Category Archives: Election 2012

Obama ballot challenge in Georgia, GA Judge Michael Malihi orders president to appear at hearing, Obama not Natural Born Citizen, CBS Atlanta

Posted on January 21, 2012 | 49 comments

Obama ballot challenge in Georgia, GA Judge Michael Malihi orders president to appear at hearing, Obama not Natural Born Citizen, CBS Atlanta

“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

From CBS Atlanta January 20, 2012.

“Ga. judge orders president to appear at hearing”

“A judge has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court in Atlanta for a hearing on a complaint that says Obama isn’t a natural-born citizen and can’t be president.

It’s one of many such lawsuits that have been filed across the country, so far without success. A Georgia resident made the complaint, which is intended to keep Obama’s name off the state’s
ballot in the March presidential primary.

An Obama campaign aide says any attempt to involve the president personally will fail and such complaints around the country have no merit.

The hearing is set for Thursday before an administrative judge. Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi on Friday denied a motion by the president’s lawyer to quash a subpoena that requires Obama to show up.”

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/16567672/ga-judge-orders-president-to-appear

 

Thanks to commenter Pat1789

49 Comments

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

Tagged , , ,

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

Posted on January 20, 2012 | 126 comments

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

“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

WHY DID OBAMA REFUSE MATCHING FUNDS IN 2008?

PART 2

Robert Bauer, et al help Obama keep his records hidden.

In Part 1 it was revealed that Obama, in 2008, despite support for and a earlier pledge to accept them, opted out of Federal Matching Funds.

“If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

“Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, announced this morning that he will not enter into the public financing system, despite a previous pledge to do so.”

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/

Advisory Opinion Request: General Election Public Funding

From Obama attorney Robert Bauer to FEC

February 1,2007
“This request for an Advisory Opinion is filed on behalf of Senator Barack Obama and the committee, the Obama Exploratory Committee, that he established to fund his exploration of a Presidential candidacy. The question on which he seeks the Commission’s guidance is whether, if Senator Obama becomes a candidate, he may provisionally raise funds for the general election but retain the option, upon nomination, of returning these contributions and accepting the public funds for which he would be eligible as the Democratic Party’s nominee.”

“Senator Obama, fully committed to competition on the same terms as all other
candidates, has decided that, if he becomes a candidate, he will also instruct his campaign to proceed with active fundraising for the general election. But the Senator would not, if the law allows, rule out the possibility of a publicly funded campaign if both major parties’ nominees eventually decide, or even agree, on this course. Should both major party nominees elect to receive public funding, this would preserve the public financing system, now in danger of collapse, and facilitate the conduct of campaigns freed from any dependence on private fundraising.”

“The legal question presented under Commission regulations is whether a candidate provisionally raising general election funds, segregated from other funds and not available for expenditure until nomination, has “accepted” this money. Candidates establishing eligibility must certify that they have not accepted money for the general election. 11 C.F.R. § 9003.2(a)(2). The rules do not address the question posed here: has the candidate accepted the money if it is held in escrow and never used, allowing for these funds to be returned and for the candidate to qualify for public funding?”

FEC advisory opinion

From Robert D. Lenhard to Robert Bauer

March 1, 2007

“We are responding to your advisory opinion request on behalf of Senator Barack Obama and Obama for America, formerly known as the Obama Exploratory  Committee (the “Committee”),1 requesting whether Senator Obama may, under the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act (the “Fund Act”), as amended, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (“FECA”), and Commission regulations, solicit and receive private contributions for the 2008 presidential general election while retaining the option of refunding the contributions and receiving public funds for the general election if he receives his party’s nomination for President.

The Commission concludes that Senator Obama may solicit and receive private contributions for the 2008 presidential general election without losing his
eligibility to receive public funding if he receives his party’s nomination for President, if he (1) deposits and maintains all private contributions
designated for the general election in a separate account, (2) refrains from using these contributions for any purpose, and (3) refunds the private
contributions in full if he ultimately decides to receive public funds.”
“Senator Barack Obama is a United States Senator from Illinois, elected in 2004, who is a candidate seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for the office of President of the United States in the 2008 election. The Committee is his principal campaign committee.”

“If a candidate fails to qualify for the general election, any contributions designated for the general election that have been received from contributors who have already reached their contribution limit for the primary election would exceed FECA’s contribution limits.”

Obama helps block Republican FEC appointee.

From the Washington Post December 11, 2007.

“Paralyze The FEC? Splendid.”

“What if the country held an election and there was no one to make sure that candidates played by the rules — no agency that could issue regulations, write advisory opinions or bring enforcement actions against those breaking the law?”

“The six-person FEC — three members from each party — enforces the rules it writes about how Americans are permitted to participate in politics.”

“The FEC’s policing powers may soon be splendidly paralyzed. Three current FEC members, two Democrats and one Republican, are recess appointees whose terms will end in a few days when this session of Congress ends — unless they are confirmed to full six-year terms.

Four Senate Democrats decided to block the Republican, Hans von Spakovsky. Republicans have responded: “All three or none.” If this standoff persists until Congress adjourns, the three recess appointments will expire and the FEC will have just two members — a Republican vacancy has existed since April. If so, the commission will be prohibited from official actions, including the disbursement of funds for presidential candidates seeking taxpayer financing.”

“The Post wants von Spakovsky confirmed only to keep the FEC functioning. He is being blocked because four senators have put “holds” on his nomination. One of those four who might be responsible for preventing the FEC from being able to disburse taxpayer funds to Democratic presidential candidates Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and John Edwards is . . . Barack Obama.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001559.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

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.”

From the FEC motion above:

“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.”

This is true.

From Robert Bauer, et al’s motion:

“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.”

This is also true. However, if an advisory opinion requesting Obama’s eligibility for matching funds, questioning his Natural Born Citizen status, had been submitted before Obama opted out, it appears that the FEC would have been compelled to respond and their response could be challenged.

It is becoming clear why Obama did not accept matching federal funds in 2008.

More on this chicanery to come.

126 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Courts, Election, Election 2008, Election 2012, Election Law, Election update, Electors, FEC, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, US District Court, US Senate, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , ,

Romney concedes Iowa to Rick Santorum, Recount gave Santorum more votes

Posted on January 19, 2012 | 66 comments

Romney concedes Iowa to Rick Santorum, Recount gave Santorum more votes

Rush Limbaugh just announced that Mitt Romney has conceded Iowa to Rick Santorum after a recount gave Santorum the edge. Earlier the contest had been declared a tie due to some votes being missing.

From ABC News January 19, 2012.

“Rick Santorum collected more caucus votes in Iowa  by the state party’s final count, but we’ll never know who really won.

The Republican Party of Iowa announced Thursday morning that the final, certified count shows Santorum winning by 34 votes. But eight precincts’ results were not available for certification, the party announced, telling the Des Moines Register that it will never be recovered.

The current, incomplete count: 29,839 votes for Santorum and 29,805 for Mitt Romney.

On caucus night, precinct officials phoned in results to an automated system  after they’d counted the votes by hand. As the last precincts reported their votes, the tally swung back and forth into the wee hours of Jan. 4. Since the Iowa Republican Party announced on caucus night that Romney had edged Santorum by a mere eight votes, it has been collecting certified results forms from Iowa’s counties and precincts.

Thursday’s results are final. Santorum will forever hold a lead with incomplete returns.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/final-iowa-results-santorum-tops-romney-but-well-never-know-who-won/

 

66 Comments

Posted in Election 2012, Election update, News, Presidential candidate, republicans, Washington DC, white house

Tagged ,

Rush Limbaugh Obama college transcripts quip, Limbaugh to Romney, I’ll release my income tax as soon as Obama releases his college transcripts

Posted on January 19, 2012 | 34 comments

Rush Limbaugh Obama college transcripts quip, Limbaugh to Romney, I’ll release my income tax as soon as Obama releases his college transcripts

“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

From WND, World Net Daily, January 18, 2011.

“OBAMA’S COLLEGE TRANSCRIPTS HIT RUSH”

“As pressure continues to build on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney to release his tax records, top-rated radio host Rush Limbaugh says the former Massachusetts governor should have a ready response whenever asked about the matter.

“Some answers ought to just roll off your tongue. Some answers ought to now just be automatic coming out of the oral cavity,” Limbaugh said today. “But Mitt appeared to be stumbling and unsure of some things when this income-tax challenge came up [in Monday’s debate in South Carolina]. What Romney should have said: ‘OK, I’ll release my income tax as soon as Obama releases his college transcripts.’”

Limbaugh continued, “The frustrating thing is that you know this stuff is coming every election. You know it’s coming, but there has not been a defense prepared for it. There doesn’t seem to be anybody on the Republican side prepared to deal with this even though everybody knows it’s coming. What would have been wrong with an answer [such as] ‘It’s none of your business. I’ll release it when I’m ready to. I’ll release it when I see Obama’s transcripts from college.’? Throw it back at them.”

The quip about Obama’s college transcripts comes a day after White House Press Secretary Jay Carney dodged a question about the president’s university records.

As WND reported, Carney evaded the question completely, shifting it to say it was a good idea to have presidential candidates release their tax records.

The question came from Ed Henry of Fox News.

“Now, I don’t know how many years – maybe you do – George Romney released of his college transcripts, but Republicans like to complain the president has not released his college transcripts. What is the stated reason for that?” Henry asked.

“I’d refer you to the campaign. I mean, I think,” Carney started.

“Is it a question you could take,” Henry said.

“Sure. I think we’ve answered this a bunch. I think that the tradition of releasing income tax records for presidential candidates, for serious potential nominees and nominees of the two parties is well established. It’s not a law, but it’s well established. And it’s one that this president abided by when he was a candidate as senator. It’s one that numerous Republicans and Democrats have abided by, and we just think it’s a good idea,” Carney said.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obamas-college-transcripts-hit-rush/

Perhaps my inclusion of college records with the birth certificate above makes more sense now. With the Orwellian efforts of the Obama camp and mainstream media to hide Obama’s past, it is all the more important to keep these issues alive  and in front of the American public. One of those issues is the efforts made by Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, before, during and after the 2008 election to help Obama hide his records.

You remember Robert Bauer, husband of Anita Dunn.

From Citizen Wells October 19, 2009.

“Now that you know who Anita Dunn admires, this video of White House Communications Director Anita Dunn speaking to the Dominican government at a conference, will not surprise you. Listen carefully. Among Dunn’s statements, these two are also not a surprise and confirm what we already knew. The mainstream media is controlled by the Obama camp.
“We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it,””

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/anita-dunn-video-we-controlled-press-press-strategy-thought-police-chairman-mao-glenn-beck-obama-thugs-white-house-communications-director-catholic-high-school-graduation-speech-1984-george/

 

34 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Chairman Mao, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election 2012, Eligibility, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Orwellian, republicans, The Case Against Barack Obama, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , ,

Obama GA ballot challenge, Natural born citizen status, Judge Michael Malihi, Why did Obama refuse matching funds in 2008?, Part 1

Posted on January 17, 2012 | 100 comments

Obama GA ballot challenge, Natural born citizen status, Judge Michael Malihi, Why did Obama refuse matching funds in 2008?, Part 1

“In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”…Barack Obama

“Today, Barack Obama has revealed himself to be just another typical politician who will do and say whatever is most expedient for Barack Obama. The true test of a candidate for President is whether he will stand on principle and keep his word to the American people. Barack Obama has failed that test today, and his reversal of his promise to participate in the public finance system undermines his call for a new type of politics. Barack Obama is now the first presidential candidate since Watergate to run a campaign entirely on private funds. This decision will have far-reaching and extraordinary consequences that will weaken and undermine the public financing system.”…Jill Hazelbaker, McCain campaign communications director

“Sen. Obama (IL) opted out of the public financing program for the general election. Primary matching fund payouts in 2008 were the lowest since the inception of the presidential election public funding program in 1976.”…FEC website

Why did Obama refuse matching funds in 2008?

Part 1

To Judge Michael Malihi , presiding judge of the Obama GA ballot challenge, members of congress, presidential candidates and other interested Americans. This multi part series on facts regarding Obama refusing Federal Matching Funds in 2008 will raise reasonable doubts about Barack Obama’s Natural Born Citizen status.

From Politico February 07, 2007.

“Obama Wants Public Financing Option

My colleague Ken Vogel emails that the reports today that Obama has opted out of public financing aren’t quite right.

Vogel writes:

Contrary to media reports today, Sen. Barack Obama is trying to leave open the option of accepting public financing for his expected presidential bid.

Obama, D-Ill., last week asked the Federal Election Commission whether he could raise contributions that would disqualify him from receiving public financing, but return them later if he decided he wanted to receive taxpayer money for his campaign.

Obama’s question, tendered in the form of a request for an advisory opinion, is a new one for the Commission, which is expected to post the request on its Web site Wednesday afternoon. (UPDATE: Here it is now(.pdf).)

The request lays out the following scenario: Obama’s campaign would accept contributions for both the primary and general elections, but then return the general election contributions later if the Republican nominee agreed to accept public financing. The public financing system provides taxpayer dollars to candidates who abide by restrictions on how much they can raise.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0207/Obama_Wants_Public_Financing_Option.html

From ABC News June 19, 2008.

“Obama to Break Promise, Opt Out of Public Financing for General Election”

“In a web video to supporters — “the people who built this movement from the bottom up” — Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, announced this morning that he will not enter into the public financing system, despite a previous pledge to do so.

“We’ve made the decision not to participate in the public financing system for the general election,” Obama says in the video, blaming it on the need to combat Republicans, saying “we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.”

In November 2007, Obama answered “Yes” to Common Cause when asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”
Obama wrote:

“In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

Not so “aggressively,” according to the McCain campaign, which argues that Obama did not discuss this or try to negotiate at all with the McCain campaign, despite writing that he would “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

The Obama campaign disputes this. Obama campaign counsel Bob Bauer met with McCain campaign counsel Trevor Potter and, according to Obama spox Bill Burton, Potter “immediately made it clear there was no basis for further discussion,” that they weren’t interested in any sort of agreement.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/06/obama-to-break/

Judge Michael Malihi, et al,

Why did Obama break his promise to use Federal Matching Funds?

For those paying attention, the answer is obvious.

More to come.

100 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election 2008, Election 2012, Election Law, Eligibility, FEC, Government, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Politics, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

Best GOP Candidate, Mark Alexander, Republican presidential candidates, Laws be faithfully executed, Preserve protect and defend the Constitution

Posted on January 15, 2012 | 38 comments

Best GOP Candidate,  Mark Alexander, Republican presidential candidates, Laws be faithfully executed, Preserve protect and defend the Constitution

A well written essay on The Best GOP Candidate by Mark Alexander, January 12, 2012.

“Profile of the Right Man for the Job

“[T]ake care that the laws be faithfully executed … support the Constitution … faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” –Article II Section 1, 3, the Constitution of the United States
The right man for the job?

This is no “typical” election year, a point lost for the most part by Republican presidential candidates and obscured by the national media. This just accounts for the fact that a substantial majority of conservatives voters (both Republicans and Independents) have yet to approve of anyone on the current slate, and consequently, tell pollsters they prefer “other.”

What Beltway political advisers and pundits fail to grasp is that the 2012 federal elections will have enormous ramifications upon the future of our Republic and upon prospects for sustaining Liberty through our current national government structure. That structure, now severely destabilized, is a mere shadow of what the Founding Fathers envisioned and enshrined in our Constitution.

Treating this election cycle as anything less than the critical historical tipping point it is thereby dishonors the enormous sacrifice of blood and treasure that generations of American Patriots have sacrificed in support and defense of our Constitution.

Sadly, the Republican presidential contenders are still running plays out of an antiquated and self-destructive political attack playbook. They do so at great cost, both financially and to the ultimate objective of defeating Barack Hussein Obama.

The beneficiaries of this primary season’s Republican rancor are, once again, the mainstream media, the plethora of pollsters and, of course, the Democrat Party. Meanwhile, Obama does not have a primary opponent (other than the economy), and thus is building an enormous political war chest for the upcoming general campaign.

While it will require many election cycles to undo the severe political injuries inflicted upon our Republic by generations of Leftists, the restorative process began in earnest with the 2010 midterm election of many “Tea Party” candidates — those who rallied grassroots voters around restorative constitutional campaigns. We have a protracted and arduous fight to turn back the tides of Democratic Socialism — and time is not on our side.

Though congressional elections are important, and conservatives are making significant headway in the Legislative Branch, it is election of the next Chief Executive that will most determine whether we restore Rule of Law, or our nation succumbs to the fatal cycle of democracy, further submitting to authoritarian government rule and plunging into the gaping abyss of socialism.

(Notably, the U.S. has dropped from 9th to 10th place in the just-released 2012 Index of Economic Freedom.)

Though The Patriot Post devotes substantial energy and resources to evaluate candidates, we do not endorse presidential candidates until the general election. However, given all we have learned about the current field of Republicans, there is one candidate we could endorse and fully support.

Unfortunately, that candidate exists only as a composite of the best attributes from each of the actual candidates.

This amalgamated profile is important because it encompasses the qualities that all Patriots seek in candidates for federal office. Thus, what follows is a collection of winning conservative attributes, which, in some measure each of the current GOP candidates possesses, with the exception of one.*

The best candidate for the job is devoted to Liberty as endowed by our Creator and enshrined in our Constitution. He (because the remaining candidates are male) is a man of strong faith, is devoted to his family and has served his nation in uniform with honor. He has a good record of executive leadership, both in the private sector and government. He is an effective advocate for free enterprise, limited government and tax reform. He is smart, articulate, charismatic, experienced and a great debater with a remarkable sense of history. He has an outstanding comprehension of complex domestic and foreign policy matters. He bases his positions on constructionist logic, not political expediency, and is bold in his vision for our nation. He is salt of the earth from an strong family. He has formative ties to the renaissance of American conservatism launched by Ronald Reagan.

Of course, it would also be instructive to develop a composite based upon all the negative attributes of the contenders, but the GOP circular firing squad is already doing a fine job of promoting their liabilities.

As our ideal presidential candidate is not among the current lot, we must all vote for the primary candidate who most closely embodies him. I would encourage every Patriot to ignore the meaningless Iowa caucus and more so, the New Hampshire primary, as that former conservative stronghold is now little more than a political suburb of Boston. (Oh, but that we would have all primaries on a single day, rather than defaulting to the victors of minuscule Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, neither of which are substantially representative of grassroots conservatives across the nation. But a national primary day would put the choice in the hands of the people, rather than the GOP establishment and the 24-hour news cycle talkingheads.)

All other candidate attributes notwithstanding, we should, first and foremost, demand that every candidate, and president, affirm Rule of Law in compliance with their Sacred Oath to Support and Defend our Constitution.

In the words of Justice Joseph Story, “No man can well doubt the propriety of placing a president of the United States under the most solemn obligations to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. It is a suitable pledge of his fidelity and responsibility to his country; and creates upon his conscience a deep sense of duty, by an appeal, at once in the presence of God and man, to the most sacred and solemn sanctions, which can operate upon the human mind.”

Our single focus must be to defeat Obama, and frankly, I would fully endorse a turnip in order to achieve that objective.

*Jon Huntsman’s best attribute is that he is a superlative example of what not to support in a Republican candidate, as affirmed by his strong performance ahead of Gingrich, Santorum and Perry in the New Hampshire primary, where centrist Independents and Democrats outnumbered Republican voters.”

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2012/01/12/the-best-gop-candidate/

38 Comments

Posted in Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election 2012, Eligibility, Government, News, Presidential candidate, republicans, United States, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

SC primary January 21, 2012, Retired teacher undecided, I don’t want Obama for another four years, Rick Santorum endorsement

Posted on January 12, 2012 | 28 comments

SC primary January 21, 2012, Retired teacher undecided, I don’t want Obama for another four years, Rick Santorum endorsement

From the Wall Street Journal January 12, 2012.

“A Lesson on the S.C. Primary”

“After 30 years of running the mock elections at a public school in Orangeburg, S.C.,  retired teacher Linda Davis is enjoying the first Republican primary race where she can show her true colors.”

““My students never knew I normally vote Republican,” Ms. Davis said Thursday at a campaign stop in Orangeburg for Texas Gov. Rick Perry. As a teacher of third, fourth and fifth graders, “I couldn’t put a yard sign out — the kids knew where I lived,” she said. “Now I have the opportunity to go out and speak my mind.”

Ms. Davis hasn’t yet decided who she will support in the state’s Jan. 21 primary, even after watching every debate.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has “a lot of baggage,” and she worried about Mr. Perry’s ability to beat President Barack Obama in a general election. “I’m leaning toward [Mitt] Romney because I don’t want Obama for another four years,” she said. But he hasn’t sealed the deal.

“I probably won’t make my final decision until the morning I go to vote,” she said.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/12/a-lesson-on-the-s-c-primary/

From the Chicago tribune January 8, 2012.

“Rick Santorum says South Carolina his ‘best chance to win'”

“Rick Santorum’s campaign continued to gain momentum Sunday as he made two campaign stops in South Carolina, where he was met with cheering crowds and picked up an endorsement from conservative leader Gary Bauer.

“For me, Ronald Reagan has always defined what the right political position was in the U.S. I gave up on the idea that I would ever find another Ronald Reagan,” Bauer, a former Reagan advisor, said at a Republican fundraiser in Greenville. “Over the last year I’ve watched [Santorum] as he’s gone out and talked to the American people…. I realized the next Ronald Reagan was standing in front of me the whole time.”

The endorsement is another feather in the cap of Santorum, who has seen his poll numbers surge in the past two weeks. Recent polls show Mitt Romneyleading the state with about one-third of the vote, with Santorum and Gingrich tied for second with about 20% each. But even that is a surprising change for Santorum, who had polled as low as 2% in South Carolina in December.

The surge in popularity follows his second-place finish in the Iowa caucuses, and is a strong contrast to just a few weeks ago, when many of Santorum’s events drew only a few dozen people and little media attention.

“People were always saying to us, ‘We like him; he’s just not doing well in the polls and we don’t want to throw our vote away.’ ” Santorum said Sunday. “As soon as it became apparent that we could actually do well, our numbers went from, in the last five days, from 15 to 25, and that’s momentum.””
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-south-carolina-best-chance-santorum-20120108,0,4930274.story

28 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Election, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Politics, republicans, The Case Against Barack Obama, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

NH primary January 10, 2012, Latest polls Romney 37 %, Paul Huntsman tied for second, Santorum Gingrich tied for third

Posted on January 10, 2012 | 53 comments

NH primary January 10, 2012, Latest polls Romney 37 %, Paul Huntsman tied for second, Santorum Gingrich tied for third

Just in from CNN January 10, 2012.

“Polls: Tied up for 2nd and 3rd in NH”

“The final two polls here in the Granite State leading up to Tuesday’s first-in-the-nation primary both indicate Mitt Romney holding a 19 point lead over the rest of the field of candidates in the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

And according to poll surveys, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and former Utah governor and former U.S. ambassador to China Jon Huntsman are battling for second place, with former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in a dead heat for third place, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry in a distant sixth place.

According to the final Suffolk University/7 News tracking poll, released early Tuesday morning, Romney had the support of 37% of likely GOP primary voters in New Hampshire. Romney is very well known here in New Hampshire. He was governor of neighboring Massachusetts for four years last decade, and was often on Boston TV, which much of the heavily populated southern New Hampshire receives. Romney also owns a vacation home in the Granite State and has spent lots of time over the past six years in the state campaigning for himself or for fellow Republicans.

The tracking poll indicates Paul, who’s making his third bid for the White House, is at 18% and Huntsman, who skipped campaigning in Iowa (which held the first contest in the primary caucus calendar) to spend all of his time stumping in New Hampshire, is at 16%. Paul’s two point margin is well within the poll’s sampling error.

Perry, who left the Granite State following the back to back debates this weekend, is now campaigning in South Carolina, which holds its primary on January 21. He’s at one percent in the tracking poll. Seven percent were undecided.

An American Research Group poll released Monday night also indicates Romney grabs the support of 37% of likely GOP primary voters, with Huntsman at 18%, Paul at 17%, Santorum at 11%, Gingrich at 10% and Perry at one percent, with four percent undecided.
Both polls were conducted Sunday and Monday.

The ARG survey indicates Romney leading among registered Republicans, with 46%, followed by Paul at 15%, Huntsman at 13% and Gingrich and Santorum both at 10%. Huntsman and Romney are tied at 25% each among independent voters, with Paul at 20%, Santorum at 13% and Gingrich at 10%

The American Research Group poll questioned 600 likely primary voters in N.H. by telephone. The survey’s sampling error is plus or minus four percentage points. The Suffolk University tracking poll questioned 500 likely primary voters in N.H. by telephone.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/10/polls-tied-up-for-2nd-and-3rd-in-nh/

53 Comments

Posted in Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Election, Election 2012, Election update, News, Presidential candidate, republicans, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, United States, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

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

Posted on January 8, 2012 | 49 comments

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/

 

49 Comments

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

Tagged , , , ,

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

Posted on January 8, 2012 | 22 comments

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/

 

22 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, democratic convention, Democrats, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, Judges, Lawyers, Lies, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,