Category Archives: Election update

Election update

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 , , , ,

Michael Reagan on Iowa Caucus results and Romney, Paul, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Republican presidential nomination

Posted on January 6, 2012 | 145 comments

Michael Reagan on Iowa Caucus results and Romney, Paul, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Republican presidential nomination

From Michael Reagan, son of Ronald Reagan, January 5, 2012.

“Iowa caucus results show it’s still early in the game and nothing’s certain.

So what happened on the way to the Republican presidential nomination?

Well, even with a slim official win, Mitt Romney did no better in practical terms this year than he did four years ago in 2008 because of the level of competition. This proves that the road to the 2012 nomination will be anything but smooth, and that he has a tough road ahead if he is to win the Republican presidential nomination.

Mitt has a big problem in his seeming inability to relate to the average working man or woman. He’s a bit too self-assured. As for Rick Santorum, he threw a monkey wrench into Ron Paul’s meteoric rise by almost winning, and proved that Romney is not as unbeatable as his worshippers in the media would like us to believe.

Rick gave an off-the-cuff, Reaganesque speech that marked him as a staunch conservative in the style of my late Dad, Ronald Reagan. He leaves no doubt that his love for America is genuine and deep-rooted.

Ron Paul proved that his supporters are in there for the long haul. Moreover he proved that the GOP needs to pay attention to his message of fiscal sanity and restraint in federal spending or the average Republican, fed up with the witless squandering of our tax dollars, might bolt in November.

Newt Gingrich managed to live to see another day, and he’ll do battle in both New Hampshire and South Carolina — not with Romney, who he’s out to destroy, but with Rick Santorum. Newt needs to be more passionate and less professorial and, for heaven’s sake, Newt, put on a damned tie.

Perry needs to retool his message and overcome the gaffes for which he has become so infamous. He says he’s going home to reconsider his candidacy, but if he stays in the race he will meet Santorum and Gingrich in South Carolina and that will be the end for him. The conservative winner there will then go on, and the others will need to go home.

As for Michele Bachmann, she made the right decision to go back to Minnesota and run for re-election and not be like California’s Bob Dornan, who stayed too long in running for president and as a result lost his House seat to Loretta Sanchez.

The Iowa caucuses are over but the fun has just begun. Fasten your seatbelts, America, the ride ahead may get bumpy. There might now be room for another candidate to emerge and sweep the field.

Stay tuned.”

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2012/01/05/reagan-iowa-votes/?subscriber=1

 

145 Comments

Posted in conservatives, Election 2012, Election update, News, Politics, Presidential candidate, republicans, United States, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , , ,

Obama ballot challenge cases update, Obama eligibility, Natural Born Citizen Status, Georgia New Hampshire cases, Orly taitz

Posted on January 4, 2012 | 105 comments

Obama ballot challenge cases update, Obama eligibility, Natural Born Citizen Status, Georgia New Hampshire cases, Orly taitz

“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 Citizen Wells January 3, 2012.

“The Obama motion to dismiss the Georgia ballot challenge has been denied.”

“On December 15, 2011, Defendant, President Barack Obama, moved for dismissal of Plaintiffs’ challenge to his qualifications for office. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this contested case pursuant to Chapter 13 of Title 50, the “Georgia Administrative Procedure Act.”

For the reasons indicated below, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/obama-motion-to-dismiss-georgia-ballot-challenge-denied-david-farrar-et-al-vs-barack-obama-judge-michael-m-malihi/

Here is another excellent report from The Post & Email on the Obama ballot challenge cases in Georgia and New Hampshire.

“Is Barack Hussein Obama constitutionally eligible to serve as president?”

“Atty. Orly Taitz has provided an update on six active cases, the first of which has a hearing on January 6 in Hawaii. In Taitz v. Fuddy, Taitz has filed a Motion for Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement against Loretta Fuddy, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, which she has requested be heard in addition to the scheduled motion for “production of documents.”

The Reciprocal Subpoena motion is a request for Fuddy to comply with a subpoena issued to her by the state of Georgia in a case there. Taitz reported that Deputy Attorney General Jill T. Nagamine wrote a letter to Taitz stating that her client, Fuddy, “will not comply with a a subpoena from Georgia,” which Taitz is attempting to enforce.

Taitz has requested to inspect the original birth record of Barack Hussein Obama as well as the original long-form birth certificate of a deceased infant born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961, Virginia Sunahara, whose long-form birth certificate was not provided to the family and the short-form birth certificate, which was provided, contained a number which was suspiciously out of sequence.

The Georgia case is scheduled for trial on January 26, 2012. Taitz represents a registered voter, David Farrar, and four presidential candidates in a lawsuit against Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp and the Executive Committee of the Democrat Party of Georgia. “There is one more presidential candidate who might join as well,” Taitz said. “The case began as a ballot challenge by one person, and it was transferred to the Administrative Court of the state of Georgia. It’s currently a legal action seeking declaratory relief and an injunction which would prevent Obama from being on the ballot in Georgia.”

Taitz reported that after David Farrar filed his challenge, the judge joined his case with two others cases, challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility. One case is being brought by Atty. Mark Hatfield, who is also a Georgia State Representative; the other has been filed by Atty. Van Irion, who has also filed lawsuits against the DNC in three states on behalf of Liberty Legal Foundation. Taitz stated that separation of the cases was requested by the other attorneys. She said it was granted to one of them, and the other request is pending.”

“Taitz stated that she believes there has to be a holding issued directly on point in regard to the definition of “natural born Citizen” as it applies to the US Presidency, there has to be a holding, as to whose responsibility it is, to vet Constitutional and factual eligibility of candidates. ”I believe that based on the writings of the Framers of the Constitution, their intent was to include children of citizens, not children of foreigners. The court needs to come up with a holding directly on point in regards to this issue, in regards to children of one citizen parent, their eligibility for the U.S. Presidency.

In New Hampshire, Taitz has filed, an appeal with the state Supreme Court regarding its recent denial to hear a case brought against the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission. “Actions of the Ballot Law Commission were outside the norm of what is normally done by the agency,” she said. She filed an application for stay which the court denied. She stated that she “will be going further, either with a Motion for Reconsideration in New Hampshire or straight to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

In the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Taitz is planning to file a Motion for Rehearing en Banc in which she represents former Ambassador Alan Keyes, ten state representatives, and 30 members of the military. The case was heard on May 2, 2011, by a three-judge panel, which issued a decision stating that presidential contenders have the right to challenge another candidate’s eligibility during the campaign period.

Two cases filed in Washington, DC are Taitz v. Astrue and Taitz v. Ruemmler, which are currently in the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia Circuit, in which Taitz stated that she is waiting for the schedule which contains the docket of pleadings.

Regarding the costs and hours of work involved in the various cases on which she is working, Taitz said, “People don’t realize how much time it takes to prepare the filings and exhibits. The filing with the New Hampshire Supreme Court came to almost 300 pages. I had to prepare seven books for the New Hampshire Supreme Court which had to be printed, bound and mailed, and filing fees have to be paid. People have no idea how much I’m spending. Travel to New Hampshire and all of the other trips is very, very expensive. I am spending hundreds of hours as well; it took me a full week to prepare the New Hampshire filing. I had to spend $1,221 for my plane ticket to Honolulu. I ask that people donate to this cause.””

Read more:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/02/atty-orly-taitz-upcoming-actions-on-six-obama-eligibility-cases/

105 Comments

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

Tagged , , , ,

Iowa Caucus results, January 4, 2012, Romney edges Santorum by 8 votes, Ron Paul third

Posted on January 4, 2012 | 102 comments

Iowa Caucus results, January 4, 2012, Romney edges Santorum by 8 votes, Ron Paul third

From the AP

Results for Iowa Republican Caucus (U.S. Presidential Primary)
Jan 03, 2012 (100% of precincts reporting)
Mitt Romney 30,015 24.6%
Rick Santorum 30,007 24.5%
Ron Paul 26,219 21.4%
Newt Gingrich 16,251 13.3%
Rick Perry 12,604 10.3%

From CBS News January 4, 2012.

“Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney eked out a narrow victory over former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum in the Iowa caucuses Tuesday, winning the first contest for the Republican presidential nomination, the Hawkeye state’s Republican party chairman Matt Strawn said early Wednesday morning after a long night with the two candidates in a dead heat.

Santorum pulled off a stunning come from behind performance in Tuesday’s Iowa caucuses, garnering just eight fewer votes than a much better funded and better organized Romney in the closest Iowa contest since the modern caucuses were formed in 1976.

It’s a tie so Santorum wins

“Game on,” Santorum told supporters gathered in Johnston, Iowa in what amounted to a victory speech before the results were announced.

The devout Catholic father of seven vowed to take his social conservative message to New Hampshire, which holds the first binding vote on January 10. The Iowa caucuses are non-binding.

“With your help and God’s grace, we will have another fun night a week from now,” Santorum said after offering congratulations to Romney, who now appears headed toward the nomination. Romney is widely expected to win in New Hampshire, where he owns a vacation home.

Analysis: Romney’s race to lose

If Romney wins in the Granite state, he would be the first non-incumbent president to win both Iowa and New Hampshire since their 1976 establishment as critical early states in the nominating process.

Santorum won the support of 30,007 caucus-goers, giving him 25 percent support, while Romney won 30,015 votes — also 25 percent, Strawn said.

Ron Paul finished in third place 21 percent support. Just weeks ago, Santorum was at the bottom of opinion polls.

Romney offered his congratulations to Santorum, while focusing mostly on President Obama and the general election in his remarks, also made before the final tally was announced.

“This has been a great victory for him and for his effort. He’s worked very hard in Iowa. We also feel it’s been a great victory for us here,” Romney said.

After finishing in a disappointing fifth place with 10 percent of the vote, Rick Perry told his supporters Tuesday night in Iowa he would return to his home state of Texas to “determine whether there is a path forward for me in this race.”
Santorum’s strong finish, pulled off on a shoe-string budget, validated the more than 100 days he spent engaged in retail campaigning across the state of Iowa. It also proved that conservative voters are still wary of Romney — whose resources on the campaign trail far surpassed Santorum’s — in spite of perceptions that he would be the most viable Republican presidential candidate.

Santorum thanked Iowans for “standing up and being bold and leading.”

He added, “What wins in American are bold ideas, sharp contrasts and a plan that includes everyone… A plan that says we will work together to get America to work.””

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57351741-503544/iowa-caucus-results-mitt-romney-beats-rick-santorum-by-8-votes/

102 Comments

Posted in Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Election 2012, Election update, News, Presidential candidate, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

Obama motion to dismiss Georgia ballot challenge denied, David Farrar et al vs Barack Obama, Judge Michael M. Malihi

Posted on January 3, 2012 | 71 comments

Obama motion to dismiss Georgia ballot challenge denied, David Farrar et al vs Barack Obama, Judge Michael M. Malihi

“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

The Obama motion to dismiss the Georgia ballot challenge has been denied.

First some background.

From Citizen Wells December 20, 2011.

“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.”

“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?”

“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.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/david-farrar-v-barack-obama-georgia-ballot-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-obama-attorney-michael-jablonski-motion-ga-election-laws/

From Orly Taitz January 3, 2012.

Order to deny Obama motion:

“ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

On December 15, 2011, Defendant, President Barack Obama, moved for dismissal of Plaintiffs’ challenge to his qualifications for office. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this contested case pursuant to Chapter 13 of Title 50, the “Georgia Administrative Procedure Act.”

For the reasons indicated below, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

I. Discussion
1.

The Georgia Election Code (the “Code”) mandates that “[e]very 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.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(a).

2.

Both the Secretary of State and the electors of Georgia are granted the authority under the Code to challenge the qualifications of a candidate. The challenge procedures are defined in Code Section 21-2-5(b), which authorizes any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate to challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).

3.

The Georgia law governing presidential preference primaries mandates that “[o]n a date set by the Secretary of State . . . 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.” O.C.G.A. § 21-
2-193. On October 6, 2011, Secretary Kemp issued a notice to the chairman of each political party to notify them that the deadline for submitting the list of candidate names for the 2012 presidential preference primary was November 15, 2011. On November 1, 2011, the Executive Committee of the Democratic Party submitted President Barack Obama’s name as the sole candidate for the Democratic Party. To be timely, complaints challenging a presidential
candidate’s qualifications in the presidential preference primary had to be filed no later than November 29, 2011. Plaintiffs, as electors eligible to vote for Defendant, timely filed challenges with the Secretary of State before the deadline of November 29, 2011.

4.

In the instant motion, Defendant contends that Georgia law does not give Plaintiffs authority to challenge a political party’s nominee for president in a presidential preference primary because Code Section 21-2-5 does not apply to the presidential preference primary.

5.

Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this Court finds that the cases cited by Defendant are not controlling. When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the “first step . . . is to examine the plain statutory language.” Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008). “Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden. In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.” Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other “natural and reasonable construction” of the statutory language, this Court is “not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.”
Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (quotation marks omitted).

6.

Code Section 21-2-5(a) states that “every candidate for federal and state office” must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this Court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary. O.C.G.A. 21-2-5(a) (emphasis added). Although the word “candidate” is not explicitly defined in the Code, Section 21-2-193 states that the political party for the 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.” O.C.G.A. 21-2-193 (emphasis added). Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office.

7.

Code Sections 21-2-190 to 21-2-200 set out the procedures of the presidential preference primary and also provide no exception to the Section 21-2-5 qualification requirement. This Court finds no basis under Georgia law why the qualification requirements in Section 21-2-5 would not apply to a candidate for the office of the president in the presidential preference primary.

8.

Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.

II. Decision

Based on the foregoing, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 3 rd day of January, 2012.
MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge”

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Farrar-Motion-to-dismiss-by-Obama-is-denied.pdf

Thanks to commenter Pat 1789.

71 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Dr. Orly Taitz, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electors, Eligibility, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Secretary of State, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, voters, Washington DC

Tagged , ,

Rick Santorum Iowa Caucus, January 3, 2012, Meet the Press interview, Santorum interview impressive, Citizen Wells endorsement

Posted on January 3, 2012 | 19 comments

Rick Santorum Iowa Caucus, January 3, 2012, Meet the Press interview, Santorum interview impressive, Citizen Wells endorsement

Tonight, January 3, 2012, the Iowa Caucus will be held. Rick Santorum has been surging in the polls, close to the front runner , Mitt Romney.

I have been listening to Rick Santorum being interviewed for years and have always been impresssed with his solid, consistent answers. Santorum was interviewed on Meet The Press on Sunday, January 1, 2012. It is clear from the interview that Rick Santorum is the right man to be the Republican candidate and President. The antidote for Obama.

Watch the entire interview and read the transcript here. If the interview disappears, let me know.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45840626/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/meet-press-transcript-jan/#.TwMZmNQV33c

From the transcript:

“it’s funny. i haven’t asked anybody. and the reason i haven’t asked anybody, i’m sitting at 3% in the national polls. and i really haven’t gone out and asked any united states senator, i haven’t asked a single one to endorse me. but i felt like i had to earn it first. that i had to go out and prove to — you know, i lost my last race. and the general consensus was, you know, we like rick, but, you know, you can’t — who goes from losing their last senate race to winning the presidential nomination? my answer to that was, well abraham lincoln. but other than abraham lincoln, this is not a common occurrence”

“if people want to endorse me, i’d love their endorsements. but i’m not coming to be buddies with my — with, you know, my friends in the senate and house, i’m coming to change the entire nature of washington, d.c. it’s one — one of the benefits, frankly, of being out and looking in, and seeing what, you know, sometimes you said i was running as a consistent conservative. there are votes that i took, not that i advocated these things but i voted for some things and look back and say, why the heck did i do that? you get involved in sort of the the — the idea that well, you got to make things happen, and you forget sometimes, you know, sometimes making some things happen is not — you’re better off”
“what i’ve said is your role as a member of congress, if you look at the constitution, is to appropriate money. of course if you appropriate money you’re going to say where that money’s going to go. and historically congress has taken the role of, you know, allocating those resources, and jim demint who led the charge on pork barrel spending, earmarked things for years and years. so what happened, after i left congress, was budgets began to explode. when i was in the senate, i voted for tough budgets, i voted for restrictions on spending, and made sure that that didn’t happen. and as president, i propose cutting $5 trillion over five years. i propose we’re going to balance the budget in at least five years, hopefully sooner. so if you’re looking for someone who’s voted for tough budgets, voted for spending restraints, and”

“well, what changed was who he’s running against. at the time, that was five days or four days before super tuesday, it was after florida. it became clear to me that there were two candidates in the race at that point. i thought mike huckabee– i would have loved to have mike huckabee out there. but i made the political judgment, right or wrong, that the best chance to stop john mccain, which was what my concern was, i had served 12 years with john mccain, i like and respect john mccain immensely personally, and he’s done a lot of great things, obviously, for this country. but i did not think he was the right person, based on my experience and deep knowledge of his record, that he was the right person to be the nominee”

“of course my background is to find compromise. that’s what you have to do in order to get things done. but you don’t compromise on your principles. i use welfare reform as an example. i — i went out and helped author the welfare reform bill that became the contract with america bill, and then when i was in the united states senate, i managed that bill as a first-term, first-year member of the united states senate. i went up against daniel patrick moynihan and ted kennedy and battled over two vetoes of president clinton and was able to get it done. did i make compromises? you bet. but the compromises i made were not fundamental to the transformation that was important in welfare. which was to end the federal entitlement, the only bill that i’m aware of, only law that’s actually ever ended a broad-based federal entitlement. i was the author and manager of the bill on. and we put time limits on welfare. and we put a work requirement in place. those were the things that i believe were transformational. was i willing to compromise on day care funding? yes, i was. was i willing to compromise on transportation to get folks from welfare to work? yes, i was. but what we did was something that was moving the direction of a more limited government, and in order to get the necessary votes to get that done, you have to make compromise. but, we did a direction of limited government, maybe less than what we wanted to. but we weren’t going in the direction of more government, and getting less of more. that’s where republicans have been in error for so many years. and that is, compromising on just a little less big government, instead of saying no. no more compromises and less big government. we’ll compromise on less-less government. but, not going the other way.”

“you have to have someone you can work with. and this president has done more to divide than any other president that i’ve ever witnessed in my lifetime. this president goes out and gives speech after speech after speech trying to divide america between class, between income group, between racial and ethnic groups. this is the great divider in chief. and it’s very difficult when you’re being led by the president on a regular basis, not just as a party but individually, to then — and the president, who i don’t believe has met with boehner or any of the republican leadership, and now six months, hard to compromise and work with someone who won’t meet with you. who won’t sit down and try to negotiate things and try to talk. so i’m not surprised at all that republicans are having a difficult time with someone who has no interest”

“number one, he didn’t support the pro- democracy movement in iran in 2009 during the green revolution. almost immediately after the election — i mean, excuse me, like within hours after the polls closed ahmadinejad announced he won with 62% of the vote. within a few days, president obama basically said that that election was a legitimate one.”

“i understand why the president announcing a minute after the polls close he won, he comes from chicago, so i get it. the problem was this was an illegitimate election, the people in the streets were rioting saying please support us president obama, we are the pro- democracy movement. we want to turn this theocracy that’s been at war with the united states, that’s developing a nuclear weapon, that’s killing our troops in afghanistan and iraq with ieds and the president of the united states turned his back on them. at the same time, a year later we have the same situation where muslim brotherhood and islamists are in the streets of egypt opposing an ally of ours, not a sworn enemy like iran, but an ally of ours like mubarak and he joins the radicals instead of standing with our friends.”
“we know by the israelis. we don’t have any evidence, if you look at what’s being done, most of the evidence to actually trails back to the israelis and the methodology that they use. there’s no evidence the united states is at all complicit in working at that. that’s what — i would be very direct that we would, in fact, and openly talk about this. why? because i want to make sure that iran knows that when i say that iran is not getting a nuclear weapon, that we will actually affect out policies that make that happen. this president has not done that. he has opposed tough sanctions on iran, on their oil program. why? because he’s concerned about the economy and his re-election instead of the long-term national security interests of this country. i would say to every foreign scientist that’s going in to iran to help them with their program, you will be treated as an enemy combatant like an al qaeda member. and finally i would be working openly with the state of israel and i would be saying to the iranis you need to open up those facilities, you begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors or we will degrade those facilities with air strikes and make it very public.”

“iran would not get a nuclear weapon under my watch.”

“yes, that’s the plan. i mean you can’t go out and say, this is — this is the problem with this administration. you can’t go out and say this is what i’m for and then do nothing. you become a paper tiger. and people don’t respect our country. and our allies can’t trust us. that’s the problem with this administration.”

I was pleased to hear Rick Santorum make the following statement:

“i understand why the president announcing a minute after the polls close he won, he comes from chicago, so i get it.”

I continue to endorse Rick Santorum for the Republican nomination and the presidency. He is the breathe of fresh air that this country needs.

19 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Chicago, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, constitution, Election 2012, Election update, Electors, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Pennsylvania voters, politicians, Politics, polls, Presidential candidate, Primary polls, republicans, Rick Santorum, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, US economy, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , ,

January 3, 2012, Obama eligibility press conference, New Hampsire House of Representatives, Laurence Rappaport, Obama not Natural Born Citizen

Posted on January 1, 2012 | 178 comments

January 3, 2012, Obama eligibility press conference, New Hampsire House of Representatives, Laurence Rappaport, Obama not Natural Born Citizen

“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 the Post & Email January 1, 2012.

“New Hampshire House of Representatives Members to Hold Press Conference on Obama’s Eligibility on January 3”

“WE NEED TO INFORM THE PUBLIC”
“On January 3, 2012, several members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives will hold a press conference with the primary purpose of informing New Hampshire citizens and registered voters that Barack Hussein Obama may not be eligible to serve as president and therefore should not have his name appear on the 2012 presidential ballot.

The time and place are tentatively set for 10:00 a.m. outside of the Legislative Office Building in Concord.

The website of the New Hampshire House of Representatives provides the following history regarding its beginnings:

Although threatened with reprisals from the British Crown and a bitterly divided constituency, New Hampshire’s leaders set the course for self-government in January 1776. Determined to keep the government close to the people, our forefathers fixed the size of the House of Representatives as a direct ratio to the state’s population. The first House consisted of 87 members, each one representing 100 families. As time passed and the population increased, the number of Representatives grew, until there were 443. In 1942, a constitutional amendment limited the size of the House to 400 but not less than 375 members. As a result, the New Hampshire House is the largest state legislative body in the United States.
New Hampshire has the largest House of Representatives in the nation. The Concord Monitor has stated that New Hampshire has “the most localized representation of any state in the country.”

On November 15, 2011, Atty. Orly Taitz filed a complaint with the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission regarding the placing of Obama’s name on the state ballot, citing his use of a social security number not assigned to him as well as having presented two forged birth certificates as proof that he was born in Hawaii. Several state representatives joined the complaint, and citizens from around the country filed challenges as well. A U.S. Army reserve retired colonel has launched a campaign to prevent Obama’s name from being included on the New Hampshire ballot.
The New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission responded to Taitz by holding a hearing on November 18, during which Taitz presented her case challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility, focusing on the crimes which she alleged he committed.

Although the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s office has disallowed candidates from running for the presidency due to foreign birthplaces in the recent past, the decision of the Ballot Law Commission was that because Obama completed the application and paid the requisite $1,000 fee, it could not prevent his name from appearing on the 2012 ballot.

Atty. Taitz has since stated that “massive election fraud” is occurring in New Hampshire because it appears that in 2008, boxes of ballots were left out on tables rather than locked in a vault, which Gardner admitted in a video to be a deviation from standard protocol.

Nine members of the New Hampshire House attended the hearing of the Ballot Law Commission, one of whom was Rep. Laurence Rappaport (R-Coos). Rappaport stated that there were nine representatives present at the Ballot Law Commission hearing and that some or all of them organized the press conference to be held on Tuesday, January 3, 2012.

We first asked him about his reaction to the outcome of the Ballot Law Commission hearing, he responded, “I was extremely disappointed.”
We then asked him about the investigation called for by Attorney General Michael Delaney regarding alleged misconduct on the part of some of the representatives at the Ballot Law Commission hearing. Rappaport’s response was, “There were two investigations. One was by the House Security, run by Randy Joyner, and he reported to the Speaker of the House, and the Attorney General asked the State Police to investigate. Neither one of them contacted me, probably because although I was there, I never said anything. The results of the investigation, as I understand it, were that there were no threats made, and it was basically a non-event.”

Rappaport said that at the time we spoke with him on December 31, a statement to be made at the press conference was in second-draft format. Working on the statement with him are Reps. Lou and Carol Vita and Harry Accornero.

“What we really need to do is emphasize that Barack Obama was not eligible and is not eligible to become president. At the Ballot Law hearing, the Commission and the Assistant Secretary of State said publicly, under oath, on the record, that their authority was only to see that the paperwork was properly filled out and that the $1,000 fee was paid. If you go back a little farther, you find out that they had disqualified a man named Sal Mohamed and another named Abdul Hassan. There are letters, of which we have copies, signed by Karen Ladd, the Assistant Secretary of State. So we applied for a rehearing, which was denied, and we applied to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and last week they denied us a hearing. We can provide complete copies of all of these challenges.””

Read more:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/01/new-hampshire-house-of-representatives-members-to-hold-press-conference-on-obamas-eligibility-on-january-3/

Thanks to commenter Imuha.

178 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Eligibility, Founding Fathers, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , ,

Rick Santorum surges in Des Moines Register Iowa Poll, Santorum passes Paul at 21 percent, Romney 24 percent, December 31, 2011

Posted on December 31, 2011 | 9 comments

Rick Santorum surges in Des Moines Register Iowa Poll, Santorum passes Paul at 21 percent, Romney 24 percent, December 31, 2011

From the Des Moines Register December 31, 2011.

“Romney leads Paul in new Des Moines Register Iowa Poll; Santorum surges”

“Mitt Romney tops the latest Des Moines Register Iowa Poll in the closing days before the Iowa caucuses, but Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are poised within striking distance.

The poll, conducted Tuesday through Friday, shows support at 24 percent for Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts; 22 percent for Paul, a Texas congressman; and 15 percent for the surging Rick Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania.

But the four-day results don’t reflect just how quickly momentum is shifting in a race that has remained highly fluid for months. If the final two days of polling are considered separately, Santorum rises to second place, with 21 percent, pushing Paul to third, at 18 percent. Romney remains the same, at 24 percent.

“Momentum’s name is Rick Santorum,” said the Register’s pollster, J. Ann Selzer.

Another sign of the race’s volatility: 41 percent of likely caucusgoers say they could still be persuaded to change their minds.

Selzer & Co. of Des Moines conducted the poll of 602 likely Republican caucusgoers, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. In the final two days of polling, 302 likely caucusgoers were interviewed, with a margin of error of plus or minus 5.6 percentage points.

Rounding out the field, in results from the full, four-day poll: former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, 12 percent, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, 11 percent, and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, 7 percent.

The first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, which take place Tuesday evening, kick off voting in the presidential nominating process. The Iowa Poll, a Register exclusive since 1943, is a much-watched indicator of how candidates are faring in the leadoff caucus state.

The first three Iowa Polls of the 2012 caucus cycle, conducted in June, October and November, featured a different leader each time: first Romney, then retired business executive Herman Cain, then Gingrich. Other candidates took turns in the top tier, too. Bachmann was in second place to Romney in the June poll and won the Iowa straw poll in August. But her support plummeted this fall.

Gingrich surged to the lead with 25 percent support in the late November poll, but slid to 12 percent in the new poll.

Now, it’s Santorum’s time to rocket to the top tier. He has campaigned in Iowa more than any other candidate, stumping the state more than 100 days and conducting more than 300 events since the last presidential election. Next closest is Bachmann, at 80 days.

But until recent weeks, Santorum has struggled to escape single digits in state and national polls. He has campaigned as both a strong fiscal and social conservative, but social conservative voters had remained undecided or split among several candidates.”

Read more:

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/31/romney-leads-paul-in-new-des-moines-register-iowa-poll-santorum-surging/

9 Comments

Posted in Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, conservatives, Election 2012, Election update, News, Newspapers, Politics, Presidential candidate, republicans, white house

Tagged , , , ,

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

Posted on December 29, 2011 | 41 comments

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.

41 Comments

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

Tagged , ,

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

Posted on December 20, 2011 | 67 comments

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

67 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Courts, Delegate, democratic convention, Democrats, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, First Amendment, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Secretary of State, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,