Category Archives: Democrats

Democrats

Obama GA ballot challenge, Natural born citizen status, Judge Michael Malihi, Why did Obama refuse matching funds in 2008?, Part 3, Citizen Wells FEC FOIA, FEC bias?

Obama GA ballot challenge, Natural born citizen status, Judge Michael Malihi, Why did Obama refuse matching funds in 2008?, Part 3, Citizen Wells FEC FOIA, FEC bias?

“Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.”…C. S. Lewis

“I am certain that the devil is watching Barack Obama and taking notes.”…Citizen Wells

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

WHY DID OBAMA REFUSE MATCHING FUNDS IN 2008?

PART 3

Citizen Wells FEC FOIA request reveals FEC bias?

Part 1 in this series documented that Barack Obama opted out of Federal Matching Funds after a pledge to receive them and repeatedly spoke about campaign finance reform.

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/obama-ga-ballot-challenge-natural-born-citizen-status-judge-michael-malihi-why-did-obama-refuse-matching-funds-in-2008-part-1/

Part 2 dealt with the legal posturing involving Obama, Robert Bauer, et al with the FEC and the first lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility and Natural
Born Citizen status initiated by Philip J. Berg.

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/01/20/obama-ga-ballot-challenge-natural-born-citizen-status-judge-michael-malihi-why-did-obama-refuse-matching-funds-in-2008-part-2-robert-bauer-et-al-help-obama-hide-records/

From Part 2:

Philip J Berg files lawsuit in Philadelphia Federal Court

August 21, 2008

Defendants: Obama, DNC, FEC

Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen and therefore ineligible to be President.

August 27, 2008

Complaint served on the U.S. Attorney for DNC and FEC

Motion filed by Robert Bauer, et al October 6, 2008

“BRIEF OF DEFENDANT DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
AND DEFENDANT SENATOR BARACK OBAMA
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING DECISION ON
DISPOSITIVE MOTION”
“In his Complaint, plaintiff Berg alleges that Senator Barack Obama, the
Democratic Party’s nominee for President of the United States, is not eligible to serve as President under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution because,
Mr. Berg alleges (falsely), Senator Obama is purportedly not a natural-born citizen. Complaint ¶3. Mr. Berg seeks a declaratory judgment that Senator Obama
is ineligible to run for President; an injunction barring Senator Obama from running for that office; and an injunction barring the DNC from nominating him.

On September 15, 2008, plaintiff Berg served on Senator Obama’s office a
request for production of seventeen different categories of documents, including copies of all of the Senator’s college and law school applications, requests
for financial aid, college and law school papers, and “a copy of your entire presidential file pertaining to being vetted.” Plaintiff also served 56 requests
for admission on Senator Obama. On that same date, plaintiff served on the DNC 27 requests for admission and requests for production of five categories of
documents, including all documents in the possession of the DNC
relating to Senator Obama.1

On September 24, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, on the grounds that, as a matter of law, plaintiff has no standing to challenge the
qualifications of a candidate for President of the U.S. and has no federal cause of action.”

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S OPPOSITION TO
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE INJUNCTION TO STAY
THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 4, 2008

October 21, 2008

“II. BECAUSE THE COMMISSION HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE WHETHER CANDIDATES MEET THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRITERIA FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY, IT SHOULD BE
DISMISSED FROM THIS CASE

The Commission is the independent agency of the United States government vested with exclusive jurisdiction to administer, interpret and enforce civilly the
FECA. See 2 U.S.C. §§ 437c(b)(1), 437d(a), 437d(e) and 437g. The Commission also exercises jurisdiction over the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26
U.S.C. §§ 9001 et seq., and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 9031 et seq.2 These statutes only confer on the Commission
jurisdiction over issues concerning the financing of federal campaigns: regulating the organization of campaign committees; the raising, spending, and
disclosing of campaign funds; and the receipt and use of public funding for qualifying candidates.

None of these statutes delegates to the FEC authority to determine the constitutional eligibility of federal candidates, and Berg does not allege otherwise.
Although the Commission determines whether certain presidential candidates are eligible for public funding, it has no power to determine who qualifies for
ballot access or who is eligible to serve as president. Thus, because the Commission has no authority to take action against Senator Obama as suggested by Berg, the Commission should be dismissed from this case with prejudice.”

The following are FEC statements of policy and law. They reveal at least a grey area and probably black and white in regard to the response that Philip J.
Berg received in 2008 when he challenged Obama’s eligibility.

General duties and procedures.

From the FEC website:

“Election Administration

The FEC’s Office of Election Administration (OEA) serves as a central exchange for information and research on issues related to the administration of
federal elections on the state and local level.”
“Filing a Complaint

Anyone who believes that a violation of the law has occurred may file a complaint with the FEC. The complaint should contain a statement of facts related to the alleged violation and any supporting evidence available.

The complaint must be signed and contain the complainant’s name and address. It must also be sworn to and notarized. A step-by-step description of the
enforcement process is available in the brochure Filing a Complaint.”
“Contested Elections

For information on how to challenge the results of a federal election, contact the Secretary of State in your state capital.”

Statutes

Since the FEC had provided an advisory opinion that Obama had the option to accept matching funds, it appears that Berg’s challenge to the FEC should not
have been dismissed.

TITLE 26 > Subtitle H > CHAPTER 95 > § 9011

§ 9011. JUDICIAL REVIEW
(a) Review of certification, determination, or other action by the Commission

Any certification, determination, or other action by the Commission made or taken pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to review by
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upon petition filed in such Court by any interested person. Any petition filed pursuant to
this section shall be filed within thirty days after the certification, determination, or other action by the Commission for which review is sought.
(b) Suits to implement chapter
(1) The Commission, the national committee of any political party, and individuals eligible to vote for President are authorized to institute such actions,
including actions for declaratory judgment or injunctive relief, as may be appropriate to implement or contrue [1] any provisions of this chapter.
(2) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this subsection and shall exercise the same
without regard to whether a person asserting rights under provisions of this subsection shall have exhausted any administrative or other remedies that may be provided at law. Such proceedings shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of title 28,
United States Code, and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.

[1] So in original. Probably should be “construe”.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_26_00009011—-000-.html

Citizen Wells FOIA request and response.

As reported on Citizen Wells September 30, 2008, I submitted a FOIA request to the FEC on September 13, 2008.

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/philip-j-berg-lawsuit-obama-served-dnc-served-fec-served-foia-request-to-fec-fec-foia-status-fec-response-by-october-21-2008-citizen-wells-phone-call-to-fec/

The FEC responses can be viewed here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49423265/FEC-2008-FOIA-request-Philip-Berg-lawsuit

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49423694/FEC0002 through FEC0008

The Berg lawsuit was filed on August 21, 2008 and served on the FEC on August 27, 2008. The following email from David Kolker to Rebekah Harvey dated August 22, 2008 is certainly interesting. Rebekah Harvey was the assistant to Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub. Prior to being appointed to the FEC, Weintraub was on the staff of Perkins Coie LLP and a member of it’s Political Law Group. More on Ellen Weintraub later.

“Victory in Berg v. Obama”

You may find the following a bit curious as well:

The letter to the FEC dated August 18, 2008 (Scribd FEC0006).

The individual, redacted, is requesting an advisory opinion from the FEC on Obama’s eligibility to be president. An email was sent with the request. The email
provides information on why Obama is not eligible. It begins with

“It seems that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president, after all, for the following reason:”

It ends with

“Interesting! Now what? Who dropped the ball or are we all being duped? Who do you know whom you can forward this to who might be able to help
answer this question?”
From the FEC response to the inquiry (Scribd FEC0004):

“The Act authorizes the Commission to issue an advisory opinion in response to a complete written request from any person about a specific transaction or
activity that the requesting person plans to undertake or is presently undertaking.”

Philip J. Berg’s challenge in court to Obama’s eligibility appears to meet this requirement.

Had Berg challenged the earlier ruling by the FEC which kept open the option for Obama receiving matching funds, perhaps the outcome would have been
different. However, to be revealed in part 4, the Obama camp and the DNC did their best to quash the effectiveness of the FEC over several years.

The Corruption of America, Porter Stansberry, America is in decline, Americans Are Getting Poorer Fast, Entitlement root of many serious cultural problems

The Corruption of America, Porter Stansberry, America is in decline, Americans Are Getting Poorer Fast, Entitlement root of many serious cultural problems

The following are exerpts from a well written article by Porter Stansberry on many of the economic and social woes of America. The full article is worthy of your time.

The Corruption of America

“Why I’m still bullish on America
By: Porter Stansberry
The numbers tell us America is in decline… if not outright collapse.

I say “the numbers tell us” because I’ve become very sensitive to the impact this kind of statement has on people. When I warned about the impending
bankruptcy of General Motors in 2006 and 2007, readers actually blamed me for the company’s problems – as if my warnings to the public were the real problem, rather than GM’s $400 billion in debt.

The claim was absurd. But the resentment my work engendered was real.

So please… before you read this issue, which makes several arresting claims about the future of our country… understand I am only writing about the facts
as I find them today. I am only drawing conclusions based on the situation as it stands. I am not saying that these conditions can’t improve. Or that they
won’t improve.

The truth is, I am optimistic. I believe our country is heading into a crisis. But I also believe that… sooner or later… Americans will make the right
choices and put our country back on sound footing.

Please pay careful attention to the data I cite. And please send me corrections to the facts. I will happily publish any correction that can be
substantiated. But please don’t send me threats, accusations against my character, or baseless claims about my lack of patriotism. If I didn’t love our
country, none of these facts would bother me. I wouldn’t have bothered writing this letter.

I know this is a politically charged and emotional issue. My conclusions will not be easy for most readers to accept. Likewise, many of the things I am
writing about this month will challenge my subscribers to re-examine what they believe about their country. The facts about America today tell a painful
story about a country in a steep decline, beset by problems of its own making.

One last point, before we begin… I realize that this kind of macro-economic/political analysis is not, primarily, what you pay me for. You rightly expect me to provide you with investment opportunities – whether bull market, bear market, or total societal collapse. And that’s what I’ve done every month for more than 15 years.

But that’s not what I’ve done this month. You won’t find any investment ideas at all in these pages. This issue is unlike any other I have ever written.

I’m sure it will spark a wave of cancellations – costing me hundreds of thousands of dollars. I fear it will spark a tremendous amount of controversy. Many
people will surely accuse me of deliberately writing inflammatory things in order to stir the pot and gain attention. That’s not my intention. The truth is,
I’ve gone to great lengths throughout my career to protect my privacy.

I am speaking out now because I believe someone must. And I have the resources to do it. I am sharing these ideas with my subscribers because I know we have arrived at the moment of a long-brewing crisis.

Our political leaders, our business leaders, and our cultural leaders have made a series of catastrophic choices. The result has been a long decline in
America’s standard of living.

For decades, we have papered over these problems with massive amounts of borrowing. But now, our debts total close to 400% of GDP, and America is the world’s largest borrower (after being the world’s largest creditor only 40 years ago)… And the holes in our society can no longer be hidden…

We’ve reached the point where we will have to fix what lies at the heart of America’s decline… or be satisfied with a vastly lower standard of living in
the future.

How do I know? How do I statistically define the decline of America?

The broadest measure of national wealth is per-capita gross domestic product (GDP). Economists use this figure to judge standards of living around the world.
It shows the value of the country’s annual production divided by the number of its citizens. No, the production isn’t actually divided among all the
citizens, but this measure provides us with a fair benchmark to compare different economies around the world. Likewise, this measure shows the growth (or the decline) in wealth in societies across time.

So… is America growing richer or poorer based on per-capita GDP? Seems like a simple enough question, doesn’t it? Is our economy growing faster than our
population? Are we, as individuals, becoming more affluent? Or is the pie, measured on a per-person basis, growing smaller?

This is the most fundamental measure of the success or the failure of any political system or culture. Are the legal and social rules we live under aiding
our economic development or holding us back? What do the numbers say?

Unfortunately, it’s a harder question to answer than it should be. The problem is, we don’t have a sound currency with which to measure GDP through time.
Until 1971, the U.S. dollar was defined as a certain amount of gold. And the price of gold was fixed by international agreement. It didn’t actually begin to
trade freely until 1975. Therefore, the value of the U.S. dollar (and thus the value of U.S. production, which is measured in dollars) was manipulated higher
for many years.

Even today, our government’s nominal GDP figures are greatly influenced by inflation. The influence of inflation is particularly pernicious in GDP studies.
You see, inflation, which actually reduces our standard of living, drives up the amount of nominal GDP. So it creates the appearance of a wealthier
country… while the nation is actually getting poorer.”

“You see, I believe the decline of our country is primarily a decline of our culture.

We have lost our sense of honor, humility, and the dedication to personal responsibility that, for more than 200 years, made our country the greatest hope for mankind. I want to detail some of the factors that gave rise to the current entitlement society. We have become a country of people who believe their well-being is someone else’s responsibility.

I’ve labeled these problems: The Corruption of America.

These problems manifest themselves in different ways across institutions in all parts of our society. But at their root, they are simply facets of the same
stone. They are all part of the same essential problem.

The corruption of America isn’t happening in one part of our country… or in one type of institution. It is happening across the landscape of our society,
in almost every institution. It’s a kind of moral decay… a kind of greed… a kind of desperate grasp for power… And it’s destroying our nation.

The Ethos of ‘Getting Yours’

Americans know, in their bones, that something terrible is happening. Maybe you can’t articulate it. Maybe you don’t have the statistics to understand
exactly what’s going on. But my bet is, you think about it a lot.”

“Bloomberg news published an article based on confidential sources about how Henry Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs and the Republican U.S. Treasury secretary during the financial crisis, held a secret meeting with the top 20 hedge-fund managers in New York City in late July 2008. This was about two weeks after he testified to Congress that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were “well-capitalized.””

“This was the most outrageous example of graft and corruption I have ever seen. Certainly it involves more billions of dollars in misappropriated value than
any other similar story I can recall. These managers had the risk-free ability to make tens of billions of dollars, if not hundreds of billions, by using
derivatives to capitalize on what they knew was the imminent collapse of the world’s largest mortgage bank. Who picked up the tab? You know perfectly well.
It was you and me, the taxpayers.”

“What does that say about our country when even the most egregious kind of corruption – involving hundreds of billions of dollars – is simply ignored?

It seems like everyone in our country has lost his moral bearing, from the highest government officials and senior corporate leaders all the way down to
schoolteachers and local community leaders. The ethos of my fellow Americans seems to have changed from one of personal integrity and responsibility to
“getting yours” – the all-out attempt, by any means possible, to get the most amount of benefits with the least amount of work.”

“It is routinely alleged in national political debates that something is fundamentally unfair and un-American about the huge “wealth gap” between the poorest Americans and the wealthiest. Some politicians like to argue that the poor never have a real shot at the American dream, and as a nation, we owe them more and more of our resources to correct this injustice. Most important, it is alleged that only the government has the resources to correct this inequality.

This is a dangerous notion…

First, it promotes the idea of entitlement. Entitlement is a fairly new idea in the American political lexicon – perhaps because most of our nation’s wealth
is still fairly new. The American idea of entitlement argues that because you were born into a rich society, other people owe you something. The idea has
become pervasive in our culture. It underlies the basic assumptions behind the idea of a “wealth gap.” Implicit is the assumption that successful Americans
haven’t rightfully earned their wealth… that in one way or another, they’ve taken advantage of the society and have an obligation to give back most of what
they’ve “taken.”

As you’ll see, I believe the idea of entitlement lies at the root of many of our most serious cultural problems.

The more obvious problem is the idea that the government is responsible for fixing the “wealth gap.” But the government has proved wholly ineffective at
dealing with poverty in America. The data is nearly conclusive that government efforts are far more likely to be the cause of the wealth gap than the
solution.”

“It has now been almost 50 years since the start of the War on Poverty, President Lyndon Johnson’s program to radically increase domestic welfare spending.
These programs and their various spinoffs have been at the center of Democratic politics ever since. In fact, if you compare speeches about these programs from the mid-1960s until today, you will find the verbiage never changes. Obama is merely echoing the same calls for “social justice” that Robert Kennedy used in his ill-fated 1968 campaign for president.”
“And what do the Democrats do with this power? They push a form of American socialism. This political system features transfer payments, government jobs, and lucrative government contracts to voters in exchange for political support – and in many cases, outright bribes. They do all of these things under the cover
of “progressive” politics and “social justice.”

But if you brush away the veneer, what you find is a history of abuse of power, corruption, and outright bribery. Conyers himself was found guilty of several
minor ethical violations in 2006 – mainly of using his staff as personal servants, forcing them to babysit and chauffer his children. In 1992, he was one of
the most egregious abusers of the House Banking scandal. He wrote 273 bad checks and left his account overdrawn for nine months. But that’s all small-time
graft compared to how things really work in his office and in his district.

How do I know? Well… just ask yourself where Conyers’ wife sleeps today.

Monica Conyers, the wife of the second-longest tenured congressman in the United States, sleeps in a federal prison in West Virginia. She pled guilty to
bribery in June 2009. She is serving a 37-month sentence for accepting $60,000 in bribes as the president pro tempore of the Detroit City Council. And yet…
and yet… Conyers won re-election handily in 2010.”

“Government Employee Unions:
Organized Corruption

A big part of the answer lies in understanding the key mechanism in the Democratic Party’s funding system. (Don’t worry… so far, we’ve been talking about Democratic Party failures, but I’ll get to the Republicans next. The corruption of America is a bipartisan problem.)”

“A government union turns the public servant into the public’s master. It is a means of using the government’s own spending to organize control of that
government. And that is exactly what’s happened. The government, unlike private companies, isn’t limited by normal economics because the government controls the monopoly on force and has the power to levy taxes.”

“Our country’s core problems are not found in only one political party.

There is just as much corruption, if not more, on the Republican side of the aisle. It was, for example, as I pointed out earlier, a white, Republican-
appointed Treasury secretary (Henry Paulson) who tipped off 20 top hedge-fund managers about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s imminent collapse after assuring the public that it wouldn’t happen.

For big business, the powerful role of government in our society is simply too valuable to ignore. And the amount of corruption it inspires is stunning. Few
politicians even bother trying to hide the fact that they’re bought and sold like furniture.

Take Newt Gingrich. The white, Republican former House speaker was paid $1.6 million for “consulting” by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during a period of time the two firms were under constant attack by Newt’s fellow Republicans. Were the attacks efforts to truly reform a major threat to our financial system… or were they merely shakedowns? All we know for certain is Fannie and Freddie collapsed, just as many Republicans warned they would. The Republican effort to reform the firms failed. Newt collected $1.6 million.

Fannie and Freddie could end up costing taxpayers as much as $500 billion. No, I’m not ignoring the colossal role the Democrats played in staffing Fannie and
Freddie, lobbying Congress for the companies, etc. I’m simply pointing out that, in Washington, everything and everyone seems to be for sale, on both sides
of the aisle.”

“Here’s a simple solution. Hold the senators and congressmen personally liable for any deficit, each year. We elected these people to be our leaders. We did
not elect them to spend us into bankruptcy. We did not elect them to feather their own nests with unlimited public spending. We did not elect them to buy
votes. The only way to stop what’s happening is to make them personally responsible for their actions. Either they will balance the budget or face personal
financial ruin.

Demanding personal accountability for fiduciary responsibilities would have an immediate and profound impact on our society. It would wipe out the
entitlement mentality that’s destroying our society – almost overnight.”

“I do agree that the nation will soon face a choice between heading down the path towards fascism… or turning back the power of government and restoring the limited Republic that was our birthright. I continue to believe Americans will choose personal liberty.

I believe they will choose more freedom rather than more totalitarian rule. I don’t believe Americans will tolerate martial law for long – even in the advent
of a real emergency, which I do believe will occur.”

“What gives me confidence for the future? Gun sales, for one thing. U.S. citizens legally own around 270 million firearms – about 88 guns per 100 citizens
(including children) today.

That’s a hard population to police without its consent. America is the No. 1 country in the world as ranked by the number of guns per-capita. That plays a
major factor in the kind of government you will see take root in America. Things might go too far in this country for a while… And I’d argue they’ve been
going the wrong way for too long. But the government can only take things so far before they’ll be faced with a very angry, well-armed opposition.

If the government attempts to take our guns… my opinion would change immediately. But that’s one right the Supreme Court has been strengthening recently.
It gives me hope that most people in America still understand that the right to bear arms has little to do with protecting ourselves from crime and
everything to do with protecting ourselves from government…”

Read more:

http://www.stansberryresearch.com/pub/reports/201112PSI_issue.html

Thank you, Porter Stansberry,  for this well written and insightful article.

I urge you all to read the entire article and pass it along to your elected officials and those running for office.

Obama GA ballot challenge administrative court January 26, 2012, Atlanta Georgia, Judge Michael Malihi denied Obama motion to dismiss, Natural born citizen ruling

Obama GA ballot challenge administrative court January 26, 2012, Atlanta Georgia, Judge Michael Malihi denied Obama motion to dismiss, Natural born citizen ruling

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

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


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

My hat is off once again to to Sharon Rondeau and the Post & Email for their efforts to report the news that counts.

From The Post & Email January 7, 2012.

“Atty. Van Irion Discusses Georgia Ballot Challenge and the Constitution”

“Constitutional attorney Van Irion, who is also founder of the Liberty Legal Foundation, spoke with The Post & Email regarding the ballot challenge he has filed on behalf of his client, David Welden, which claims that Barack Hussein Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve as president.
The interview was completed one day before Judge Michael Malihi denied a Motion to Dismiss filed by Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski.
Welden had originally filed the challenge pro se and Irion later agreed to represent him. The hearing is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on January 26, 2012 at the Justice Center Building located at 160 Pryor Street, Atlanta, in courtroom G40. Irion’s case is the first of three cases expected to be heard that day.

On January 3, 2012, Judge Michael Malihi affirmed that Georgia statute 21-2-5(s) gave registered voters standing to challenge the eligibility of a candidate for state or federal office. In response to the judge’s decision, Irion stated on his foundation website, “Hopefully the Georgia court will set the groundwork for victories across the country. If any court rules that Obama is not Constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President, it will be a major victory and should make international news.“

Irion had also requested that his case be separated from those of Atty. Orly Taitz and Atty. J. Mark Hatfield, which the judge granted. Hatfield, also a Georgia state representative, is acting as counsel to two Georgia voters whose case has received television coverage.
We asked Irion what kind of action he has filed, and he responded: “I represent one person in an administrative action very specific to Georgia state law. We’re actually not going to a civil court. It’s an administrative court specifically set up by Georgia statute, and the entire purpose of the court is to advise the Secretary of State. I’m going to be starting by saying, ‘We recognize that your main purpose for being here is to be able to advise the Secretary of State on the facts and the law.’ Ultimately, regardless of what the court does, either side can appeal to a law court in Georgia, and that’s certainly what’s going to happen regardless of who wins.”

Irion continued:

Liberty Legal got involved after David Welden, who is our client, filed the challenge himself. Georgia law allows for any voter who is qualified to vote for a candidate to challenge the constitutional and statutory qualifications of that particular candidate. He and a handful of others did that. There’s a very short period of time: two weeks after the candidate qualifies with the Secretary of State. He did that, and after that, he contacted me. He based his complaint largely on Liberty Legal’s complaint in our Certification lawsuit in Arizona. He looked at our complaints and used a lot of the same language and citations. He didn’t ask us for our help right off the bat, and he didn’t expect our help, which was important to us, because he did it right, following Georgia code the way it needed to be done; and also, he came to us with a very gracious attitude of “I’m doing this because I think it’s the right thing to do. I don’t expect your help, but if you can, if you’d like to, I wouldn’t mind talking with you about this.” So we ended up having several conversations and at the end of the day, we said, “Hey, I think we can help you.” So that’s how we ended up representing David Welden.

David Welden and Liberty Legal are going first on the 26th. Atty. Orly Taitz will be there representing other plaintiffs, and there are other plaintiffs who may not have attorneys. I hope that we both win.

The reason we are going first and being heard separately is that I plan on calling one witness — my client, David Welden. I plan on asking him three questions; that’s it, we’re done, and making one argument. The presentation of evidence and testimony will take 15 minutes or less. We’ll probably argue the law for quite some time after that, but that’s the whole point. That’s the way I do law: I generally try to find the clearest, easiest-to-understand argument that I can support, and that’s what we present. If it doesn’t work, I rarely argue alternatives. Most lawyers do that habitually; there’s good reason for it; I understand why, but I also think it’s become very ineffective because courts have become numb to multiple alternative arguments.

The Post & Email asked, “What is your argument?”

Here it is: Barack Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. The Supreme Court, in Minor v. Happersett, defined “natural born Citizen” under the Constitution as “being born in this country with both parents being U.S. citizens at the time the candidate was born.” That’s “natural born Citizen;” that’s the Supreme Court’s definition; it’s never been overturned or challenged or questioned; therefore, Barack Obama is not qualified to be president by his own admission. Here’s the thing: the defense still has not addressed that substantive argument. They throw up all kinds of procedural arguments; they throw up all kinds of interpretations of Georgia code that don’t allow us to get to our argument. But at the end of the day, there’s one thing that’s very simple: Georgia code is very clear such that even if my client doesn’t have standing to raise this, even if no voter has standing, the Secretary of State, according to one specific code, “shall determine the qualifications of the candidate before the election.” It’s one sentence. It does not give them any option to not do it. And they can, at any time before the election, look into those qualifications. So if this court decides that David Welden doesn’t have the ability to raise this because of the procedural arguments brought up by the defendant, this court’s purpose is only to advise the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State absolutely has to address, by law, the substantive qualifications of this candidate. “So even if you find that you have to dismiss our case, you still have to tell the Secretary of State what to do with this argument wherein the Supreme Court has defined the term “natural born Citizen,” and Barack Obama has repeatedly admitted that he doesn’t meet those qualifications. You can’t avoid the substantive issue even if you rule against us on a procedural matter.”

“Is there a way that the judge could declare that having one citizen parent is enough to qualify a person as a ‘natural born Citizen?’”

Let me answer your question with a truism: a judge can do anything he wants. They are the final arbiters of what’s right and wrong. The fact that a higher court can overturn them is always there. It’s also true that that usually doesn’t happen. No matter how many levels of appeal you have, getting a higher court to overturn a lower court is always an unlikely outcome in any appeal. It’s difficult. They do it only when the lower court has made a glaring error or they philosophically completely disagree with the judge who happens to be sitting in the lower court.

The good news is that Judge Michael Malihi was the first judge anywhere to actually issue a subpoena to the Hawaii Department of Health to a) show up and be questioned, and b) have the original written birth certificate with you or a darn good explanation why you don’t, and the microfilm. This is a judge who understands that he has some authority here, and the court has the authority to force documents and witnesses to show up, and he’s doing it. Just that fact made me think, “We might actually get a fair hearing here.””

Read more:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/07/atty-van-irion-discusses-georgia-ballot-challenge-and-the-constitution/

 

GA ballot challenge reveals Democrat Party agenda, Party first, Obama natural born citizen status, Faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party

GA ballot challenge reveals Democrat Party agenda, Party first, Obama natural born citizen status, Faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party

“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″

“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 WXIA TV 11 Alive, January 6, 2012.

“Atlanta court hearing set on President Obama’s disputed citizenship”

“A judge in Atlanta has breathed new life into an old dispute.

The judge decided Tuesday he will hold a hearing in Atlanta on January 26, on whether President Barack Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen.

The judge, Michael Malihi of Georgia’s Office of State Administrative Hearings, ruled in favor of eight Georgia voters who were asking him to hold the hearing as part of their lawsuits aimed at removing President Obama’s name from the Georgia primary ballot in March unless the President can prove to their satisfaction that he is a natural-born U.S. Citizen.

“This is all about Constitutional eligibility to be on the ballot,” said one of the plaintiffs, Carl Swensson of Clayton County.

Swensson and the others will, through their attorneys, make various legal arguments at the hearing in support of their claim that the long-running dispute over President Obama’s citizenship has never been settled, so Obama’s name does not belong on the presidential preference ballot in the primary March 6.

“I, as a voting citizen of Georgia, have the right, responsibility, to ask this question before a state judge,” Swensson said Thursday night. “I have the responsibility to challenge, when I see that there’s a possibility that somebody is going to be put on our ballot that doesn’t deserve to be there.””

“”It’s gotten to the point where this is about the 69th or 70th time they’ve tried doing this, and they’ve lost every time,” Jablonski said. “We will prove, once again, what must be obvious to most Americans, Republican and Democrat, that the President of the United States was born in a state of the United States, and meets all the Constitutional requirements to be President…. We’re getting lots of calls from moderate Democrats and swing voters who are just, the only word I can use is, disgusted that this issue still lives. They don’t necessarily agree with him [the President], but they don’t think we should be spending our time and the state’s money holding hearings on an issue that, frankly, helps no one and is going to go nowhere.”

Swensson, a Republican, said the unique issues he is raising about how to define “natural born citizen” have never been addressed in any court since the Obama dispute arose, and deserve to be, not just for this upcoming primary election, but for future elections.”

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/220710/40/Atlanta-court-hearing-set-on-President-Obamas-disputed-citizenship

From above:

“We’re getting lots of calls from moderate Democrats and swing voters who are just, the only word I can use is, disgusted that this issue still lives. They don’t necessarily agree with him [the President], but they don’t think we should be spending our time and the state’s money holding hearings on an issue that, frankly, helps no one and is going to go nowhere.”

This comes as no surprise since the mantra of the modern day Democrat Party is the end justifies the means. This includes lies, misrepresentations and denial. The Democrat Party Platform is another example of this.

From Citizen Wells   December 18, 2009 .

“As Adopted by the Democratic National Committee, February 2, 2007″

Citizen Wells: “faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States”

“II. QUALIFICATIONS OF STATE DELEGATIONS”
“C. It is presumed that the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, when certified pursuant to the Call, are bona fide Democrats who are faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States, who subscribe to the substance, intent and principles of the Charter and the Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States, and who will participate in the Convention in good faith. Therefore, no additional assurances shall be
required of delegates to the Democratic National Convention in the absence of a credentials contest or challenge.”
Citizen Wells: Priorities. The DNC is beholden to unions.

“V. THE 2008 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION COMMITTEE, INC.”
“1. Contractors: The DNCC shall as a policy seek to engage the services of unionized firms, including those owned by minorities, women and people with disabilities.”
Citizen Wells: Presidential qualifications. The only thing that matters is allegiance to the party.

“VI. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

The term “presidential candidate” herein shall mean any person who, as determined by the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, has accrued delegates in the nominating process and plans to seek the nomination, has established substantial support for his or her nomination as the
Democratic candidate for the Office of the President of the United States, is a bona fide Democrat whose record of public service, accomplishment, public writings and/or public statements affirmatively demonstrates that he or she is faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the
United States, and will participate in the Convention in good faith.”

Citizen Wells

This is presented not to praise the Republicans or other political parties. It is also recognized that rules are necessary for any organized group. However, it is clear that the 2008 DNC rules are convoluted, overly complicated and designed as self serving for the preservation of the Democrat Party. The only qualification for the presidency that they address is allegiance to the party. And saddest of all, there is no mention of looking out for the best interest of the United States and citizens.

This should help you understand what is going on in the senate and White House. It is all about the Democrat Party.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/senate-health-care-bill-democrat-party-politics-party-first-2008-dnc-convention-rules-why-democrats-push-unwanted-bill/

 

Obama Georgia ballot challenge, Natural born citizen status deficient, Attorney Van Irion for David Weldon Files Blistering Opposition to Obama Motion to Dismiss

Obama Georgia ballot challenge, Natural born citizen status deficient, Attorney Van Irion for David Weldon Files Blistering Opposition to Obama Motion to Dismiss

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

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

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

First, I would like to thank Birther Report for their efforts to monitor the unconstitutional machinations of Obama, et al.

From Birther Report December December 28, 2011.

“Attorney Van Irion on behalf of David Weldon Files Blistering Opposition to Defendant’s(Obama) Motion to Dismiss in Georgia Ballot Access Challenge”

“For the reasons set forth below, none of the facts asserted by the Defendant are relevant. The only fact relevant to this case is the fact that the Defendant’s father was not a U.S. citizen. This fact has been repeatedly documented and stated by the party opponent, Defendant Obama. This fact is also evidenced by Plaintiff’s exhibit 6, previously submitted with Plaintiff’s pre-trial order and apparently authenticated by Defendant’s citation to this exhibit in Defendant’s “Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute,” number 7.”

“C. Right to Associate Doesn’t Negate Georgia Election Law

The Democratic Party of Georgia’s Constitutional right to determine its membership coexists with Georgia’s right to govern Georgia. Georgia code does not interfere with the autonomy of the political party’s internal decision making because it does nothing to prohibit the parties from submitting any name to the Secretary of State for inclusion in the Presidential primary. The Party is free to submit Saddam Hussein or Mickey Mouse as their next Presidential candidate. However, Georgia is not required to accept such submissions and waste taxpayer money on ballots for such candidates.

Georgia code does not prevent the political parties from submitting any name. Instead the code simply determines what the State does with the Party’s list of candidates after the Party has forwarded its list to the State. See O.C.G.A. §21-2 et seq. This code does nothing to prevent any political party from excluding, or including, any person they choose to exclude or include. Nor does it prevent the Party from choosing candidates to submit, in its “sole discretion.” Georgia’s code simply exercises the State’s right to administer elections in a manner that best serves the citizens of the State.

In the instant case Georgia’s Election code does nothing to infringe on the Democratic Party of Georgia’s right of association because the Party can and did include the Defendant in its organization. The Party can and did include the Defendant in the Party’s list of candidates. The Party’s rights, however, end there. Its rights cannot force the State to place the Defendant’s name on a ballot after the State determines that the Defendant is obviously not qualified “to hold the office sought.” §21-2-5. The rights of the Party and of the State simply do not conflict.4

The Defendant’s argument would logically require a conclusion that no state can preclude any candidate from any primary ballot for any reason without violating a political party’s right to freely associate. Since many candidates have been disqualified from primary ballots for lack of qualification to hold the office sought, we can safely conclude that the Defendant’s argument fails. If his argument succeeds, many election codes across the country will need to be re-drafted.

D. Defendant’s Conclusion is Offensive to the Constitution

The Defendant states that the issue raised by the Plaintiff was “soundly rejected by 69,456,897 Americans in the 2008 elections.” See Def.’s Mtn. at 5. This statement reflects a complete lack of understanding regarding Constitutional protections.

Contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, voters are not the final arbiters of whether an individual is qualified to hold office. America is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy without a constitution. In a Constitutional Republic the power of the majority is limited and cannot infringe upon protected rights of a minority.

The Constitution is an anti-majoritarian document; meaning that it protects individuals from invasions and usurpations by the majority. Constitutionally protected rights are held inviolate regardless of the majority’s desire to violate them. Without such protections any law enacted by Congress would be valid, even if it denied an individual their right to life, liberty, or property. Without the anti-majoritarian protection of the Constitution, Congress could legalize the killing of all Jews, for example, as was done in World War II Germany. Constitutional requirements are absolute, and must be followed regardless of how popular or unpopular such requirements may be, because they are in place to protect the minority.

The Defendant’s presumption that popular vote overrides the Constitution demonstrates his lack of understanding of the Constitution and emphasizes the critical role played by this Court in protecting Americans from a tyrannical majority. Contrary to the Defendant’s statement, a minority of Americans have an absolute right to be protected from a non-natural-born-citizen being elected President.

E. Contrary to the Defendant’s Assertion, No Court has Ruled on the Question Presented”

Read more:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/12/attorney-van-irion-files-opposition-to.html

Thanks to commenter Pat 1789.

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

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

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

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


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

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

Some information on Attorney Michael Jablonski.

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

Read more:

http://taarradhin.net/

Looks like Obama has picked the right attorney.

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

Two segments from Mr. Jablonski’s motion.

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

My response.

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

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

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

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

From the Georgia Election Statutes.

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193  (2011)

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

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-200  (2011)

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

“TITLE 21.  ELECTIONS 
CHAPTER 2.  ELECTIONS AND PRIMARIES GENERALLY 
ARTICLE 1.  GENERAL PROVISIONS

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5  (2011)

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

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

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

“TITLE 21.  ELECTIONS 
CHAPTER 2.  ELECTIONS AND PRIMARIES GENERALLY 
ARTICLE 5.  PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARY

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-191  (2011)

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

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-521  (2011)

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

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-522  (2011)

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Farrar filing:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/12/david-farrar-v-barack-obama-first.html
Attorney Michael Jablonski filing

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/12/obamas-private-attorney-files-motion-to.html

Obama should abandon his candidacy, Democratic pollsters Caddell and Schoen, Hillary Clinton, Obama 2012 campaign will exacerbate the divisions in our country and weaken our national identity

Obama should abandon his candidacy, Democratic pollsters Caddell and Schoen, Hillary Clinton, Obama 2012 campaign will exacerbate the divisions in our country and weaken our national identity

From the Wall Street Journal November 21, 2011.

“The Hillary Moment
President Obama can’t win by running a constructive campaign, and he won’t be able to govern if he does win a second term”
“When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion.

He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor—one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president’s administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.

Certainly, Mr. Obama could still win re-election in 2012. Even with his all-time low job approval ratings (and even worse ratings on handling the economy) the president could eke out a victory in November. But the kind of campaign required for the president’s political survival would make it almost impossible for him to govern—not only during the campaign, but throughout a second term.

Put simply, it seems that the White House has concluded that if the president cannot run on his record, he will need to wage the most negative campaign in history to stand any chance. With his job approval ratings below 45% overall and below 40% on the economy, the president cannot affirmatively make the case that voters are better off now than they were four years ago. He—like everyone else—knows that they are worse off.

President Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics 2012 General Election Average (43.8%-43.%). Meanwhile, voters disapprove of the president’s performance 49%-41% in the most recent Gallup survey, and 63% of voters disapprove of his handling of the economy, according to the most recent CNN/ORC poll.

Consequently, he has to make the case that the Republicans, who have garnered even lower ratings in the polls for their unwillingness to compromise and settle for gridlock, represent a more risky and dangerous choice than the current administration—an argument he’s clearly begun to articulate.

One year ago in these pages, we warned that if President Obama continued down his overly partisan road, the nation would be “guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it.” The result has been exactly as we predicted: stalemate in Washington, fights over the debt ceiling, an inability to tackle the debt and deficit, and paralysis exacerbating market turmoil and economic decline.

If President Obama were to withdraw, he would put great pressure on the Republicans to come to the table and negotiate—especially if the president singularly focused in the way we have suggested on the economy, job creation, and debt and deficit reduction. By taking himself out of the campaign, he would change the dynamic from who is more to blame—George W. Bush or Barack Obama?—to a more constructive dialogue about our nation’s future.

Even though Mrs. Clinton has expressed no interest in running, and we have no information to suggest that she is running any sort of stealth campaign, it is clear that she commands majority support throughout the country. A CNN/ORC poll released in late September had Mrs. Clinton’s approval rating at an all-time high of 69%—even better than when she was the nation’s first lady. Meanwhile, a Time Magazine poll shows that Mrs. Clinton is favored over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by 17 points (55%-38%), and Texas Gov. Rick Perry by 26 points (58%-32%).

But this is about more than electoral politics. Not only is Mrs. Clinton better positioned to win in 2012 than Mr. Obama, but she is better positioned to govern if she does. Given her strong public support, she has the ability to step above partisan politics, reach out to Republicans, change the dialogue, and break the gridlock in Washington.”

“By going down the re-election road and into partisan mode, the president has effectively guaranteed that the remainder of his term will be marred by the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity, common purpose, and most of all, our economic strength. If he continues on this course it is certain that the 2012 campaign will exacerbate the divisions in our country and weaken our national identity to such a degree that the scorched-earth campaign that President George W. Bush ran in the 2002 midterms and the 2004 presidential election will pale in comparison.”

Read more:

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203611404577041950781477944-lMyQjAxMTAxMDIwMDEyNDAyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email

Obama economy worsens, Highest poverty rate, Unemployment claims rise, Unemployment rate 9.1 percent, Gas prices high, Obama wants to raise taxes on business

Obama economy worsens, Highest poverty rate, Unemployment claims rise, Unemployment rate 9.1 percent, Gas prices high, Obama wants to raise taxes on business

Obama, et al are ruining this country and it’s economy. Today we learn from the US Labor Department.

“UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT

          SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA

In the week ending September 10, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 428,000, an increase of 11,000 from the previous week’s revised figure of 417,000. The 4-week moving average was 419,500, an increase of 4,000 from the previous week’s revised average of 415,500.”

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/eta20111330.htm

The US Census Bureau just reported.
“Another 2.6 million people slipped into poverty in the United States last year, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday, and the number of Americans living below the official poverty line, 46.2 million people, was the highest number in the 52 years the bureau has been publishing figures on it.

And in new signs of distress among the middle class, median household incomes fell last year to levels last seen in 1996.

Economists pointed to a telling statistic: It was the first time since the Great Depression that median household income, adjusted for inflation, had not risen over such a long period, said Lawrence Katz, an economics professor at Harvard.

“This is truly a lost decade,” Mr. Katz said. “We think of America as a place where every generation is doing better, but we’re looking at a period when the median family is in worse shape than it was in the late 1990s.”

The bureau’s findings were worse than many economists expected, and brought into sharp relief the toll the past decade — including the painful declines of the financial crisis and recession —had taken on Americans at the middle and lower parts of the income ladder. It is also fresh evidence that the disappointing economic recovery has done nothing for the country’s poorest citizens.

The report said the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line last year, 15.1 percent, was the highest level since 1993. (The poverty line in 2010 for a family of four was $22,314.)”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/14census.html

The reported unemployment rate remains at 9.1 %.

“THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION — AUGUST 2011
Nonfarm payroll employment was unchanged (0) in August, and the unemployment rate held at 9.1 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
Employment in most major industries changed little over the month.”

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The tax and spend policies of Obama and his cronies are a huge part of why this economy is tanking. Obama is more concerned about getting reelected than he is  the lives of ordinary struggling Americans. He speaks of creating jobs (with the worst past performance on record) and raising taxes on businesses to do so. The next part is important. Pay Attention!

Businesses do not pay taxes. Consumers do!

Taxes are part of the cost of doing business. When taxes are raised, some combination of the following will occur:

1. Prices will be raised.

2. Employees will be let go or have reduced hours.

3. Hiring will be diminished.

We have enough revenue. Cut spending!

Gasoline Prices

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

I am all for alternative energy initiatives that make sense and are not in place to enrich Obama supporters. In fact, I have done so myself with my own limited funds. However, gasoline prices are hurting this economy and the poor and middle class citizens who the Democrats pretend to represent.

Drill baby drill!

Obama jobs speech, September 8, 2011, Joint session of Congress, More shovel ready jobs?, More Obama promises, More Obama spending

Obama jobs speech, September 8, 2011, Joint session of Congress, More shovel ready jobs?, More Obama promises, More Obama spending

***  UPDATE BELOW  ***

From the Chicago Tribune September 8, 2011.

“President Barack Obama will lay out a jobs
package worth more than $300 billon on Thursday, staking his
re-election hopes on a call for urgent bipartisan action to revive the
faltering economy.

With his poll numbers sliding to new lows amid voter frustration with
9.1 percent unemployment, Obama will make tax cuts for middle-class
households and businesses the centerpiece of the plan and will press
for new spending to repair roads, bridges and other deteriorating
infrastructure.

He will use his televised speech before a joint session of the U.S.
Congress, at 7 p.m. EDT, to urge passage of those measures by
year-end.

If congressional Republicans reject his remedies, his strategy will be
to paint them as obstructionists and blame them for the stagnating
economy.

Stubbornly high unemployment has heightened fears that the economy
could be headed for another recession. Net employment growth
registered zero in August as a budget standoff in Washington and the
European debt crisis spooked businesses and consumers.

Obama is under intense pressure to change perceptions that he has
shown weak leadership. His economic stewardship has been criticized by
both Republicans and fellow Democrats, casting a cloud over his
prospects for re-election in November 2012.”

“Republicans have derided an $800 billion economic stimulus package
that Obama pushed through Congress in 2009 as wasteful spending and
have pushed for immediate cuts in the deficit.

Democrats say that while long-term deficits must be addressed, the
economy needs a short-term fiscal boost.

Media reports have put the size of Obama’s jobs package at upward of
$300 billion. CNN quoted sources saying it could top $400 billion. The
White House would not confirm the reports.”

“Republican Senator Lamar Alexander said Obama should take
responsibility for making the economy worse.

“Unemployment is worse, housing is worse, the debt is worse, and he’s
done all that by throwing a big wet blanket over the economy with his
regulatory, tax and healthcare policies,” he said.”

Read more:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-obama-jobstre781765-20110902,0,2398267.story

What Obama stated on March 3, 2009.
    “Two weeks ago, I signed into law the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, the most sweeping economic recovery plan in history.
 And already, its impact is being felt across this nation.
Hardworking families can now worry a little less about next month’s
bills because of the tax cut they’ll soon find in the mail.  Renewable
energy companies that were once downsizing are now finding ways to
expand.  And transportation projects that were once on hold are now
starting up again — as part of the largest new investment in
America’s infrastructure since President Eisenhower built the
Interstate Highway System.

    Of the 3.5 million jobs that will be created and saved over the
next two years as a result of this recovery plan, 400,000 will be jobs
rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, and schools, repairing our
faulty levees and dams, connecting nearly every American to broadband,
and upgrading the buses and trains that commuters take every day.
Many of these projects will be coordinated by Secretary LaHood and all
of you at the Department of Transportation.  And I want you to know
that the American public is grateful to public servants like you —
men and women whose work isn’t always recognized, but whose jobs are
critical to our nation’s safety, security, and prosperity.  You have
never been more important than you are right now, and for that we are
all grateful.  (Applause.)

    Now, in the coming days and weeks, my administration will be
announcing more details about the kinds of transportation projects
that will be launched as part of the recovery plan.  But today, I want
to speak about an investment we are making in one part of our
infrastructure.  Through the Recovery Act, we will be investing $28
billion in our highways, money that every one of our 50 states can
start using immediately to put people back to work.  It’s an
investment being made at an unprecedented pace, thanks in large part
to Joe Biden, who’s leading the effort to get the money out the door
quickly.  Because of Joe, and because of all the governors and mayors,
county and city officials who are helping implement this plan, I can
say that 14 days after I signed our Recovery Act into law, we are
seeing shovels hit the ground.”

“Now, we have another responsibility.  Having inherited a
trillion-dollar deficit that we’re working to cut in half, we also
need to ensure that tax dollars aren’t wasted on projects that don’t
deliver results.  And that’s why, as part of his duty, Joe will keep
an eye on how precious tax dollars are being spent.  To you, he’s Mr.
Vice President, but around the White House, we call him the Sheriff —
(laughter) — because if you’re misusing taxpayer money, you’ll have
to answer to him.”

Read more:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-and-vice-president-transportation-infrastructure

From The Blaze October 13, 2010.

“Obama: ‘No Such Thing’ as a Shovel-Ready Job”
“The president has offered a number of his own “serious proposals,” not
the least of which was the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.
The underwhelming fallout from the $787 billion investment is one of
many reasons the American public is challenging the Democratic
leadership this year.

In reflecting on his time in office, the president laments that he
looks too much like “the same old tax-and-spend Democrat,“ and
realized that ”there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects.”

But the promise of these “shovel-ready” jobs was one of the Democrats’
main selling points in lobbying for the stimulus plan. In December
2008, the then-President-elect Obama pledged, “We’ve got shovel-ready
projects all across the country that governors and mayors are pleading
to fund.  And the minute we can get those investments to the state
level, jobs are going to be created.”  Just one day later, the
president-elect presented his ideas for a “bold agenda” of
“shovel-ready projects,” promising the creation of 2.5 million new
jobs when he took office.”
In March 2009, President Obama boasted that just “14 days after I
signed our Recovery Act into law we are seeing shovels hit the
ground.”

“At the same time, Vice President Joe Biden, the White House’s de facto
stimulus shepherd, said the stimulus act “provides a necessary jolt to
our economy to implement what we refer [to] as ‘shovel-ready’
projects, meaning projects that were on the books that were needed in
the municipalities and the states that would improve the quality of
life for our constituents, the competitiveness of our businesses, but
were unable to be funded.”

Months later when the economy hadn’t begun to turn around, Obama
continued to promise “shovel-ready” jobs.  In August he bragged that
the stimulus helped fund “almost 100 shovel-ready transportation
projects… which are beginning to create jobs.”

A year later, Biden continues to parrot the White House’s claims that
“shovel-ready” projects were putting Americans to work, despite
stagnate unemployment levels.  “Last summer… we had 1,750 highway
projects that were underway — ‘shovel-ready,’” he said this summer.”

Read more:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-no-such-thing-as-a-shovel-ready-job/

*** Update from the Guardian September 9, 2011 7:45 AM ***

“President Obama’s jobs speech to Congress – as it happened”

“9.10pm: Here’s a summary of tonight’s speech on jobs by Obama:

• Barack Obama unveiled his American Jobs Act, designed to boost employment and costing $447bn. Obama repeatedly urged Congress to “pass this jobs plan right away”

• The bulk of the plan is for $245bn in reduced payroll taxes, designed to make it cheaper for business to hire new staff, as well as spending on building infrastructure and education, including funds to retain teachers and retraining for the long-term unemployed

• Under the act, an average American family would receive a tax cut of $1,500 in 2012

• Economists said the plan, if adopted in full, could support two million new jobs and cut the unemployment rate from 9% down towards 8%

• But the plan contained little to address the crushing burden of America’s housing market, and for that reason was rejected as “inadequate” by some economists

• Republican leaders gave a tepid but civil welcome to Obama’s speech, without offering specific support, although more conservative Republicans remained staunchly opposed to any new spending

• The new spending and lower revenue would have to be offset by further cuts to the federal budget under the recent debt ceiling deal, to be identified by the congressional “super committee”, with Obama pledging to submit a revised set of budget changes”

Read more:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2011/sep/08/obama-jobs-speech-congress-live

Obama thrown under bus by Democrats or Daniel Frawley or Tony Rezko or Rod Blagojevich or Stuart Levine or William Cellini, Obama exits 2012 race?

Obama thrown under bus by Democrats or Daniel Frawley or Tony Rezko or Rod Blagojevich or Stuart Levine or William Cellini, Obama exits 2012 race?

“Why has the mainstream media avoided coverage of the William Cellini
trial? Why are Chicago news stories being scrubbed or
altered?”…Citizen Wells

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

“Will Obama be thrown under the bus”

From Citizen Wells June 27, 2011.

“I am not certain if Obama controls the Democrat party and they are
concerned about 2012. Will the Democrats throw Obama under the bus?”

Read more:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/obama-under-the-bus-democrat-party-or-rezko-or-cellini-too-late-for-blagojevich/

From the Chicago Daily Observer August 18, 2011.

“Something strange is afoot in a Presidential campaign. To be specific,
something odd is going on within President Barack Obama’s reelection
campaign.

It’s enough to make a person wonder if — with the President’s approval
numbers now at an all time low — there’s an escape plan being hatched
for the 44th President.

Consider Obama’s remarks in June on the Today Show when he said his
family is “not invested” in a second term. He told the interviewer “If
I said, you know guys, I want to do something different, they’d be
fine with that.”

Realize that everything that is said in interviews is planned and
rehearsed in the White House. Nothing is just off- the- cuff in White
House interviews. The same is true with White House spokespeople.

So consider what Obama’s campaign spokesperson (and former press
secretary) Robert Gibbs said this month. On the same day that Obama’s
approval numbers dipped to their lowest, Gibbs said Obama is “quite
comfortable” being a one-term president in order to address issues he
is concerned about.

The two comments are not merely coincidental. They are planned,
formulated, tested and have a goal in mind. Is that goal to make
President Obama appear to be less ambitious for power? Is it to make
more people rise up and support the President? The answer is a “no” to
both theories.

No President who is campaigning for reelection suggests – or has his
spokespeople suggest – that he doesn’t need another term. Can you
remember another President, in the midst of a reelection, suggesting
that he doesn’t need another term?”

Read more:

http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/something-strange-afoot-in-the-obama-campaign/

Commenter Bessie, who has been correct about Daniel Frawley news,
placed the following comment on Citizen Wells and on the Chicago Daily
Observer.
“Frawley’s sentencing date has been postponed again, this time at his
request….Don’t worry though he has the best sentencing lawyer in the
country Jeffrey Steinbech and he’s working “pro-bono”.”
What is going on with Daniel Frawley?

From Citizen Wells August 3, 2011.

“Has Daniel Frawley been talking to the Feds? Apparently Frawley will
be sentenced on August 24, 2011. This comes after his sentencing
hearing was suddenly delayed recently. A Chicago SunTimes article
dated July 11, 2011 indicated that Frawley has been cooperating with
the Feds.

“UPDATE: After this story was published Monday morning, U.S. District
Judge Ronald A. Guzman canceled Daniel T. Frawley’s sentencing
hearing, which had been scheduled for Tuesday. Court records did not
indicate why Guzman did this. Frawley’s sentencing had not been
re-scheduled.
Daniel T. Frawley once teamed with Tony Rezko — the political fixer
who’s now in jail — in what turned out to be a doomed effort to open a
training school for Iraqi security forces in western Illinois. Now,
Frawley faces a federal prison stretch of his own.

On Tuesday, the 60-year-old onetime Chicago cop is set to appear
before a federal judge for sentencing after pleading guilty in
February in a $4.4 million bank fraud.

The scheme appears to have no connection to Rezko, the Wilmette
businessman who was once a prolific campaign fund-raiser for
politicians including the current president, Barack Obama, and the
recently convicted former governor, Rod Blagojevich.

Still, federal prosecutors are seeking a reduced sentence for Frawley
— of a year and a half in prison, rather than the 35 years he could
face — apparently because Frawley has been secretly cooperating since
at least 2006 in their investigation of Rezko, who was found guilty in
June 2008 of having used his clout with the Blagojevich administration
to enrich himself and his business associates.

Details about Frawley’s cooperation with the U.S. attorney’s office,
the FBI and the Illinois attorney general’s office can be gleaned from
a 65-page court deposition he gave seven months ago…”

“Frawley: “Yes, I had a conversation with Mr. Weaver where he
instructed me not to cooperate.”
Frawley: “I was on the phone, making a phone call to Tony Rezko. I had
a luncheon engagement with him.”

“George was outside of the room where I was making the telephone call,
and the purpose of the call was for me to keep my luncheon engagement
with Tony Rezko and to go over and to record Tony Rezko.”

“George saw and heard me on the phone, came running in and went like
this [demonstrating]: Cut it,”

Franklin: “For the record, the deponent is crossing his hands across
his throat.”

Konicek: “And Tony Rezko was where when you were speaking to him?”

Frawley: “He was on the other end of the phone. I don’t recall where he was.”
Konicek: “I’m assuming the information is about the payments made by
Rezko to Obama, so we know we’re talking about the right conversation,
right?”

Konicek: “Am I correct it was about Obama being paid by Rezko?”

Frawley: “I’m not answering that question, based upon my attorney’s
instructions.”

Konicek: “But on March 13, 2006, you’ve already indentified for me
being at 219 South Dearborn. You’re talking to Tony rezko on the
phone, and Mr. Weaver makes this gesture to you, right?”

Frawley: “Mr. Weaver made the gesture and told me to get off the
phone, to end the phone call.”
Konicek: “Okay. And then where were you instructed not to cooperate?”

Frawley: “In the same building, at 219 South Dearborn….in a different room.”
Konicek: “Did you bring to Mr. Weaver in Hinsdale a statement showing
payment to Tony Rezko in the amount of $ 1.5 million?”
Konicek: “Are you going to answer?”

Frawley: “No.”

Konicek: “Are you asserting your Fifth Amendment privilege?”

Frawley: “Yes.””

Read more:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/daniel-frawley-sentencing-august-24-2011-frawley-talking-for-lighter-sentence-daniel-frawley-throwing-rezko-and-obama-under-bus/

The US Justice Department has been protecting Obama before and after the appointment of Eric Holder as Attorney General. Holder is under increased scrutiny and increasingly Obama appears to be unelectable. Will the Democrats throw Obama or allow Obama to be thrown under the bus? Or will Obama exit on his own?