I have tried my best to like and follow Glenn Beck. He has exposed much of the real Obama and Obama Administration and agenda. That being said, I am damn tired of Glenn Beck insulting concerned Americans, including many in the military who ask questions about Obama’s eligibility. As my mom would say, “he has gotten too big for his britches.”
Apparently Beck has followed in the footsteps of the pontificating, bloviating Bill O’Reilly. It is either that or Fox, heavily influenced by Saudi ownership, has issued an edict to not cover some aspects of Obama.
Glenn Beck, you are a coward. If you have a valid excuse (and I would love to hear it), please provide it.
I hereby challenge Glenn Beck to a duel. That is, a verbal/written exchange. I realize I may be challenging an unarmed opponent. I am armed with the facts and a regard for upholding the US Constitution.
Glenn Beck, if you do not respond, I am going to initiate a campaign to boycott your show.
You have insulted the people who gave you the large audience share. There is no excuse for your behaviour.
“John Boozman will enter the Arkansas Senate race this weekend as the frontrunner. He leads incumbent Blanche Lincoln by an amazing 56-33 margin in our first poll of the race.
Lincoln’s approval rating has sunk to just 27%, with 62% of voters in the state disapproving of her. She’s at a middling 51% even within her own party and just 17% of independents and 9% of Republicans are happy with how she’s doing.
A look inside the health care issue gives a good indication of how Lincoln has managed now to get it from all sides. 61% of voters in the state oppose the President’s plan, and among those folks Lincoln’s approval rating is just 8% with 79% of them expressing the belief that she’s too liberal. But she’s managed to antagonize a lot of the people who support the Democratic health care plan as well- 36% of them think she’s too conservative and her approval with them is just 57%. Barack Obama’s at 95% with that same group of voters.
What it all adds up to is Boozman winning 89% of the Republican vote while Lincoln’s at just 68% with Democrats. And Boozman has a 66-20 lead with independents as well.”
Why has Obama employed a legion of private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?…Citizen Wells and millions of Americans
To anyone who has an agenda, is simple minded, not paying attention or does not care, including, but not limited to, Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck. Obama’s eligibility issues, his intentional withholding of a legitimate birth certificate, college records and other records from his past and his decision to not receive federal matching election funds are all tied up in a web of deception. One cannot refer to one dubious aspect of Obama’s secrecy without bringing to light another. So it is with the hidden birth certificate. Much has been made about the significance of this fact. For people like Glenn Beck, who preach adherance to the US Constitution out of one side of their mouth while insulting concerned Americans who question Obama’s eligibility out of the other. For people like Beck who appear to be either hypocritical or doing the bidding of the Saudis via their ownership of Fox, I am going to make this real simple.
Why has Obama kept hidden his college records?
It is a certainty that the Saudis played a large role in Obama’s education. Just how much? We will be reopening that can of worms. But first let’s revisit contributions to Obama’s presidential campaign and why Obama chose to not receive federal matching funds.
From NewsMax, September 29, 2008.
“Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign”
“More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won’t disclose.
And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.
Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain’s campaign, according to new campaign finance report.
But because of Obama’s high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage — at least, not yet.
The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
The McCain camp and the Republican National Committee had $94 million, because of an influx of $84 million in public money.
But Obama easily could outpace McCain by $50 million to $100 million or more in new donations before Election Day, thanks to a legion of small contributors whose names and addresses have been kept secret.
Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).
Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.
Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.
“Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”
The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.
It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.”
Glenn Beck, O’Reilly and others who pretend to cover important news, the eligibility issue is either above your comprehension level or US Constitution adherance level or you are purposely avoiding or denigrating it for some agenda. So here it is, simple enough for a third grader.
Why has Obama employed countless attorneys to avoid presenting his college records?
Whether the good citizens of Louisiana are successful or not at removing Senator Mary Landrieu from office, it is good to know that concerned citizens are attempting this and that statutes exist to permit it. And yes, I do believe that the 10th Amendment is pertinent.
From the MoveOnMary.org website.
“Is it Possible ?
No doubt, gathering enough signatures to remove a currently seated United States Seantor will be difficult.
Our legislators, no doubt, did not want recall petitions to be used willy-nilly everytime someone gets annoyed by current office holders. They’ve made it difficult enough by requiring at least 33% of the voters who were registered to vote at the time of the office holders election.
What this translates to, in this attempt to remove Mary Landrieu, is the collection of 981,873 signatures of voters who were registered to vote on November 4th 2008. Do we believe this to happen easily? Certainly not. Is it really possible to achieve our goal, given the whole hearted participation of supporters who really want to restore some semblance of sanity with our elected officials? Yes, we really can. Yes, it will take a lot of work, but, it can be done. We certainly would not have ventured into this effort, were it impossible. You can download the voter registration data from the Secretary of State web site at:
Well, you’re probably already hearing from the “conservative” nay-sayers already. You may be hearing all kinds of reasons that you should not participate in this effort. I’ve already had a coulple of conversations with “Conservative activists” trying to dissuade me from participationg in this effort. This morning, one gentleman who is a self declared “leader” in the Tea Party movement expressed to me his own reasons why I should give this up already. Some of these I’d like to share with you now.
1) “It can’t be done!”
Sorry, but that defeatest attitude isn’t one of my core attitudes.
2) “It’s never been done before.”
Well, he was correct. Of course, it will never ever be done until someone really tries to get it done.
3) “State law only provides for the recall of State and Local Officials”
When I asked him if he could give me the actual Louisiana Statute he was talking about, he told me that it would take a couple of week to get it to me. But, of course, he did know the statute. Until he gets that information to me, I’ll have to fall back on Louisiana RS 18:1300.1 §1300 (Link). This statute, specifically addressing the recall of elected officials, states, “Any public officer, excepting judges of the courts of record, may be recalled”. Nowhere, could I find in that statute an exception to Federal officials nor anything that would describe a U.S. Senator as something different that a “Public Officer”.
4) “The Supreme Court has already held that States cannot recall U.S. Representatives or Senators.”
Well, again, when I asked for this case to be cited, it couldn’t be. Neither the U.S. nor the Louisiana Supreme Court has ever heard or made a decision concerning the recall of U.S. Represntatives or Senators.
5) “The Constitution doesn’t provide a means to recall U.S. Representatives or Senators”.
True. There are lots of issues that the U.S. Constitution does not address. That’s why our founding fathers later included the 10th Amendment (link). It states simply, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In simplest terns, since the U.S. Constitution has NOT provided a means for the citizens to remove Representatives or Senators and has NOT forbidden the States or the people from doing so, then it is reserved to the States or the people. Fortunately, Louisiana is one of the 18 states that have passed laws providing for the recalling of “Any public officer” other than judges. U.S. Representatives and Senators or NOT judges, so can be recalled.
6) “The 10th Amendment forbid it.”
The Tenth Amendment of which Constitution? See note 5.
7) “Constitution experts have …..”
Sorry, but Constitutional experts are simply people like you and I, who have opinions. Some have the opinion that it can be done, some have the opinion that it can’t be done.
Thoughout the internet, in the social networking groups, in the blogs, etc., there have been many who have made a lot of noise about recalling Mary Landrieu. Up until now, I’m sure it has been an amusement to her ilk. On December 29, 2009, Someone finally did something about it and filed the petition with the Secretary of Sate’s office. I for one am enthusiastically joining in the effort and will never look back.
Legally, we CAN recall Mary Landrieu. Ethically and morally, we CAN recall Mary Landrieu. Ethically and morally, we SHOULD recall Mary Landrieu. I can promise, if we accomplish this daunting task, it will have a snowball effect in Baton Rouge AND Washington, Nay-sayers notwithstanding. One thing is a fact, however, as long as we continue to roll over and play victim, we will continue to be made fools out of by the likes of Mary Landrieu. Attending meetings and rallies, waving banners and placards and making a lot of noise changes NOTHING … if we do nothing else to change things. Louisiana voters are blessed with the statutes allowing us to recall public officials who are derelict in their duty, and we should take advantage of those laws. Yes, laws do mean something … as long as we use those laws.
I want to do something about the problems in Washington. What about you?”
Just in from Charles Kerchner of another case, Kerchner v Obama & Congress.
U.S. District Court
District of Columbia (Washington, DC)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:10-cv-00151-RCL
TAITZ v. OBAMA
Assigned to: Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth
Case: 1:09-mc-00346-RCL
Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question
Date Filed: 01/27/2010
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
Plaintiff
ORLY TAITZ represented byORLY TAITZ
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway
Suite 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
(949) 683 – 5411
Fax: (949) 766 – 7603
PRO SE
V.
Defendant
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
Date Filed#Docket Text
01/27/20101 COMPLAINT against BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616027174) filed by ORLY TAITZ. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
01/27/2010 SUMMONS (3) Issued as to BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
1:10-cv-00151-RCL TAITZ v. OBAMA
Royce C. Lamberth, presiding
Date filed: 01/27/2010
Date of last filing: 01/27/2010
Case Summary
Office: Washington, DC Filed: 01/27/2010
Jury Demand: None Demand:
Nature of Suit: 890 Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant Disposition:
County: 88888Terminated:
Origin: 1 Reopened:
Lead Case: None
Related Case: 1:09-mc-00346-RCLOther Court Case: None
Def Custody Status:
Flags: PROSE-NP, TYPE-F
Why has Obama employed a legion of private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?…Citizen Wells and millions of Americans
Thank God Sean Hannity was not completely right. He was, of course, referring to the MSM, mainstream media. Citizen journalists have kept the torch burning on the internet.
We have come to believe that only Fox will bring us the news and the truth about Obama. However, Lou Dobbs, while still at CNN, asked the simple journalistic question, the question of the century.
Why doesn’t Obama provide a legitimate birth certificate?
“Lou Dobbs, while still on CNN asked the simple journalistic question, why doesn’t Obama provide a legitimate birth certificate. Dobbs refers to the COLB, Certification of live birth, as a document that refers to another document. After leaving CNN, Lou Dobbs, interviewed by Bill O’Reilly on Fox continues to state ther obvious about Obama not providing a legitimate birth certificate. A shot was fired at Lou Dobbs house.”
Of Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, only Hannity has stated that questioning Obama’s birth certificate is a valid endeavor. O’Reilly, in his self righteous, pontificating manner, has insulted birthers on Fox and Glenn Beck recently, on his radio show, insulted average, concerned Americans who question Obama’s eligibility. This has caused many to speculate that Fox has restricted this topic.
I have a surprise for Glenn Beck. God willing, I will produce it in a few days.
Many thanks to Lou Dobbs for asking real questions.
God bless Lou Dobbs.
From Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired), Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress, January 24, 2010.
“I Believe The Fix Was In for the 2008 Election and The Cover Up is Still Going Strong!”
I believe that the RNC and DNC at the highest levels in 2008 were both complicit in shutting down all discussion of Obama’s eligibility issue in the Main Stream Media, print press, and in the leading Conservative Talk Show radio stations. I believe that the RNC and the DNC were complicit in subverting Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of our Constitution as to the eligibility requirements for the Office of the President, i.e., the person eligible for that office must be a “natural born Citizen”, i.e., one born in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country such that the child born has singular and sole allegiance at birth to the USA and no citizenship at birth with any other country via his parents or due to the place or location of birth. A natural born Citizen needs know law or resolution of Congress to give or clarify citizenship status. Natural born Citizenship status can only be obtained by the facts of nature at the child’s birth. This is natural law. This is what the founders and framers of our Constitution required for the singular and very powerful office of the President and Commander in Chief of the military. John Jay and George Washington put that requirement into the Constitution for exactly the reason that the person serving in that office would have no foreign influences on him/her at birth due to the facts and circumstances of his/her citizenship at birth. Only “natural born Citizenship” in the USA per natural law guarantees no other allegiance or citizenship claims by an another country at birth. If you are born on the U.S. soil of parents who are both citizens, no other country can claim you as a Citizen of their country and you are only governed by the laws of the USA at your birth. This is natural law as written by Vattel in 1758 in his legal book, “The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law”. This book was used as a reference to set up our new new nation in 1776 in the writing of the Declaration of Independence and also in drafting the new form of federal government in 1789 and the writing of our Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation.
Both parties put up questionable candidates in 2008 as to their birth citizenship and then the covered up for each other and helped shut down the media and talk radio totally via their respective high contacts in the media industry and elected officials within the sitting Bush administration and in Congress as well as within their own respective presidential campaign organizations. Though shalt not talk about the presidential constitutional Article II eligibility issues was the word put out by all the powers to be in Washington DC and the USA media. It was reported that threats were even made to certain conservative talk show radio hosts in the last quarter of 2008.
And it continues to this day, imo, and is most obvious with the stone silence and “cone of silence” and occasional mocking comments made by the talk show hosts about the eligibility issue questions if mentioned briefly by a guest now and then on Fox News. The approach on Fox News is to ban the topic. Other networks such as MSNBC simply mock the movement continually using Saul Alinsky’s tactics from Rules for Radicals rule number 5, ridicule, to stifle all open, serious, and public debate on the issue and to scare off any one in political power from broaching the subject. Anyone even just mentioning this issue is pounced on for the ridicule treatment by the press. This shut down of a free and full “on air” debate of the Obama eligibility issue with serious scholars and legal experts representing each side (such as my attorney, Mario Apuzzo) being allowed on the air together with someone from the Obot side to debate this issue openly is being orchestrated at the highest levels of the RNC and DNC and their elected official type contacts in various powerful positions both today and back in Dec 2008 and early Jan 2009. Whispers in the hallways allude to grave consequences if one breaches this subject seriously on the air ways. The RNC silenced opposition in the conservative talk show radio and elsewhere in late 2008 which has enabled Obama to take power virtually unopposed as to addressing his constitutional eligibility in any serious manner in public debate via the national media. The leadership of the RNC at the highest levels, imo, shut down members of their own political party in Congress and via using their contacts in the highest levels of government, they helped shut down conservative talk radio and TV hosts with innuendos and and whispers of the consequences if this subject surfaced for discussion in a major way on their shows. They were told to keep the eligibility issue and the so called “Birthers” banned on their callers list with special instructions to the call screeners to keep them off the air. The RNC powers to be and their political connections used their power to do this to cover up their own subverting of Article II of the Constitution via putting up a candidate of their own with questionable natural born Citizenship status as their candidate for President. The big liberal media anointed Obama (a hard core progressive and Socialist) and then anointed McCain (a progressive light) because they knew McCain had a citizenship issue of his own and thus would keep him silent about Obama’s. And it worked. A “cone of silence” was dropped on the eligibility issue in the DC media and Congress and elsewhere in American to cover up for what both parties were doing, subverting Article II of the U.S. Constitution in the 2008 election. Listen to this radio show interview for more details.”
We have known for over a year that Bill O’Reilly has ignored and insulted the Obama eligibility movement. Recently Glenn Beck insulted average Americans who question Obama’s eligibility and adher to the US Constitution.
From the Conservative Monster, January 23, 2010.
“Pastor Manning – Beck and O’ Reilly are trying to Sabotage the Obama Eligibility movement”
“Tonight was the “Bold and Fresh” Glenn Beck/Bill O’ Reilly show in Westbury, NY. Thousands of their loyal fans showed up and they were greeted by an enthusiastic crowd from Pastor Manning’s church as they entered the parking lot. The Fox fans were met with leaflets and church songs, it was quite a site to see. There were about 50-60 people, but their spirit was strong.
There should have been 5,000 people protesting tonight, but too many people are brainwashed by Fox News and the Tea Party movement that the Obama eligibility issue is a non-issue. I have heard so many excuses and I am not buying any of them. This issue is bigger than Watergate and that is why there is a news blackout on the entire issue on all networks.
I almost did not make this protest due to sheer exhaustion, but I knew that I had no choice to make it to Westbury, NY. Why? Because the people need to be informed of this ‘news’ that is being blacked out by all networks and print in the media. If I did not report about this protest, it would have gone unreported. I was the ONLY journalist there covering this protest.
I want everyone to know that I do like Fox and Beck, but not as much as I used to like them. Beck’s Jan. 4th attack on the American people (many of them his fans) that dared to ask Obama for evidence that he is a natural born citizen was not only betrayal, it was suspicious.
Many of the Fox fans did not even know why we were out there protesting. One of them shouted “Communism does not work.” I approached him and I told him “We are here because Beck and O’ Reilly are part of a news blackout on the Obama eligibility issue and we want that blackout lifted.” I explained other details briefly and in under 30 seconds the gentleman said “Wow, that is interesting indeed.””
“Glenn Beck, Bill O’ Reilly, countless others in the media and both political party’s need to be held accountable if any violence breaks out when Obama is removed from office. I allege that THEY knowingly covered up this issue prior to the election to protect Obama and they betrayed this nation in the process.
FYI – Fox news was attacking Congressman Deal today on the show Cashin’ in. He is the only one in congress with the guts to send Obama a letter asking that he release his birth and school records to the public.”
From the Washington Post, January 22, 2010, Charles Krauthammer.
“What Scott Brown’s win means for the Democrats”
“On Jan. 14, five days before the Massachusetts special election, President Obama was in full bring-it-on mode as he rallied House Democrats behind his health-care reform. “If Republicans want to campaign against what we’ve done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have.”
The bravado lasted three days. When Obama campaigned in Boston on Jan. 17 for Obamacare supporter Martha Coakley, not once did he mention the health-care bill. When your candidate is sinking, you don’t throw her a millstone.
After Coakley’s defeat, Obama pretended that the real cause was a generalized anger and frustration “not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”
Let’s get this straight: The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that . . . it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts? Why, the man is omnipotent.
And the Democrats are delusional: Scott Brown won by running against Obama, not Bush. He won by brilliantly nationalizing the race, running hard against the Obama agenda, most notably Obamacare. Killing it was his No. 1 campaign promise.
Bull’s-eye. An astonishing 56 percent of Massachusetts voters, according to a Rasmussen poll, called health care their top issue. In a Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates poll, 78 percent of Brown voters said their vote was intended to stop Obamacare. Only a quarter of all voters in the Rasmussen poll cited the economy as their top issue, nicely refuting the Democratic view that Massachusetts was just the usual anti-incumbent resentment you expect in bad economic times.”
“The reason both wings of American liberalism — congressional and mainstream media — were so surprised at the force of anti-Democratic sentiment is that they’d spent Obama’s first year either ignoring or disdaining the clear early signs of resistance: the tea-party movement of the spring and the town-hall meetings of the summer. With characteristic condescension, they contemptuously dismissed the protests as the mere excrescences of a redneck, retrograde, probably racist rabble.”
“Democrats must so rationalize, otherwise they must take democracy seriously, and ask themselves: If the people really don’t want it, could they possibly have a point?
“If you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call,” said moderate — and sentient — Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, “there’s no hope of waking up.””
Attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed the Appellant’s Opening Brief in the Kerchner et al v Obama et al lawsuit Appeal. The Brief was filed with the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA on 19 Jan 2010. See this link to download a copy and read it:
Attorney Apuzzo will comment on this action more in the next few days in his legal blog at: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ However, please feel free to contact Atty Apuzzo with any immediate questions at the contact addresses listed in the afore listed blog site.
We look forward to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reviewing this matter and ordering a trial on the merits as to the Article II Constitutional eligibility of Obama to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief of the military.
We say Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” of the USA and thus is not eligible to serve in the Oval Office. Obama is a Usurper and must be removed to preserve the integrity and fundamental law of our Constitution and our Republic.
“We the People” will be heard on this matter! As the People in Massachusetts have demonstrated, “We the People” are the Sovereigns in this country and the Constitution is the fundamental law of our nation, not Obama or Congress. We will not be silenced. The chair Obama sits in in the Oval Office is not his throne. It is the People’s seat too. And Obama despite all his obfuscations to date must prove to Constitutional standards that he is eligible to sit in that seat.
This is not going to go away until Obama stops hiding ALL his hidden and sealed early life documents and provides original copies of them to a controlling legal authority and reveals his true legal identity from the time he was born until the time he ran for President. Obama at birth was born British and a dual-citizen. He holds and has held multiple citizenships during his life-time. He’s a Citizenship chameleon as the moment and time in his life suited him and he is not a “natural born Citizen” with singular and sole allegiance and Citizenship at birth to the USA as is required per the Constitution per the intent of our founders and the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” to Constitutional standards.
Citizen WElls 