Category Archives: voters

Voters

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

Posted on January 15, 2012 | 38 comments

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

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

“Profile of the Right Man for the Job

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

38 Comments

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

Tagged , , , ,

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

Posted on January 12, 2012 | 28 comments

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

From the Wall Street Journal January 12, 2012.

“A Lesson on the S.C. Primary”

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Chicago tribune January 8, 2012.

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

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

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

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

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

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

28 Comments

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

Tagged , , , ,

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

Posted on January 10, 2012 | 53 comments

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

Just in from CNN January 10, 2012.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

53 Comments

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

Tagged , , , ,

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

Posted on January 8, 2012 | 49 comments

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

“Why did Obama, prior to occupying the White House, employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to assist him in avoiding the presentation of a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells


“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

My hat is off once again to to Sharon Rondeau and the Post & Email for their efforts to report the news that counts.

From The Post & Email January 7, 2012.

“Atty. Van Irion Discusses Georgia Ballot Challenge and the Constitution”

“Constitutional attorney Van Irion, who is also founder of the Liberty Legal Foundation, spoke with The Post & Email regarding the ballot challenge he has filed on behalf of his client, David Welden, which claims that Barack Hussein Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve as president.
The interview was completed one day before Judge Michael Malihi denied a Motion to Dismiss filed by Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski.
Welden had originally filed the challenge pro se and Irion later agreed to represent him. The hearing is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on January 26, 2012 at the Justice Center Building located at 160 Pryor Street, Atlanta, in courtroom G40. Irion’s case is the first of three cases expected to be heard that day.

On January 3, 2012, Judge Michael Malihi affirmed that Georgia statute 21-2-5(s) gave registered voters standing to challenge the eligibility of a candidate for state or federal office. In response to the judge’s decision, Irion stated on his foundation website, “Hopefully the Georgia court will set the groundwork for victories across the country. If any court rules that Obama is not Constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President, it will be a major victory and should make international news.“

Irion had also requested that his case be separated from those of Atty. Orly Taitz and Atty. J. Mark Hatfield, which the judge granted. Hatfield, also a Georgia state representative, is acting as counsel to two Georgia voters whose case has received television coverage.
We asked Irion what kind of action he has filed, and he responded: “I represent one person in an administrative action very specific to Georgia state law. We’re actually not going to a civil court. It’s an administrative court specifically set up by Georgia statute, and the entire purpose of the court is to advise the Secretary of State. I’m going to be starting by saying, ‘We recognize that your main purpose for being here is to be able to advise the Secretary of State on the facts and the law.’ Ultimately, regardless of what the court does, either side can appeal to a law court in Georgia, and that’s certainly what’s going to happen regardless of who wins.”

Irion continued:

Liberty Legal got involved after David Welden, who is our client, filed the challenge himself. Georgia law allows for any voter who is qualified to vote for a candidate to challenge the constitutional and statutory qualifications of that particular candidate. He and a handful of others did that. There’s a very short period of time: two weeks after the candidate qualifies with the Secretary of State. He did that, and after that, he contacted me. He based his complaint largely on Liberty Legal’s complaint in our Certification lawsuit in Arizona. He looked at our complaints and used a lot of the same language and citations. He didn’t ask us for our help right off the bat, and he didn’t expect our help, which was important to us, because he did it right, following Georgia code the way it needed to be done; and also, he came to us with a very gracious attitude of “I’m doing this because I think it’s the right thing to do. I don’t expect your help, but if you can, if you’d like to, I wouldn’t mind talking with you about this.” So we ended up having several conversations and at the end of the day, we said, “Hey, I think we can help you.” So that’s how we ended up representing David Welden.

David Welden and Liberty Legal are going first on the 26th. Atty. Orly Taitz will be there representing other plaintiffs, and there are other plaintiffs who may not have attorneys. I hope that we both win.

The reason we are going first and being heard separately is that I plan on calling one witness — my client, David Welden. I plan on asking him three questions; that’s it, we’re done, and making one argument. The presentation of evidence and testimony will take 15 minutes or less. We’ll probably argue the law for quite some time after that, but that’s the whole point. That’s the way I do law: I generally try to find the clearest, easiest-to-understand argument that I can support, and that’s what we present. If it doesn’t work, I rarely argue alternatives. Most lawyers do that habitually; there’s good reason for it; I understand why, but I also think it’s become very ineffective because courts have become numb to multiple alternative arguments.

The Post & Email asked, “What is your argument?”

Here it is: Barack Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. The Supreme Court, in Minor v. Happersett, defined “natural born Citizen” under the Constitution as “being born in this country with both parents being U.S. citizens at the time the candidate was born.” That’s “natural born Citizen;” that’s the Supreme Court’s definition; it’s never been overturned or challenged or questioned; therefore, Barack Obama is not qualified to be president by his own admission. Here’s the thing: the defense still has not addressed that substantive argument. They throw up all kinds of procedural arguments; they throw up all kinds of interpretations of Georgia code that don’t allow us to get to our argument. But at the end of the day, there’s one thing that’s very simple: Georgia code is very clear such that even if my client doesn’t have standing to raise this, even if no voter has standing, the Secretary of State, according to one specific code, “shall determine the qualifications of the candidate before the election.” It’s one sentence. It does not give them any option to not do it. And they can, at any time before the election, look into those qualifications. So if this court decides that David Welden doesn’t have the ability to raise this because of the procedural arguments brought up by the defendant, this court’s purpose is only to advise the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State absolutely has to address, by law, the substantive qualifications of this candidate. “So even if you find that you have to dismiss our case, you still have to tell the Secretary of State what to do with this argument wherein the Supreme Court has defined the term “natural born Citizen,” and Barack Obama has repeatedly admitted that he doesn’t meet those qualifications. You can’t avoid the substantive issue even if you rule against us on a procedural matter.”

“Is there a way that the judge could declare that having one citizen parent is enough to qualify a person as a ‘natural born Citizen?’”

Let me answer your question with a truism: a judge can do anything he wants. They are the final arbiters of what’s right and wrong. The fact that a higher court can overturn them is always there. It’s also true that that usually doesn’t happen. No matter how many levels of appeal you have, getting a higher court to overturn a lower court is always an unlikely outcome in any appeal. It’s difficult. They do it only when the lower court has made a glaring error or they philosophically completely disagree with the judge who happens to be sitting in the lower court.

The good news is that Judge Michael Malihi was the first judge anywhere to actually issue a subpoena to the Hawaii Department of Health to a) show up and be questioned, and b) have the original written birth certificate with you or a darn good explanation why you don’t, and the microfilm. This is a judge who understands that he has some authority here, and the court has the authority to force documents and witnesses to show up, and he’s doing it. Just that fact made me think, “We might actually get a fair hearing here.””

Read more:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/07/atty-van-irion-discusses-georgia-ballot-challenge-and-the-constitution/

 

49 Comments

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

Tagged , , , ,

GA ballot challenge reveals Democrat Party agenda, Party first, Obama natural born citizen status, Faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party

Posted on January 8, 2012 | 22 comments

GA ballot challenge reveals Democrat Party agenda, Party first, Obama natural born citizen status, Faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

From WXIA TV 11 Alive, January 6, 2012.

“Atlanta court hearing set on President Obama’s disputed citizenship”

“A judge in Atlanta has breathed new life into an old dispute.

The judge decided Tuesday he will hold a hearing in Atlanta on January 26, on whether President Barack Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen.

The judge, Michael Malihi of Georgia’s Office of State Administrative Hearings, ruled in favor of eight Georgia voters who were asking him to hold the hearing as part of their lawsuits aimed at removing President Obama’s name from the Georgia primary ballot in March unless the President can prove to their satisfaction that he is a natural-born U.S. Citizen.

“This is all about Constitutional eligibility to be on the ballot,” said one of the plaintiffs, Carl Swensson of Clayton County.

Swensson and the others will, through their attorneys, make various legal arguments at the hearing in support of their claim that the long-running dispute over President Obama’s citizenship has never been settled, so Obama’s name does not belong on the presidential preference ballot in the primary March 6.

“I, as a voting citizen of Georgia, have the right, responsibility, to ask this question before a state judge,” Swensson said Thursday night. “I have the responsibility to challenge, when I see that there’s a possibility that somebody is going to be put on our ballot that doesn’t deserve to be there.””

“”It’s gotten to the point where this is about the 69th or 70th time they’ve tried doing this, and they’ve lost every time,” Jablonski said. “We will prove, once again, what must be obvious to most Americans, Republican and Democrat, that the President of the United States was born in a state of the United States, and meets all the Constitutional requirements to be President…. We’re getting lots of calls from moderate Democrats and swing voters who are just, the only word I can use is, disgusted that this issue still lives. They don’t necessarily agree with him [the President], but they don’t think we should be spending our time and the state’s money holding hearings on an issue that, frankly, helps no one and is going to go nowhere.”

Swensson, a Republican, said the unique issues he is raising about how to define “natural born citizen” have never been addressed in any court since the Obama dispute arose, and deserve to be, not just for this upcoming primary election, but for future elections.”

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/220710/40/Atlanta-court-hearing-set-on-President-Obamas-disputed-citizenship

From above:

“We’re getting lots of calls from moderate Democrats and swing voters who are just, the only word I can use is, disgusted that this issue still lives. They don’t necessarily agree with him [the President], but they don’t think we should be spending our time and the state’s money holding hearings on an issue that, frankly, helps no one and is going to go nowhere.”

This comes as no surprise since the mantra of the modern day Democrat Party is the end justifies the means. This includes lies, misrepresentations and denial. The Democrat Party Platform is another example of this.

From Citizen Wells   December 18, 2009 .

“As Adopted by the Democratic National Committee, February 2, 2007″

“Citizen Wells: “faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States”

“II. QUALIFICATIONS OF STATE DELEGATIONS”
“C. It is presumed that the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, when certified pursuant to the Call, are bona fide Democrats who are faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States, who subscribe to the substance, intent and principles of the Charter and the Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States, and who will participate in the Convention in good faith. Therefore, no additional assurances shall be
required of delegates to the Democratic National Convention in the absence of a credentials contest or challenge.”
Citizen Wells: Priorities. The DNC is beholden to unions.

“V. THE 2008 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION COMMITTEE, INC.”
“1. Contractors: The DNCC shall as a policy seek to engage the services of unionized firms, including those owned by minorities, women and people with disabilities.”
Citizen Wells: Presidential qualifications. The only thing that matters is allegiance to the party.

“VI. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

The term “presidential candidate” herein shall mean any person who, as determined by the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, has accrued delegates in the nominating process and plans to seek the nomination, has established substantial support for his or her nomination as the
Democratic candidate for the Office of the President of the United States, is a bona fide Democrat whose record of public service, accomplishment, public writings and/or public statements affirmatively demonstrates that he or she is faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the
United States, and will participate in the Convention in good faith.”

Citizen Wells

This is presented not to praise the Republicans or other political parties. It is also recognized that rules are necessary for any organized group. However, it is clear that the 2008 DNC rules are convoluted, overly complicated and designed as self serving for the preservation of the Democrat Party. The only qualification for the presidency that they address is allegiance to the party. And saddest of all, there is no mention of looking out for the best interest of the United States and citizens.

This should help you understand what is going on in the senate and White House. It is all about the Democrat Party.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/senate-health-care-bill-democrat-party-politics-party-first-2008-dnc-convention-rules-why-democrats-push-unwanted-bill/

 

22 Comments

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

Tagged , , , ,

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

Posted on January 6, 2012 | 145 comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay tuned.”

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

 

145 Comments

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

Tagged , , , , , ,

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

Posted on January 3, 2012 | 71 comments

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

“Why did Obama, prior to occupying the White House, employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to assist him in avoiding the presentation of a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells


“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

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

First some background.

From Citizen Wells December 20, 2011.

“Obama has engaged private attorney Michael Jablonski to respond to the Pre Trial order filed by David Farrar. The order requests that Barack Obama’s name be removed from the Georgia State ballot because Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore not qualified for the office of the president.”

“From David Farrar V Barack Obama.
“(4) The issues for determination by the Court are as follows:
A. Is the candidate’s proffered birth certificates, authentic state-issued documents that verify his actual, physical birth in Hawaii?
B. Is the candidate an Article II natural born citizen of the United States as established in US. Supreme Court case: Minor vs Happersett 1875 Page 88 U. S. 163
C. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-560 Making of False Statements Generally. Is the candidate’s Social Security number, authentic?”

“The GA Democratic Party may put anyone they want on the ballot. However, that right does not trump the US Constitution dictate that the president must be a natural born citizen. GA election law clearly provides the Secretary of State and electors the power to challenge the qualifications of candidates. Also, to my knowledge, no court in this country has ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen.

I was born and raised in NC, have some experience reading legal documents and we also have some good dictionaries in NC. I have read the motion from Mr. Jablonski as well as the 2008 and 2011 versions of Georgia election laws. I will leave it for the reader to evaluate the accuracy of the following statements by Michael Jablonski in the hope that good dictionaries and logical thought capabilities exist in other parts of the country.”

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

From Orly Taitz January 3, 2012.

Order to deny Obama motion:

“ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

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

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

I. Discussion
1.

The Georgia Election Code (the “Code”) mandates that “[e]very candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(a).

2.

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

3.

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

4.

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

5.

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

6.

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

7.

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

8.

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

II. Decision

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

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

Thanks to commenter Pat 1789.

71 Comments

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

Tagged , ,

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

Posted on January 1, 2012 | 178 comments

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

“Why did Obama, prior to occupying the White House, employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to assist him in avoiding the presentation of a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

From the Post & Email January 1, 2012.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more:

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

Thanks to commenter Imuha.

178 Comments

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

Tagged , , , , ,

NC lawsuit challenges marriage licenses, North Carolina marriage laws require state license, Jeff Thigpen, Reverends Keeney, Peeples, Koenig

Posted on December 14, 2011 | 68 comments

NC lawsuit challenges marriage licenses, North Carolina marriage laws require state license, Jeff Thigpen, Reverends Keeney, Peeples, Koenig

The spirit of freedom is still alive in North Carolina.

From the Greensboro News Record, December 14, 2011.

“Suit challenges marriage licenses”

“Guilford County Register of Deeds Jeff Thigpen and 10 other people filed a lawsuit last week that challenges a requirement that marrying couples in North Carolina obtain a state-issued license.

The complaint, filed in Guilford County Civil Superior Court on Dec. 8, names state Attorney General Roy Cooper as the defendant. The plaintiffs include three Greensboro ministers and seven heterosexual and homosexual residents from Greensboro, Winston-Salem and Mocksville.

They argue in the complaint that state general statutes violate the U.S. Constitution and the principle of separation of church and state by requiring marrying couples to seek marriage licenses, by requiring religious leaders to fill out and sign them, and by prohibiting religious leaders from solemnizing the marriage of same-sex couples.

The complaint comes about five months before North Carolinians vote on a proposed amendment to the state constitution that bans same-sex marriage. The referendum will occur during the May Republican primary.

The complaint reads, “In order (to) adequately and fully protect the personal liberty and religious freedom of citizens of North Carolina and the United States, there must be a de-coupling and disentanglement of the state from the personal and religious institution of marriage. The institution of marriage should be solely in the dominion of citizens and their religious and secular organizations, except that the state should be permitted to carry out prohibitions of marriage for infancy, insanity, bigamy or polygamy, and incest, and marriage as a result of fraud, duress, joke or mistake; and the state should be permitted to adjudicate rights relating to support, child custody, and property in connection with marriages and their dissolution.””

http://www.news-record.com/content/2011/12/13/article/local_elected_official_joins_lawsuit_over_state_marriage_licensing_requir

From the print edition.

“The suit is not challenging the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, said Guilford County Register of Deeds Jeff Thigpen and others in the lawsuit. Voters will decide that issue in next year’s primary.”

“”It’s not part of anybody else’s agenda,” said Norman Smith, a Greensboro attorney. “It’s part of the agenda of people in this suit who don’t like the state getting into people’s religious and personal affairs.”

“Thigpen said he joined the suit because of his concern about state -imposed obstacles that some people must overcome to get married. He acknowledged his involvement could risk his re-election in November.”

“Why would I want to do this?” asked Thigpen, whose office handles marriage licenses. “These issues have come to me, and I have the obligation to respond to them in a way that is reflective of what’s going on and be a leader in dealing with it.”

“What happens in that sanctuary is between me, the couple, those who are witnessing , and God, “Peeples said. “It has always struck me as very strange, if not contradictory, that I have to sign a legal document and act as an agent of the state. …What we are saying is let’s make a clean separation between those two acts.”

68 Comments

Posted in Attorney General, Attorneys, Citizen, Citizen News, CitizenWells, Civil Complaint, constitution, Courts, Government, Lawyers, NC, News, North Carolina, Religion, Religious freedom, voters

Tagged , , , , ,

Concord Monitor NH Obama ballot eligibility articles, Maddie Hanna, Obama birth certificate, Orly Taitz challenge, New Hampshire law violation?, Citizen Wells email

Posted on November 19, 2011 | 30 comments

Concord Monitor NH Obama ballot eligibility articles, Maddie Hanna, Obama birth certificate, Orly Taitz challenge, New Hampshire law violation?, Citizen Wells email

“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

“Live Free or Die”…New Hampshire State Motto

First of all I would like to thank Maddie Hanna and the Concord Monitor for covering the Orly Taitz challenge of Obama’s eligibility to be on the New Hampshire ballot. It appears that an attempt was made to present both sides of the story. However, the incorrect, often repeated, mainstream media version of Obama’s birth certificate stories was presented. I sent Maddie Hanna the following email this morning.
“In your recent articles about the Obama eligibility ballot challenge you stated:
 
“The administration released Obama’s birth certificate from the state
of Hawaii in 2008. When that didn’t satisfy the skeptics, it posted a
long-form version online earlier this year.”
 
That is incorrect.
The document placed on the internet by some entities in 2008 is a COLB.
We have no proof that the image was legitimate. But given what a COLB represents, it does not matter.
Certification of Live Birth. Or as Lou Dobbs on CNN stated “A document that refers to another document.”
Per Hawaii law one did not have to be born in Hawaii to get one.
 
The image placed on WhiteHouse.gov this year is not proven by a legitimate chain of document.
Also, particulary damning is the following from the bottom of the image.
“I certify that this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file”
Since Obama could be born elsewhere and per HI law have birth records on file,
the word abstract immediately rules out the image as absolute proof of HI birth.
 
Perhaps the most damning information of all is what I have been presenting for years.
 
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?
 
I hope that you want the truth.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please contact me.”

I would also like to point out that news sites outside of the state of NH revealed that apparently the NH Ballot Law Commission is in violation of NH law.

“CHAPTER 665
BALLOT LAW COMMISSION

General Provisions

665:1 Organization. I. There shall be a ballot law commission
consisting of 5 members. Two members shall be appointed by the speaker
of the house of representatives, one from each of the 2 major
political parties in the state based on votes cast for governor in the
most recent state general election. Two members shall be appointed by
the president of the senate, one from each of the 2 major political
parties in the state based on votes cast for governor in the most
recent state general election.”

http://www.sos.nh.gov/665-web2011.pdf

The Concord Monitor article:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/293382/birther-bid-to-derail-obama-blocked

I anxiously await a response from Maddie Hanna and welcome any dialogue to arrive at the truth in any of these matters.

Wells

30 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Birthers, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Hawaii, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , ,