Zach, of the Zach Jones is Home blog has written another hard
hitting article exposing the antics, hypocrisy and deception
of Obama and his Democrat cronies.
“The Obama Show – Vilification, Manipulation and Distraction
(“All this has happened before, and it will happen again” – Battlestar Galactica)
I’ve heard it said that there are only a handful of archetypal stories from which all variations come. Today, in politics, this appears truer than ever before. The same motivations are at play, the same goals and agendas, the same use of vilification and manipulation, the same attachments and vulnerabilities to draw out, the same diversions, the same subordination of truth – all to be used as “legitimate” means to the obtain the politician’s goals. Regrettably, the archetypal story of almost every politician today is the quest for power.”
“Power and manipulation! We all need to let that sink in and flow over us because in our regular lives we don’t think that way. Take a moment and say to yourself the words Hollywood, nothing is as it appears, the words mean nothing, the agendas are conflicting, all may be an elaborated distraction.
Now to American Politics 2009 –
This past week a poorly choreographed political theater has been taking place in the nation’s capital. It is the best example of political Kobuki theater we’ve had this year. We’ve had Pelosi and Barney Frank shrieking and pointing mephitic fingers at everyone but themselves. Senator Dodd, who has played a pivotal role in the entire financial mess, has been first denying knowledge of any AIG bonuses, kind of admitting the bonuses, admitting he wrote the amendment that exempted AIG so they could get the bonuses, and finally saying the Obama administration asked him to do everything. Timothy Geithner saying I didn’t know anything about anything until a few days ago and now a tape surfaces clearing indicating that he knew about the AIG bonuses at least by March 3, 2009. And finally, Obama saying I didn’t know anything about the AGI bonuses – which could be true since he was quickly planning a trip out of town to appear on the Tonight Show to talk about Special Olympics and his bowling skills.
The outcome of all the drama and CYA’ing was that the Congress of the United States, led by Nancy Pelosi, passed legislation attempting to tax anyone who received an AIG bonus out of any and all money. Congress decided that they must do “something”. Nancy was yelling and screaming, hell yes we’re mad and we are not going to take it, our voters are mad and we’re going to punish AGI employees who took these Congressional authorized bonuses. Oh my. The Kobuki result so far is that the House of Representatives have passed a likely unconstitutional bill of attainder in the attempt to cover their (not reading the original bill) tracks.”
“As entertaining as people with pitchforks can be; it’s now time to consider Mr. Obama’s actions.
Where was he? Was he bowling, picking his NCAA basketball teams, appearing on The Tonight Show? Why wasn’t he in Washington? I would suggest that it is/was part of the chorography that team Obama is executing to manipulate the public and maintain the Obama illusion. They want to try to keep Obama above it all, spouting lofty words and symbolizing calm.
During the Vietnam War, Nixon went to China. During this financial crisis, Obama goes to Hollywood and back to the campaign trail. It’s all diversion, manipulation and theater.”
Dr. Orly Taitz, the courageous immigrant from Russia,
the true American, can be seen and heard confronting
Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Roberts,
at the conclusion of the Bellwood lecture at the
University of Idaho. Dr. Taitz is involved in multiple
lawsuits at the state and Supreme Court level that
state that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen
and is ineligible to be president. Orly Taitz has
enlisted numerous military officers and soldiers as
plaintiffs in her lawsuits.
I just received this update from Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan:
“Personal Transcript of Hearing: Sullivan v. NC Secretary of State and Board of Elections; Case #08-CVS-021393
SUBJECT: Obama Eligibility
On March 16, 2009, the calendar was called by Judge W. Osmond Smith, III, presiding, in Wake County Superior Court, Raleigh, NC. My case was #23 on the calendar and required the hearing of three separate “motions”: My demand for class action certification; my demand for leave to amend; and the State’s motion to dismiss. When he got to #23, the judge said he would pass over this item until he had completed calling the calendar. (Odd, this. It was apparent there had been discussion of my case prior to the hearing. I am not at all sure these discussions did not include the defendant State.) Upon completion of calling the calendar, and after dividing the calendar between himself and another superior court judge, A. Leon Stanback, Jr., Judge Smith called the first case without mentioning mine again. I stood and called his attention to his oversight, and he apologized. The case was then scheduled for hearing last.
When my case was called (actually next to last as it worked out), the judge asked the parties how long the arguments would take. I answered it would depend upon which of the three “motions” he decided to hear first. After a brief discussion, the judge chose to hear my demand to amend first. It being my action with the burden of proof on my shoulders, I began my arguments in support of my demand with a statement of the justification for my amendment to the original pleadings. The original filing was a demand for injunctive relief which the court had decided to consider only a “routine” case. The case was filed on November 7th, 2008, and in anticipation of an expedited ruling to take place prior to the inauguration on January 20th, 2009. By considering the case “routine”, the court had condemned the action to becoming moot upon the completion of the inauguration. Thus, it was necessary to amend the complaint to prevent the necessity of filing a completely new action. It was only due to the scheduling by the court that the case had taken three months to be heard. I also was demanding I be allowed to add the Governor and the State of NC as defendants, since the necessary actions required in my demand for injunctive relief were interstate actions and would necessitate the Governor be a party.
I then presented that it was the sworn duty of the court to support the Constitution of the United States in accordance with the court’s ( and all others involved in this action) Article VI, Section 7, (NC Constitution) oath, in accordance with Article VI, Section 2, (US Constitution), and in accordance with Article 1, Section 5, of the NC Constitution. I admitted there was no statutory requirement for the State to do as I had demanded, but that the obligation and responsibility was a constitutional one, this being both an equity court and a constitutional court. I listed the evidentiary facts which appeared to assert the ineligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of President in contravention to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 5, of the US Constitution including, but not limited to, his failure to reveal his original birth certificate from Hawaii; his apparent use of an Indonesian passport in 1981, his multiple citizenships by birth and residence, none of which he has renounced; his failure to release his collegiate records which allegedly show he attended as a foreign student under an FS-1 foreign student visa; statements by the ambassador to the US from Kenya and his paternal grandmother which attest to his being born in Mombasa, Kenya; his having given false information on his application for an Illinois license to practice law in 1989, in that he averred he had no other names than Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., when, in fact, he has used at least four other names over his lifetime; and the apparent falsity of his selective service registration. I also showed the court the current issue of “Globe” magazine I had purchased that morning on the way to the courthouse, which highlighted on its cover, and in the article inside, the peril faced by the US military in its confusion over whether to execute the orders of a “President” who may in fact not be qualified. The cover pictured 43-year-old First Lieutenant Scott Easterling, in uniform and in Iraq, one of many US soldiers who are questioning the authority of Obama’s presidency. I explained that, should Obama survive the first four years of his presidency and decide to run again (a likelihood for which I admitted having very little hope), the issue of his eligibility would most certainly come up again; and, in the event he was proven ineligible, every action, appointment, order and law he had committed to during his first four years would be invalidated. I tried to impress upon the court that this constitutional crisis could be averted by nipping the “rumors”, if in fact that is what we are dealing with here, of Obama’s ineligibility in the bud by allowing my amendment so that the complaint could continue.
Having exhausted my arguments to the court, I turned it over to the defense, which merely argued that the case against the Secretary of State was res judicata (judged previously), having been heard in my prior filing against her and dismissed; that my arguments were moot, since the inauguration had passed, and there was no claim upon which relief could be granted by the court; and that I lacked standing before the court to pursue this case. Their arguments were brief, and the judge listened. When the two attorneys for the State sat down, the judge denied my motion to amend.
We then proceeded directly to the State’s motion to dismiss. They presented the same arguments in brief that had already been presented in the first hearing on the demand to amend, except they added that the ruling should be “with prejudice”. Part of my defense against the motion to dismiss had already been presented as to the res judicata claim in the form of my prior complaint had been dismissed “without prejudice”, such that I could file the same complaint again. They also argued the issues of standing, mootness and jurisdiction. When it was my turn, I repeated most of my arguments as well in the rebuttal, adding that mootness was not a valid defense because the offense of Obama’s illegitimacy was a continuing offense against the Constitution, not degraded nor invalidated merely on the grounds that he was now inaugurated falsely as President. My argument against “standing” was my filing as a “class action”, and the argument against jurisdiction was, of course, the constitutional obligations of the court. As to res judicata,
I explained to the judge that a ruling “without prejudice” did not deny leave to refile the case at a later date.
The judge didn’t buy any of it and allowed the motion to dismiss, along with the prayer for finding “with prejudice”, due to “mootness” (the inauguration issue); “failure to state a claim against which relief could be granted” (the “No State statute requires it” issue, which denies any constitutional duty or obligation); and “res judicata”. Conspicuously absent from this list was the issue of “standing” which has killed all the other suits around the country, of which I am aware. This last supports my theory that I had resolved the “standing” issue by filing a class action suit”, for which I offered myself as the representative of the registered voter “class” of North Carolina. I advised the court that I intended to appeal, but would appeal in writing within the allotted 30 days after the order is signed.
I have no intention of appealing this ruling. I will file a new case and improve on that one as I did from the first one filed in October to the second one filed in November. It is ironic that, had the judge allowed my demand to amend the names of the Governor and the State of NC to the defendant list, I would be precluded from filing a new case against them as it would be “res judicata”.
It is important that we continue to push this issue of legitimacy in government, if only because we are currently involved in two foreign armed conflicts with more on the horizon, and the economy is on the edge of collapse. Our military cannot continue to question the orders of the Commander-in-Chief because of the confusion of his nationality, and the “Stimulus Plan” is not going to help the economy. As Sun Tsu told us, we must know the enemy and ourselves, or we can never be victorious in battle. In the case of the United States government, the enemy is a mystery who changes with the tide; and, with Obama in the White House, even we ourselves are an unknown quantity. We cannot win if we continue on this course.
END
March 20, 2009
DS”
I received this in an email sent from a nice lady, part
of the “Greatest Generation.” I have seen the photos of
Blagojevich and Obama before, but they are worthy of
presenting again, lest we forget.
The world according to Chicago
To understand the next 4 years, you have to understand the world according to Chicago . While it is a city in Illinois , it is also a completely different country, with a whole different set of morals and language. There are only three rules which anybody can understand. You don’t even need an attorney to understand them and if you need an attorney, well … . . you know too much… so look out for Rule #3!
RULE #1….No matter what you see, hear, or do, you don’t know anybody and you don’t know nothing!
RULE #2…If you capture something on tape or camera, it doesn’t reveal nothing!
RULE #3…If you know what everybody knows in Chicago , well, . … . you still don’t know nothing.
Now pay close attention! We don’t want to have to say this more than once. It’s very simple . . . we’ll illustrate. Remember, you know nothing.
These two? They don’t know each other! They said they didn’t.
The fellas in the foreground of this picture? Well, what fellas? We don’t see nothing!
The guy on the left? For all you know he’s Santa Claus. And the guy on the right . . …well, he’s the Easter Bunny! That’s all you need to know.
Go to your eye doctor…your eyes are lying to you! Ca’pish?
Remember Jimmy Hoffa! He knew too much and now, well, now no one knows where he is. Is the big picture clear? Not these pictures! Remember, You’ve already forgot them…
Now, ain’t that simple? They don’t know each other, ’cause they said so! and neither do we!
And don’t forget it!
John Coale, the husband of Greta Van Susteren, is guiding the
political future of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. From the
Washington Post, March 17, 2009:
“So, who are the figures charged with guiding Palin’s political image in Washington? Here’s the lineup based on our conversations with informed strategists.
• John Coale: Coale, a well-known Washington lawyer and the husband of Fox News Channel’s Greta Van Susteren, drew national media attention when he endorsed Sen. John McCain’s presidential bid in protest of the way in which Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who he backed in the primary, was treated. Coale, in an interview with the Fix, described himself simply as a “friend” of the Alaska governor but acknowledged that he suggested she start a leadership PAC and helped her navigate through some of the questions surrounding her family that lingered after the campaign. Others familiar with Palin’s political team insist that Coale has far more power than he is letting on — essentially helping to run Sarah PAC. Coale demurred on that front, noting only that he talks to Palin regularly and that she is a “fascinating person” who is “definitely not what the right thinks or the left thinks.””
I received the following email request on December 26, 2008:
“XXXXX XXXXXX of TX has today gotten off the phone with Ron Paul.
Her parents live in the same city as RP.
Bad news. He does NOT intend at this time to stand up on Jan
8th. Part of the reason XXXXX mentioned was that RP said no
one knew the definition by either the law cases and Constitution
itself as to the real menaing of natural born.
Citizen Wells, I immediately thought of all your great research
on natural born that you’ve posted on our website. Its too much
to expect RP or any Congress critter to read it all BUT…
Here’s you assignment. Condense into no more than 3 pages with
full legal references on as many pages as needed. The more the
RELEVANT references the better. Can we have this done by Dec 28th?
I also ask that XXXXX, XXX and you coordinate the naturing of Ron
Paul. Your goal is to get him to agree to file the written
objection NLT Jan 3rd.
Are you’ll up to that challenge? If Ron Paul does sign on, he
will bring other Constitutionalists along in both the Senate and
House.”
Obviously Ron Paul is not paying attention.
I spent most of my time trying to debunk what I believed
about natural born citizen and after much reading posted
the following on the Citizen Wells blog on December 28,
2008:
Dean Haskins used this information to
produce this excellent video:
Exactly What IS a Natural Born Citizen?
Leo Donofrio has posted his most recent opinion about natural
born citizen and the influence of Vattel on the founding
fathers. Thanks to Phil at the Right Side of Life website
for the heads up.
“ONE FINAL POINT ABOUT THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE.
The more I read Vattel (pictured above), specifically the passage which defines “natural-born citizen”, the more convinced I become that the framers understood Vattel much better than we have on this issue. I now am firmly convinced that the framers relied on Vattel’s definition when they included the natural born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.
Yesterday, I had a revelation as to what Vattel meant and what the framers intended “natural born citizen” to mean in the Constitution. It’s obvious that the framers drew a distinction between the meaning of “citizen” and the meaning of “natural born citizen”. A “citizen” can be Senator or Representative, but in order to be President one must be a natural born citizen.
It’s the difference between a fact and a legal status.
Whether you are a natural born citizen is a fact of nature which can’t be waived or renounced, but your actual legal citizenship can be renounced. The difference is subtle, but so very important. “Natural born citizen” is not a different form of “citizenship”. It is a manner of acquiring citizenship. And while natural born citizens may end their legal tie to the country by renouncing citizenship, they will always have been naturally born into that nation as a citizen.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Two different sentences. Two different civil groups are being discussed.
Examine the subject heading given by Vattel, “Natives and Citizens”. Two separate groups of the civil society are addressed in the heading. And here is the start of the greatest proof that the framers relied on Vattel as to the natural born citizen clause.
In the passage above, the first sentence defines who the “citizens” of a civil society are. Vattel states; “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.”
In the very next sentence he describes a different set of people wherein he states, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
There are natives and citizens, just as the header says. All citizens are members of the civil society, but not all citizens are natives or natural-born citizens. A native can’t renounce his “nativeness”. He’s a native forever. He might renounce the citizenship he gained through being a native, but he can’t renounce the FACT of his birth as a native.
Vattel equates natives with natural-born citizens. They are the same. According to Vattel, in order to be a native, one must be born of the soil and the blood of two citizen parents.
He goes on as follows:
“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights…I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Some have argued that this passage indicates only one parent – the father – is necessary for one to be a natural born citizen. That is false. The above passage only mentions the word “citizen”. It says the children of the father are “citizens”, but it does not say they are “natives or natural-born citizens”. Vattel is discussing the legality of citizenship, not the fact of one’s birth as being native.
When Vattel wrote this in 1758, he wasn’t arguing for its inclusion in a future US Constitution as a qualification for being President. But the framers did read his work. And when it came to choosing the President, they wanted a “natural-born citizen”, not just a citizen. That is clear in the Constitution. Vattel doesn’t say that “natives or natural-born citizens” have any special legal rights over “citizens”. He simply described a phenomenon of nature, that the citizenship of those who are born on the soil to citizen parents (plural) is a “natural-born citizen”.
Citizen = legal status
Native or natural-born citizen = fact of birth which bestows citizenship.
Vattel also wrote:
“The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.
Once again, he does not mention natives or natural-born citizens in this passage, just citizens. Furthermore, he states that the citizens may renounce their citizenship when they come of legal age. But nobody can renounce a fact of birth. The fact is true or it is not true. You’re either “born” a natural-born citizen or you are not. The legal citizenship which attaches to this fact of birth may be renounced, but the fact will be with you forever.
And it is that fact of birth the framers sought to guarantee for each President of the United States. The framers ruled that the commander in chief be a natural born citizen. Like Vattel, the framers purposely distinguished between “citizens” and “natural born citizens”. And to that distinction there can only be one effect:
ONLY A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CAN BE PRESIDENT.
According to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, the 14th amendment cannot make the natural born citizen clause from Article 2 Section 1 superfluous. If being born as a 14th Amendment citizen was enough to be President, then the natural born citizen clause would have no effect. According to Marshall, that argument is inadimissible.
President Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States whethe he was born in Hawaii or not.
FAREWELL.
I am not going to protest any longer. As a Christian, I’m somewhat convinced this nation has been judged by the almighty and his fury may be descending as we speak. Such fury appears to be in the form of Constitutional cancer. I have prayed over my continuing role in this battle and the answer to those prayers said I am done here. As a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, I place my faith not in any organized religion but in the words of the lamb and the voice of God. Peace be with you.
I respectfully disagree with Leo Donofrio on one important aspect.
Barack Obama is not president under the US Constitution. No amount
of swearing in makes one president. Only a combination of the
election process and being qualified under the US Constitution makes
one president.
“Mieke and Therese hosts of USAPatriots-shout, a blog talk radio program, share information that is rarely broadcast on main stream media (MSM). We believe the truth supersedes labeling, party affiliations, and “political correctness”. Join them Sunday night as the great “Opinionators” give you their take on what’s happening with our country!
Mark your calender
you don’t want to miss this broadcast
Blogtalkradio.com/usapatriots-shout
Sunday night (03-22-09) 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. Pacific Standard Time
We are proud and honored to welcome DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ
Topic is:
QUO WARRANTO
What ON EARTH is QUO WARRANTO?
WILL QUO WARRANTO BE THE METHOD TO MAKE OBAMA PRODUCE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO PROVE HE IS ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT OR FORCE HIM TO STEP DOWN?
Discover the answers to these and more questions this Sunday evening on blogtalkradio.com/usapatriots-shout with Dr. Taitz
If you haven’t discovered Dr. Taitz, yet, you are in for a treat. Those of you who have been following her heroic efforts will also have the opportunity to call and ask her questions.
“Dr. Orly Taitz, the principal attorney behind the Keyes lawsuit, was born in the Former Soviet Union. Dr. Taitz escaped from the FSU over 20 years ago to begin a life of freedom in the United States. Dr. Taitz has a successful dentistry practice in Orange County, California, and is a licensed attorney and real estate agent. Dr. Taitz speaks five languages. Dr. Taitz’ experiences under the totalitarian Communist regime convinced her that this is a path that she would rather not see the United States take. Therefore, Orly is committed to doing everything in her power to prevent such a disastrous mistake, and to defend the rights and freedoms that exist for all citizens in the United States under the Constitution. Dr. Taitz has filed a second lawsuit associated with the Obama Eligibility Crisis that is currently before the Supreme Court and is working on a third lawsuit featuring active duty and retired military as plaintiffs. With Dr. Taitz’ help, Orly’s Keyes lawsuit has been successfully cloned in Florida and in Washington State, where other complaints are active. Dr. Taitz has just filed application for a foundation to carry on this work entitled the “Defending Our Freedoms Foundation”. “
www.blogtalkradio.com/usapatriots-shout this Sunday evening, March 22, 2009 between 8 and 10 pm Pacific Standard Time. You may call 646-727-3865 to ask questions.
What a great opportunity to call in or write and share and discuss these issues!
More crime and corruption ties have been discovered for
Vivek Kundra and the Obama White House. Thanks to Zach
Jones of the ZachJonesIsHome blog for the heads up.
From the Real Barack Obama blog:
“Update 03/17/09 15:30 pm ET: Thanks to RBO reader jd for forwarding the link for this info:
Owen Thomas at The Gawker reports that Vivek Kundra “pleaded guilty to a theft charge in 1997.”
Yusuf Acar, the D.C. computer security official accused of masterminding a multimillion-dollar embezzlement scam, told his co-conspirators that corruption was widespread in the city’s computer office, The Examiner has learned. Acar and former D.C. employee Sushil Bansal are accused of faking invoices and timesheets from contractors in order to skim money from the city. The pair was arrested last week.Several alleged co-conspirators were identified by initials in court papers but have not been charged with wrongdoing.”
Yusuf Acar, the D.C. computer security official accused of masterminding a multimillion-dollar embezzlement scam, told his co-conspirators that corruption was widespread in the city’s computer office, The Examiner has learned. Acar and former D.C. employee Sushil Bansal are accused of faking invoices and timesheets from contractors in order to skim money from the city. The pair was arrested last week.
Several alleged co-conspirators were identified by initials in court papers but have not been charged with wrongdoing.”
“Reportedly, “corruption was widespread in [the] office”, Bill Myers and Scott McCabe wrote in D.C.’s The Examiner:”
““What concerns us and the White House Counsel’s office is that Kundra and Bansal seem to have a very tight relationship that was not discussed during the vetting process,” says the White House source. The White House has determined that Kundra and Bansal also did business prior to Kundra’s taking the D.C. job. When Kundra worked for Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), it was as a consultant for a project at U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Bansal’s firm provided support to SAIC’s contract work at HHS.
“We’re still sorting things out,” says the White House source. “But there appears to be a lot more to be cleared up than we originally thought.””
“We received word from Steve Malzberg that Attorney Orly Taitz will be on his show today.
As much of our country knows (and increasingly other parts of the world), she is the relentless California attorney who is seeking to have Mr. Obama release his Original Birth Certificate (and other documents) now to prove his eligibility for president, especially as our young troops are about to be sent to Mexico, as new “economic” measures are signed, etc.
So, it’s a must catch, especially with all that’s happening.
She will be on Super Steve’s show today, 3-17-09,
at 4pm (Eastern), on 710-am radio…
and online at www.worradio.com. , http://www.wor710.com/ http://www.wor710.com/pages/418904.php 3-6pm. (Eastern)
Among other items, she will likely be discussing her recent public interactions with Supreme Court Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts.
Again, this is a must catch, regardless of party, as any transparency issues involving eligibility affect our nation right to local law enforcement, our military, etc. (many bcc’d herein). Further, she will likely discuss the apparently unbelievable actions of certain court employees.
By the way, we have not seen the original birth certificate…nor have any of you. So we don’t know whether there is eligibility or not. We think we all should know, especially those of us that voted for him. Don’t you?
Many of you will logically ask, as we did, “Well, he must have shown his birth certificate when he was vetted. I had to show mine for my job” (especially law enforcement).
OK, we couldn’t find it; not at Party (both) sites, the State Departments, the Electors, etc. If any of you can, please show us…or just save time and listen to Dr. Taitz and Super Steve.
Please circulate; it is a most important show………..
, as we did, “Well, he must have shown his birth certificate when he was vetted. I had to show it for my job” (especially law enforcement).
OK, we couldn’t find it; not at Party (both) sites, the State Departments, the Electors, etc. If any of you can, please show us…or just save time and listen to Dr. Taitz and Super Steve.
Please circulate; it is a most important show………..”
Citizen WElls 