balances work? If not, God help us.
The Citizen Wells blog has covered Obama from A to Z. You can read about Obama’s connections to Tony Rezko and other dubious connections. The timeline of the Philip J Berg lawsuit can be found at the top.
Here is a video that will shed more light on Barack and Michelle’s
ties to corruption:
Tony Rezko is talking. Here is an article that will bring you up to date
on what may happen next:
http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2008/09/28/rezkotrialwatch-rezko-can-sing-2/#comment-3209
Here is the Petition to Impeach, expel Senator Obama:
A PETITION
for
The Impeachment of Senator Barack Obama
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
Whereas: Senator Barack Obama is an admitted illegal drug user and
is believed to have used illegal drugs as recently as November 1999
or more recently. Mr. Obama has maintained contact with other
admitted illegal drug users.
Whereas: Senator Barack Obama has maintained regular contact
with known criminals such as Antoin (Tony) Rezko and other
criminal elements in Chicago and Illinois. Mr. Obama has
conducted business with these criminals and received campaign
donations from them. Mr. Obama was compelled to return an estimated $250,000 in
donations related to Tony Rezko.
Whereas: Senator Barack Obama has consistently lied about his
contact with convicted criminal Tony Rezko. The Tony Rezko
corruption trial revealed that FBI mole John Thomas helped investigators
“build a record of repeat visits to the old offices of Rezko and former
business partner Daniel Mahru’s Rezmar Corp., at 853 N. Elston, by
Blagojevich and Obama during 2004 and 2005,” according to the February
10, 2008 Chicago Sun-Times.
Whereas: Senator Barack Obama has engaged in unscrupulous business
practices, in particular with Mr. Robert Blackwell. Mr. Obama
received an $ 8,000 per month “legal retainer” from Mr. Blackwell
for a total of $112,000 and reported the income through his law firm
in a manner not unlike money laundering. Obama, along with Obama
campaign manager Dan Shomon, procured $ 320,000 in state grants
for Blackwell’s company Killerspin. Blackwell companies contributed
over $ 32,000 to the Obama campaign in 2007.
Whereas: Senator Barack Obama used the office of IL Senator to
facilitate the vote rigging in Chicago as chairman of the Illinois Senate
Health and Human Services Committee. Mr. Obama pushed legislation in Senate Bill
1332 to reduce the number of members of the Health Facilities Planning Board
from 15 to 9. Mr. Obama did conspire with Stuart Levine, Tony Rezko and
Rod Blogojevich to rig the committee and was rewarded with campaign
contributions. The new members appointed included 3 doctors who contributed to
Mr. Obama. On April 21, 2004, Stuart Levine explicitly advised Dr. Robert Weinstein,
who is now indicted, of Tony Rezko’s role in manipulating the Planning Board’s vote.
Whereas: Senator Barack Obama has engaged in lies and deception
about his past. Mr. Obama lied about his contact level with
convicted criminal Tony Rezko, the amounts and sources of
campaign contributions and encounters with the law. A complaint
has been filed with the Bar Association of Illinois alleging
that Mr. Obama did not answer truthfully all questions on the
application to the bar.
Whereas: Senator Barack Obama has invoked the FOIA in Illinois
when it was politically expedient and ignored or violated the
FOIA at other times. In the Illinois Senate proceedings of
Mr. Obama, in Senate Bill 1416, pleads the importance of businesses
bidding on state contracts having improved access to FOIA data. When
later questioned about his records during his term in the IL
Senate, Mr. Obama gave evasive answers or refused to supply records.
Whereas: The First Amendment provides a right for the people “to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Precedents
exist for impeachment and expulsion of a US Senator. Senator William
Blount was impeached by the House on July 7, 1797 and expelled by
the Senate the next day.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we, the People, Undersigned,
being citizens of the United States and residents in the Cities and States so
indicated, HEREBY Demand that the Congress of the United States begin
immediate impeachment and/or expulsion proceedings against Senator
Barack Obama.
Addendum: Petition to Impeach Senator Obama
We were urged to add the following information about Senator Obama.
This comes under the topic of lies and deception but also falls under more
serious charges of abuse of power and possible violation of the Logan Act.
Those signing the petition prior to this addendum will be identified.
August 4, 2008
Whereas: As a US Senator, Barack Obama violated the stated intention of
his 2006 Official Government Visa to Africa by publicly propagandizing
for his cousin, Railla Odinga against the US democratic ally of Kenya.
Whereas the stated “mission” of Senator Obama’s Official Visa, according
to the Kenya Office of Public Communications, was to “nurture relations
between the Continent and the United States” he, instead, made public
protest before Kenya citizens to rally against their leadership,
invoking a need for “Change!” and accusing this US allied nation of
“corruption.” In Official Protest of Mr. Obama’s passport abuse and
misconduct, Kenya’s government cited his “extremely disturbing
statements on issues which it is clear, he was very poorly informed, and
on which he chose to lecture the Government and the people of Kenya on
how to manage our country.” Whereas, furthermore, there is no public
record of any sanctions or reprimand by the US Congress of Senator
Obama’s passport violation or campaigning on foreign soil against a US
ally, history has since recorded the broadspread destruction of Kenya’s
economy and large scale loss of life as a result of the violence
instigated by Odinga’s ODM campaign there.
Citizen WElls 
Philip J Berg lawsuit, Obama motion to dismiss, U.S. Supreme Court, FEC v. Akins, voter standing, James Akins, Related Lawsuits, subject matter jurisdiction, Jeff Schreiber commentary
On Wednesday, September 24, 2008, Obama and the DNC filed a motion to dismiss the Philip J Berg lawsuit that states Obama is not qualified to be president. Legal issues aside, in my opinion this is an admission that Obama is not qualified and is still a citizen of kenya and or Indonesia. Jeff Schreiber, a law student, legal writer and blog owner, has written his analysis of the lawsuit and motion to dismiss by Obama. here are some exerpts:
“Unlike the way in which the defense supported the 12(b)(6) defense, citing the particularities and treatment of the Declaratory Judgment Act by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the lack of standing defense did not surprise me in the least. In two recent posts on this matter, the first one eight and the other 12 days ago, I focused on the standing issue–specifically noting the disposition of the New Hampshire case, Hollander v. McCain, quoted in today’s motion–and pressed Berg on the issue.
I told him, just as I explained in these pages, that above everything else he needed to show an INJURY IN FACT. I mentioned that simply being a taxpayer, or a voter for that matter, has not proven to be enough to show injury or prove standing. In today’s motion, the defense stated that Berg failed to allege any “concrete, specific injury in fact to himself,” maintaining that voter disenfranchisement alone is not enough, that “a voter’s loss of the ability to vote for a candidate ‘of their liking’ does not confer standing because the actual injury is not to the voter but to the candidate.”
The Hon. William Alsup in the Northern District of California expressed similar feelings when he granted John McCain’s Motion to Dismiss–filed on similar grounds–on September 16 in Robinson v. Bowen, the citizenship-related action filed against the Arizona senator by the chairman of California’s American Independent Party, stating that even with plaintiff Markham Robinson’s status as party chairman and chances of becoming an elector, he still had “no greater stake in the matter than a taxpayer or voter.”
“Furthermore, even though filing so close to deadline is a common and accepted practice, Berg was steadfast in his belief that the longer the senator fails and refuses to produce the documentation sought in the Motion for Expedited Discovery filed on September 9, the more it looks like his allegations are correct, and he felt as though the timing of today’s motion was another attempt at obfuscation.
“Note, Jeff, that they waited until just before the deadline to file this, note that they’re just trying to prolong it and not deal with the issue,” he said. “It’s funny that on a day that McCain has stated that he’s suspending his campaign and wants the upcoming debate canceled so America can talk about the economic crisis, Obama says that he can campaign and talk it out at the same time, yet how come he’s not talking about his birth certificate? How come he’s hiding behind technical rules?”
“If you’re not qualified to be there,” Berg said, “get off the stage at this point in the game. Every day that goes by, every step that he takes to avoid showing those documents, which I don’t believe exist, indicates to me that he’s not natural-born.””
Read more here:
http://www.americasright.com/2008/09/obama-dnc-file-motion-to-dismiss-in.html
“Truth or fantasy of Berg’s allegations aside, as I’ve stated before, I believe that eligibility goes beyond citizenship, that our nation’s founders wanted to ensure that the man–or woman, as it were–leading our country was boundlessly loyal to Her, and that they enshrined that hope in the fifth clause of Article II, Section 1 of our Constitution. I touched upon that intent almost a month ago after Berg’s suit was filed:
It was important to those courageous men that the future leaders of their fledgling nation understand what it means to be an American. Every clause in that document is there for a reason, each a lesson learned from fresh wounds of tyranny gone but not forgotten, and the framers made a point to require that, at the very least, a potential president must have been a citizen of the United States “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” Unfettered, undivided devotion and loyalty to America was of the utmost concern; simply put, only those who fought and bled for Her independence, or at the very least understood the meaning behind, need for and potential of this great experiment could be trusted with its charge.
For that reason, completely apart from my obvious ideological leanings and political bias, it seemed counterintuitive to me that regardless of the slippery slope argument, a voter in our representative republic could not stand up and question the qualifications of those who wish to lead our nation as president and Commander-in-Chief. For me, it doesn’t matter who the candidate is or to which party he or she belongs — what kind of protection are we providing for the intent of our founders if we refuse to even consider such an action on its merits, or lack thereof, instead overlooking an inquiry into a matter of such great importance based upon procedural limitations which, by their very nature, ebb and flow over time?”
“A 1998 decision rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court, FEC v. Akins, did allow for voter standing because the injury of which James Akins and the other respondents complained–the inability to obtain information, in this case as to the status of a political action committee–was concrete enough that widely-shared harm did not preclude standing. As a campaign finance-related action, FEC v. Akins may be a far cry from the nature of the claims set forth by Berg and the others, but it shows that the Court is willing to broaden the standard for injury in fact when the injury sustained by a mere voter either (1) falls within the “zone of interests” to be protected or regulated by a particular statute, or (2) is indicative of a large number of individuals who suffer the same injury. This, for me, seems to better align with the hopes of those who, wary of the King, wanted to secure power as close to the people as possible, and certainly seems to comport with the nature of the injury in the matters at hand.”
Read more here:
http://www.americasright.com/2008/09/so-who-does-have-standing-anyway.html
Make sure to visit Jeff Schreiber’s site often.
8 Comments
Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Birth Certificate, Citizen, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Congress, Crime, Criminal Complaint, democratic convention, Democrats, DNC, doublespeak, Election, Election 2008, Election update, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, History, Illinois bar, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Justice, Kenya, Natural born citizen, News, Obama 2006 Kenya, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Senator Obama, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, voters
Tagged FEC v. Akins, James Akins, Jeff Schreiber commentary, Obama motion to dismiss, Philip J Berg lawsuit, Related Lawsuits, subject matter jurisdiction, U.S. Supreme Court, voter standing