Category Archives: Presidential candidate

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 , , , ,

Rick Santorum endorsement, Citizen Wells endorses Santorum for presidency, God Family Constitution Defense Budget, Legal immigration, Obama eligibility

Posted on December 29, 2011 | 119 comments

Rick Santorum endorsement, Citizen Wells endorses Santorum for presidency, God Family Constitution Defense Budget, Legal immigration, Obama eligibility

My friends have been asking me for weeks what my preference in a presidential candidate is. For weeks I have been stating, Rick Santorum. An intelligent, well informed friend of mine who I have known for many years agrees.

So far my biggest gripe with Santorum was his response to Obama’s eligibility deficiency. However, many otherwise good Americans have been fooled by the Orwellian brainwashing of the mainstream media. Like many decisions in life, Santorum for me is the lesser of evils, however, I find most of his positions appealing.

From the DesMoines Register August 7, 2011.

“Candidate profile: Rick Santorum refuses to compromise on principles”

“Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum knew he was in trouble as he sought re-election to his third term in 2006.

Public opinion was hardening against the war in Iraq and the president who started it. All signs pointed to a bad year for Republicans.

His supporters were blunt, recalled Charlie Artz, a Harrisburg lawyer and a friend since they were in their 20s. To win, they said, you need to change
course. You need to soften your opinions.

But Santorum wouldn’t budge. He described the state of America’s families as a moral crisis. He declared the nation at a critical crossroads in a fight
against radical Islamists. And he ultimately lost by 18 points to Bob Casey Jr., the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent senator since 1980.

“Rick is a very devout Catholic guy, and he believes in the principles of the founding fathers of this country,” Artz said. “He is not willing to compromise
on that. He will stand for his beliefs and his principles above any political expediency.”

Santorum, 53, is not about to start mincing words now that he’s seeking the Republican presidential nomination. That leaves little room in the middle between his supporters and his detractors.

Jamie Johnson of Stratford is a Christian pastor who has worked in 40 Republican political campaigns over the past two decades. He said he was drawn to join Santorum’s presidential bid after watching him lead the charge on family values legislation in Congress.

“I thought, ‘Wow. This guy is a guy of energy and passion and convictions,’ ” Johnson said. “If there was ever a time for a muscular Republican leader to
stand up against President Obama, it is now. I don’t see Michele Bachmann or Tim Pawlenty or Rick Perry having the intellectual or spiritual muscle to go toe
to toe with Barack Obama.”

Jim Burn, chairman of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, has closely monitored Santorum’s political career, too, but sees him in an entirely different light.
By 2006, Pennsylvanians had come to view Santorum as completely out of touch with their values, he said.

“He was viewed as a Republican with extreme right-wing beliefs and was not viable,” Burn said.

His story starts with emigrating granddad
Santorum’s political outlook is firmly rooted in family.

On the campaign trail, he frequently tells the story of how his grandfather came to America from Italy in the 1920s because he detested living under fascist
dictator Benito Mussolini. His grandfather worked in Pennsylvania’s coal mines until he was 72, Santorum said.

During a campaign stop in July in Marion, Ia., Santorum told of kneeling before his grandfather’s casket as a teenager and looking at his large folded hands,
holding a rosary. His grandfather’s independence and hard work brought freedom to his family, he said.

“He gave me the opportunities that I have,” Santorum said. “I feel like I am standing on his shoulders.”

He describes his grandfather, Pietro, known as Pete, and his father, Aldo, a psychologist, as strong-willed, a trait he shares.

His dad was a typical Italian father who “would always yell first and speak softly later,” he said.

Santorum grew up in Virginia and Pennsylvania. Both his father and mother, Catherine, a nurse, worked for the Veterans Administration.

After earning bachelor’s and master’s degrees, he became a staffer for Republican state Sen. Doyle Corman while he earned a law degree. Then, too, he
demonstrated his strong-willed streak.

Corman said he hired Santorum because he was bright and ambitious, and Corman let Santorum know he was free to argue with his boss about politics.

“If Rick thought that I was headed in the wrong direction, we would have debates over it, and the staff couldn’t believe how hot our debates would get at
times,” Corman recalled in a phone interview. “You could hear us through the walls, but I wanted that, and Rick made me think things out well.”

Fast-rising career in U.S. House, Senate
He was a young man on a fast track. He started work for a prominent Pittsburgh law firm and did some lobbying at the Pennsylvania Capitol. Four years after
graduating from law school, he launched a bid for Congress.

Corman and others told him to forget it because it would be too difficult to defeat a long-term Democratic incumbent.

“He beat that seven-term incumbent, and the rest is history,” Corman said.

As a 32-year-old freshman, Santorum joined former U.S. Rep. Jim Nussle of Iowa and others to focus on government reform, becoming a member of the “Gang of Seven” that exposed the House banking and post office scandals.

In 1994, at 36, he won election to the Senate, once again unseating an incumbent, Democrat Harris Wofford. Two years later, he was an author and floor manager of a landmark welfare reform act that moved millions of people from the welfare rolls to the work force.

Again and again, he pressed abortion fight
It was about this time that he and his family experienced a defining moment, underlining his commitment to reverence for life.

After Santorum and his wife arrived in Washington, D.C., their family quickly grew to three children. But in 1996, Karen Santorum, who had worked as a neo-
natal nurse and a lawyer, experienced a difficult pregnancy.

During labor, she developed a severe infection in her uterus, and her temperature soared to 105 degrees. Their son was born prematurely and lived only two hours.

Karen Santorum describes how she and her husband brought their deceased infant home instead of allowing the child to be placed in a refrigerated morgue.
Their daughter, Elizabeth, cuddled the infant and announced, “This is my baby brother, Gabriel; he is an angel.”

A priest celebrated the Mass of the Angels in his grandparents’ living room, and the casket was placed in the back seat of the family’s van as they drove to
the cemetery.

Karen Santorum wrote a book about her son, “Letters to Gabriel: The True Story of Gabriel Michael Santorum,” which includes a forward by Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

At the same time, Rick Santorum was leading efforts in the U.S. Senate to ban what he describes as partial-birth abortions.

Santorum acknowledges that other Republican presidential candidates also say they oppose abortion. But he portrays himself as the candidate who has a proven
record fighting to restrict it.

He has spoken of losing a battle against President Bill Clinton for a partial-birth abortion act.

“I didn’t just offer (the bill), but I stood there and fought … year in and year out,” Santorum said. “We lost because Bill Clinton would veto the bill. …
But I continued to fight. I continued to stand up for life, and God blessed us.” (The bill was signed into law under President George W. Bush.)

As senator, called for balancing the budget
Besides championing anti-abortion legislation in the Senate, he supported a balanced federal budget and a line-item veto to curb spending.

That record makes him the right choice to lead a nation confronting out-of-control spending and a downgraded credit rating, he says.

Even before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Santorum proposed transforming the U.S. military from a Cold War force to a more agile one to meet modern threats. He was also a leader on U.S.-Israeli relations, authoring the “Syria Accountability Act” and the “Iran Freedom and Support Act,” despite initial opposition from President Bush.”

“Santorum has campaigned more days and conducted more events in Iowa than any other candidate. But he has had difficulty gaining traction. In The Des Moines Register’s Iowa Poll in June, he registered 4 percent support among likely Republican caucusgoers.

But he takes heart in a Quinnipiac University poll released last week that showed him in a dead heat with Obama in a theoretical presidential matchup in
Pennsylvania, a key swing state. And he reminds voters that he has twice defeated incumbent Democrats.

He also notes that Abraham Lincoln lost two Senate races before he was elected president.

His friend Artz says Santorum will outwork other candidates and would make a great president because he would always put the country first.

“I think he is going to surprise some people out there,” Artz said.”

““Rick won’t apologize for America being great, and he will defend Israel. He didn’t shy away from taking on the partial-birth abortion ban or welfare reform,
and he’s certainly not going to shy away from getting this country back on track.” — Kim Lehman, Iowa’s National Republican Committeewoman and former president of Iowa Right to Life

“I don’t comment on who would be a good president or a bad president, but I can tell you that a lot of Rick Santorum’s policies and priorities are not in
keeping with core constitutional principles.” — Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State

“Not many politicians have spine; this one does.” — Talk-show host Glenn Beck, introducing Santorum before a June interview on Fox News”

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/08/07/santorum-refuses-to-compromise-on-principles/

Rick Santorum meets my priorities of :

God
Family
Constitution
Defense
Budget

Rick Santorum, like other decent members of Congress such as Howard Coble was brainwashed by the mainstream media and their own congressional resources.

Rick Santorum told WND, “My understanding is that issue was solved. If there’s evidence to the contrary [showing Obama is not eligible], they should bring it forth.”

When Santorum was reminded about the Natural Born Citizen requirement he allegedly responded “I don’t think that’s what the Constitution requires, and he (President Obama) was born in the country, so it doesn’t matter.”

I personally believe that Rick Santorum, when properly advised , will reconsider his position on Obama’s eligibility and will be open to ask more questions and seek more answers.

Mr. Santorum, I am at your service.

Contact me.

Wells

119 Comments

Posted in Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, conservatives, constitution, Election 2012, Eligibility, Family, Glenn Beck, God, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Pennsylvania voters, Politics, Presidential candidate, Presidential debate, republicans, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, US House of Representatives, Washington DC, 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 , ,

Donald Young murder anniversary, Obama TUCC church Choir director, Larry Sinclair, Obama Young relationship posted on Chicago BET message board

Posted on December 24, 2011 | 5 comments

Donald Young murder anniversary, Obama TUCC church Choir director, Larry Sinclair, Obama Young relationship posted on Chicago BET message board

“Why was Donald Young, the gay choir director at TUCC, Obama’s church, murdered in December 2007 just as the presidential campaign was heating up?…Citizen Wells

“Was Barack Obama involved in a relationship with Donald Young?”…Citizen Wells

From Larry Sinclair December 23, 2011.

“It was four years today that Obama friend/lover was murdered”

“Exactly four years today Obama friend and lover Donald Young was found murdered in his Chicago home. On December 27, 2007 an individual who knew about the Obama/Young relationship posted on a Chicago BET message board

“Joshua said on December 27th, 2007 well i really hope that the fact that he was involved with obama cannot be linked to this murder!”

http://blogs.bet.com/news/newsyoushouldknow/choir-director-at-obama%E2%80%99s-church-is-killed/

It should also be noted that the comment link above, 3 years and 362 days later takes you to a Error 404- Not Found page on BET. Efforts to reach BET (Black Entertainment Television) by phone to obtain a comment as to why the item has been removed from BET Message Board have been unsuccessful. According to a recording the BET offices are closed.

Today three years and 362 days later Chicago Police nor anyone else has ever looked into Obama’s relationship with Donald Young as it might relate to Young’s murder.

Representatives of the Cook County States Attorney say “no arrest or charging of any defendant in the case has been made yet.” One representative from the States Attorney Office asked us for the name of the “person of interest” in the case, yet we were never told that name when informed in July the Chicago Police Department had a “POI” but had not made any arrest.

Chicago PD Has/Had Person of Interest in Young Murder”

Read more:

http://www.larrysinclair.org/2011/12/23/it-was-four-years-today-that-obama-friendlover-was-murdered/

 

5 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Chicago, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, corruption, Deaths, Donald Young, Election 2008, Justice, Larry Sinclair, Larry Sinclair blog, Larry Sinclair book, Law enforcement, Lies, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Obama thugs, Presidential candidate, Scandal, Senator Obama, The Case Against Barack Obama

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 , , , ,

Natural Born Citizen lies and misrepresentations, Congressional Research Service Propaganda, Founding fathers intent, Obama eligibility, Leo Donofrio response

Posted on December 1, 2011 | 53 comments

Natural Born Citizen lies and misrepresentations, Congressional Research Service Propaganda, Founding fathers intent, Obama eligibility, Leo Donofrio response

Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States, and is criminally occupying the White House and should immediately be arrested. Irrespective of any deficiencies in his birth certificate, Obama did not have 2 US citizen parents and is not a Natural Born Citizen.
Presidential eligibility from the US Constitution

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Notice that being a citizen was not enough, unless you were so at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution. One must be a Natural Born Citizen. That requires 2 US citizen parents. The founding fathers understood that definition. One of the best examples I can think of this contextual knowledge is from the movie “A few good men.”

In 2008, John McCain was challenged on his eligibility. He immediately presented a legitimate certified copy of his original birth certificate. But since he was born abroad, the US Senate provided a resolution to clarify his status as a Natural Born Citizen.

“110th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. RES. 511

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
April 10, 2008
Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary
April 24, 2008
Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment
April 30, 2008
Considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the
United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in
the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States,
as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country
outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

 Notice that emphasis was placed on the fact that McCain had 2 US citizen parents. Also note that Obama signed the resolution.

In 2008, numerous congressmen were contacted regarding Obama’s eligibility issues. It appeared at the time that they were all reading from the same scripted agenda. In 2010 we learned why members of congress responded with the same language.

From Citizen Wells November 8, 2010.

“Mario Apuzzo, attorney in Kerchner v Obama, first broke this story on November 5, 2010.

“Members of Congress Internal Memorandum — What to Tell Your Constituents in Answer to Obama Eligibility Questions – Their Talking Points Internal Memo Revealed. This was the spin that the Members of Congress were given to keep the American electorate at bay and confused in the debate about Obama’s eligibility issues all the while the Congress did nothing to investigate the matter in a congressional hearing like they did for similar concerns about John McCain.

We have obtained a copy of the talking points memorandum put out by a lawyer for the Congressional Research Service to the Members of Congress back in April 2009 as to what to tell their constituents when they write to the Members of Congress and ask questions about Obama’s eligibility. Now we know why all the answers coming back to constituents sounded like they were written by the same person and were full of the same obfuscations, omitted facts from history, and half truths & non-truths. This copy was obtained via the diligent and persistent efforts of a patriot going by the pen name of “Tom Deacon” who obtained it from a Senator’s office. Now we know the talking points the DC insiders and politicians have been groomed with to feed to their constituents who have been asking questions about the eligibility issues. Thank you Tom.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/congress-internal-memo-obama-eligibility-what-to-tell-your-constituents-jack-maskell-memo-citizen-wells-open-thread-november-8-2010/

Chris Strunk gave us a heads up yesterday that Jack Maskell of the Congressional Research Service is at it again.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/

Leo Donofrio has responded to this latest attempt at obfuscation of the meaning of Natural Born Citizen.
“Debunking The New Natural Born Citizen Congressional Research Propaganda.
 
Yesterday, attorney Jack Maskell issued yet another version of his ever changing Congressional Research Memo on POTUS eligibility and the natural-born citizen clause.  The CRS memo is actually a blessing for me in that I’ve been putting a comprehensive report together on this issue for about a month now.  But not having an official source standing behind the entire body of propaganda made my job more difficult.
The complete refutation will be available soon, but for now I will highlight one particularly deceptive example which illustrates blatant intellectual dishonesty.  On pg. 48, Maskell states:

In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”221
221 Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920). The Supreme Court also noted there: “It is better that many Chinese immigrants should be improperly admitted than that one natural born citizen of the United States should be permanently excluded from his country.” 253 U.S. at 464.
Reading this yesterday, I had a fleeting moment of self-doubt.  Could I have missed this case?  Did the Supreme Court really state that the son of two aliens was a natural-born citizen?  The Twilight Zone theme suddenly chimed in.  I then clicked over to the actual case, and of course, the Supreme Court said no such thing.

The petitioner was born in California to parents who were both US citizens.  His father was born in the United States and was a citizen by virtue of the holding in US v. Wong Kim Ark.  His mother’ place of birth was not mentioned.  Regardless, she was covered by the derivative citizenship statute, and was, therefore, a US citizen when the child was born.

It was alleged that the petitioner had obtained a false identity and that the citizen parents were not his real parents.  But the Supreme Court rejected the State’s secret evidence on this point and conducted their citizenship analysis based upon an assumption these were petitioner’s real parents.
Having been born in the US of parents who were citizens, petitioner was indeed a natural-born citizen.  But Maskell’s frightening quotation surgery makes it appear as if the petitioner was born of alien parents.  The Supreme Court rejected that contention.  And Maskell’s ruse highlights the depravity of lies being shoved down the nation’s throat on this issue.  I can imagine Mini-Me sitting on his lap while this was being prepared.
When you look carefully at Maskell’s creative use of quotation marks, you’ll see that the statement is NOT a quote from the case, but rather a Frankenstein inspired patchwork.  He starts the reversed vivisection off with the following:
“[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son…”

These are the first few words of a genuine quote from the Court’s opinion.  Then Maskell goes way out of context for the next two body parts.  The first is not in quotation marks:

of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is

And finally, an unrelated quote from elsewhere in the Court’s opinion:
“a natural born American citizen ….”
Put it all together and you get the following monstrosity:
…the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”
But the Supreme Court never said that.  Here’s what they actually said:
“It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 Sup. Ct. 456.”  Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920).

This real quote – when liberated from Maskell’s embalming fluid – does not resemble the propaganda at all.”

Read more:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/debunking-the-new-natural-born-citizen-congressional-research-propaganda/

53 Comments

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

Tagged , , , ,

Herman Cain receptionist disputes allegations, Eva Vachal, Godfather’s Pizza, Never once she says did a woman raise an eyebrow about Cain’s conduct

Posted on November 28, 2011 | 29 comments

Herman Cain receptionist disputes allegations, Eva Vachal, Godfather’s Pizza, Never once, she says, did a woman raise an eyebrow about Cain’s conduct

“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″

From the National Review November 22, 2011.

“Cain and Women
A former receptionist comes forward to dispute the allegations.”

“In 1983, Eva Vachal, then 24 years old, was hired by Godfather’s Pizza. She began in the information-technology department. By 1986, when Herman Cain became president of the company, she was the corporate receptionist.

For the next decade — Cain’s entire tenure at the Omaha-based firm — she continued in that position, answering phones and assisting executives with various projects.

Vachal worked closely with Cain. They became friends. When he was profiled by Ebony magazine in April 1988, she was featured in the spread, chatting with Cain from her desk.

She was close with other young women in the office, especially the assistants to Cain and the rest of the Godfather’s brass. They frequently huddled over lunch and coffee, discussing, among other things, their bosses, including the company’s gregarious chief executive.

And never once, she says, did a woman raise an eyebrow about Cain’s conduct. In fact, in an interview with National Review Online, Vachal says that during her entire career at Godfather’s Pizza, she never heard about any improper conduct, harassment, or inappropriate behavior by Cain, even in the form of water-cooler gossip. “Believe me, receptionists know everything,” she says. “They see everything.”

After watching Cain work closely with young women for years, Vachal says she was shocked to learn of the sexual-harassment claims made by former Cain associates at the National Restaurant Association, the organization Cain led after he left Godfather’s Pizza.

The allegations have rocked Cain’s presidential campaign. With numerous allegations hovering over the candidate, many political observers have wondered whether Cain is a viable contender.

Vachal says she is speaking out because she does not believe Cain’s accusers. She also wants to shed a little light on his personality, to help voters understand who he is. She notes that she has not been in communication with the campaign or with Cain.

As she sees it, Cain was likely misinterpreted by the women who received settlements. At Godfather’s Pizza, within the executive suite, he was always a professional, she says. But he did enjoy complimenting staffers, be it on their work or on their sharp outfits.”

““Nobody ever came to me and complained about him,” she says. “And trust me, they would have. We talked. There was nothing like what you see on Sex and the City, or those other shows. We were pretty boring in Omaha, Nebraska.”

“Women, especially then, had a lot to deal with in corporate America,” she says. “I knew of other things that went on, but there was never anything with him.”

“He was a true gentleman, always.””

Read more:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/283838

Thanks to commenter Cabby – AZ who provided this link and wrote:
“Why haven’t we heard this on the news?”

My response:

Because we have a biased, leftist media that follows the mantra “The end justifies the means.”

The same media that promoted and protected Barack Obama.

29 Comments

Posted in 1984, Big Brother, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Election 2012, Journalism, Leftist, Lies, media, News, Newspapers, Orwell, Orwellian, Presidential candidate, Presidential debate

Tagged , , , , ,

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

Posted on November 21, 2011 | 61 comments

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

From the Wall Street Journal November 21, 2011.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more:

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

61 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Democrats, Election 2012, Hillary Clinton, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, republicans, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,

NH presidential election law, Natural born citizen clause, Statute changed in 2010, Orly Taitz ballot challenge, Obama 2007 signature

Posted on November 19, 2011 | 41 comments

NH presidential election law, Natural born citizen clause, Statute changed in 2010, Orly Taitz ballot challenge, Obama 2007 signature

I am presenting this article on NH presidential election laws for 3 reasons.

1. To remind everyone what Obama signed in 2007.

2. To reveal a change in the wording on the Declaration of intent.

3. To ask why this change in wording is not more widely reported.

I saved a copy of the Declaration of intent by September 18, 2009 from the following link:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LXIII-655.htm

“TITLE LXIII
ELECTIONS
CHAPTER 655
NOMINATIONS
Nominations by Primary
Section 655:17-b
    655:17-b Declaration of Intent; Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidates Who File Nomination Papers. –
    I. Declarations of intent for each candidate for president and vice-president who seeks nomination by nomination papers shall be in the form provided in paragraph II. Declarations of intent required by this section shall be filed with the secretary of state, signed by the candidate, and notarized by a notary public.
    II. I, __________, declare that I am domiciled in the city (or town or unincorporated place) of __________, county of __________, state of __________, and am a qualified voter therein; that I intend to be a candidate for the office of __________ to be chosen at the general election to be held on the __________ day of __________; and I intend to file nomination papers by the deadline established under RSA 655:43. I further declare that, if qualified as a candidate for said office, I shall not withdraw; and that, if elected, I shall be qualified for and shall assume the duties of said office.
Source. 1985, 121:3, eff. July 19, 1985.”

Using the same link today, I find the following version:

“TITLE LXIII
ELECTIONS
CHAPTER 655
NOMINATIONS
Nominations by Primary
Section 655:17-b
    655:17-b Declaration of Intent; Presidential Candidates Who File Nomination Papers. –
    I. Declarations of intent for each candidate for president who seeks nomination by nomination papers shall be in the form provided in paragraph II.Declarations of intent required by this section shall be filed with the secretary of state, signed by the candidate, and notarized by a notary public.
    II. I, __________, swear under penalties of perjury that I am qualified to be a candidate for president of the United States pursuant to article II, section 1, clause 4 of the United States Constitution, which states, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.” I further declare that I am domiciled in the city (or town or unincorporated place) of __________, county of __________, state of __________, and am a qualified voter therein; that I intend to be a candidate for the office of president to be chosen at the general election to be held on the __________ day of __________; and I intend to file nomination papers by the deadline established under RSA 655:43. I further declare that, if qualified as a candidate for said office, I shall not withdraw; and that, if elected, I shall be qualified for and shall assume the duties of said office.
Source. 1985, 121:3, eff. July 19, 1985. 2010, 19:1, eff. July 6, 2010; 50:3, eff. July 17, 2010.”

Here is the Decaration of intent that Obama signed in October of 2007.

The wording in the document Obama signed in 2007 matches the wording of the Declaration of Intent I saved from September 18, 2009. Obama in 2007 did not certify that he was a natural born citizen.

41 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election 2008, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, US Constitution, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

Herman Cain innocent investigator claims, Sharon Bialek not telling truth from software analysis, CBS Atlanta

Posted on November 10, 2011 | 94 comments

Herman Cain innocent investigator claims, Sharon Bialek not telling truth from software analysis, CBS Atlanta

From CBS Atlanta November 9, 2011.
“Private investigator TJ Ward said presidential hopeful Herman Cain was not lying at a news conference on Tuesday in Phoenix.

Cain denied making any sexual actions towards Sharon Bialek and vowed to take a polygraph test if necessary to prove his innocence.

Cain has not taken a polygraph but Ward said he does have software that does something better.

Ward said the $15,000 software can detect lies in people’s voices.

CBS Atlanta’s Mike Paluska played Cain’s speech for Ward into the software and watched as it analyzed Cain’s every word. 

If he is hiding something this thing would have spiked way down here,” said Ward.  “He is being truthful, totally truthful.  He is a man with integrity and he talked directly about not knowing any incident he is accused of.”

The software analyzes the stress level and other factors in your voice.  During the speech, when Cain denied the claims, the lie detector read “low risk.”  According to Ward, that means Cain is telling the truth. 

During the section of Bialek’s news conference where she says, “He suddenly reached over put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals he also grabbed my head brought it towards his crotch.”

During the analysis of that section the software said “high risk statement.”  Ward said that means she is not  telling the truth about what happened.

“I don’t think she is fabricating her meetings,” said Ward.  But, she is fabricating what transpired.”

Ward said nearly 70 law enforcement agencies nationwide use the voice software, including the Forsyth County Sheriff’s Office.

Ward said the technology is a scientific measure that law enforcement use as a tool to tell when someone is lying and that it has a 95 percent success rate.

After listening to Cain’s speech and analyzing it, Ward said there is no doubt, Cain is innocent.

“When he directly talks about the allegations against him there is no high risk,” said Ward.  “It is low risk, which tells me he is being truthful in his conversations to the public.””

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/16002149/investigator-herman-cain-innocent-of-sexual-advances

94 Comments

Posted in CBS, Chicago, Citizen News, CitizenWells, Election 2012, Election update, Journalism, Justice, Lies, media, News, Presidential candidate, Presidential debate, republicans, Smear campaigns, video

Tagged , ,