Tag Archives: US Constitution

Obama college records, Obama campaign contributions, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, US Constitution, Saudi contributions, Harvard and Columbia paid for by Saudis

 Why has Obama employed a legion of private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?…Citizen Wells and millions of Americans

To anyone who has an agenda, is simple minded, not paying attention or does not care, including, but not limited to, Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck. Obama’s eligibility issues, his intentional withholding of a legitimate birth certificate, college records and other records from his past and his decision to not receive federal matching election funds are all tied up in a web of deception. One cannot refer to one dubious aspect of Obama’s secrecy without bringing to light another. So it is with the hidden birth certificate. Much has been made about the significance of this fact. For people like Glenn Beck, who preach adherance to the US Constitution out of one side of their mouth while insulting concerned Americans who question Obama’s eligibility out of the other. For people like Beck who appear to be either hypocritical or doing the bidding of the Saudis via their ownership of Fox, I am going to make this real simple.

Why has Obama kept hidden his college records?

It is a certainty that the Saudis played a large role in Obama’s education. Just how much? We will be reopening that can of worms. But first let’s revisit contributions to Obama’s presidential campaign and why Obama chose to not receive federal matching funds.

From NewsMax, September 29, 2008.

“Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign”

“More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won’t disclose.

And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.

Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain’s campaign, according to new campaign finance report.

But because of Obama’s high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage — at least, not yet.

The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

The McCain camp and the Republican National Committee had $94 million, because of an influx of $84 million in public money.

But Obama easily could outpace McCain by $50 million to $100 million or more in new donations before Election Day, thanks to a legion of small contributors whose names and addresses have been kept secret.

Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).

Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.

Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.

“Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”

The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.

It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.”

Read more:

http://newsmax.com/Politics/Obama-fundraising-illegal/2008/09/29/id/325630

REPORT OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS

By An Authorized Committee of a
Candidate For the Office of President or Vice President
(Summary Page, FEC FORM 3P)

FILING FEC-405794


1. OBAMA FOR AMERICA

      PO Box 8102
      Chicago, Illinois   60680

2. FEC Committee ID #: C00431445

3. This report contains activity for a General Election

4. Report Type: Pre-General

This IS an amended REPORT

Filed 02/27/2009 

REPORT OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS

By An Authorized Committee of a
Candidate For the Office of President or Vice President
(Summary Page, FEC FORM 3P)

FILING FEC-405794


1. OBAMA FOR AMERICA

      PO Box 8102
      Chicago, Illinois   60680

2. FEC Committee ID #: C00431445

3. This report contains activity for a General Election

4. Report Type: Pre-General

This IS an amended REPORT

Filed 02/27/2009

SUMMARY

5. Covering Period 10/01/2008 Through 10/15/2008

6. Cash on Hand at BEGINNING of the Reporting Period   135,560,349.00
7. Total Receipts This Period   39,026,983.95
8. Subtotal (6 + 7)   174,587,332.95
9. Total Disbursements This Period   105,599,963.76
10. Cash on Hand at CLOSE of the Reporting Period   68,987,369.19
11. Debts and Obligations Owed TO the Committee   0.00
    Itemize all on SCHEDULE C or SCHEDULE D
12. Debts and Obligations Owed BY the Committee   2,302,457.50
    Itemize all on SCHEDULE C or SCHEDULE D
13. Expenditures Subject To Limitation   0.00
14. NET Contributions (Other than Loans)   582,402,895.62
15. NET Operating Expenditures   547,640,218.12

Treasurer: Martin H. Nesbitt
Date Signed: 02/27/2009

(End Summary, FEC FORM 3P)

 

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/12G/C00431445.html#SUMMARY

Let’s revisit a Pastor James Manning video.

Glenn Beck, O’Reilly and others who pretend to cover important news, the eligibility issue is either above your comprehension level or US Constitution adherance level or you are purposely avoiding or denigrating it for some agenda. So here it is, simple enough for a third grader.

Why has Obama employed countless attorneys to avoid presenting his college records?

Stay tuned. More to come.

MoveOnMary.org, Senator Mary Landrieu recall initiative, Louisiana Statutes, Recall petitions, Signatures of voters registered on November 4th 2008, US Constitution

Whether the good citizens of Louisiana are successful or not at removing Senator Mary Landrieu from office, it is good to know that concerned citizens are attempting this and that statutes exist to permit it. And yes, I do believe that the 10th Amendment is pertinent.

From the MoveOnMary.org website.

“Is it Possible ?

No doubt, gathering enough signatures to remove a currently seated United States Seantor will be difficult.

Our legislators, no doubt, did not want recall petitions to be used willy-nilly everytime someone gets annoyed by current office holders. They’ve made it difficult enough by requiring at least 33% of the voters who were registered to vote at the time of the office holders election.

What this translates to, in this attempt to remove Mary Landrieu, is the collection of 981,873 signatures of voters who were registered to vote on November 4th 2008. Do we believe this to happen easily? Certainly not. Is it really possible to achieve our goal, given the whole hearted participation of supporters who really want to restore some semblance of sanity with our elected officials? Yes, we really can. Yes, it will take a lot of work, but, it can be done. We certainly would not have ventured into this effort, were it impossible. You can download the voter registration data from the Secretary of State web site at:

http://electionstatistics.sos.louisiana.gov/Data/Post_Election_Statistics/Statewide/2008_1104_sta.pdf.

Well, you’re probably already hearing from the “conservative” nay-sayers already. You may be hearing all kinds of reasons that you should not participate in this effort. I’ve already had a coulple of conversations with “Conservative activists” trying to dissuade me from participationg in this effort. This morning, one gentleman who is a self declared “leader” in the Tea Party movement expressed to me his own reasons why I should give this up already. Some of these I’d like to share with you now.

1) “It can’t be done!”

Sorry, but that defeatest attitude isn’t one of my core attitudes.

2) “It’s never been done before.”

Well, he was correct. Of course, it will never ever be done until someone really tries to get it done.

3) “State law only provides for the recall of State and Local Officials”

When I asked him if he could give me the actual Louisiana Statute he was talking about, he told me that it would take a couple of week to get it to me. But, of course, he did know the statute. Until he gets that information to me, I’ll have to fall back on Louisiana RS 18:1300.1 §1300 (Link). This statute, specifically addressing the recall of elected officials, states, “Any public officer, excepting judges of the courts of record, may be recalled”. Nowhere, could I find in that statute an exception to Federal officials nor anything that would describe a U.S. Senator as something different that a “Public Officer”.

4) “The Supreme Court has already held that States cannot recall U.S. Representatives or Senators.”

Well, again, when I asked for this case to be cited, it couldn’t be. Neither the U.S. nor the Louisiana Supreme Court has ever heard or made a decision concerning the recall of U.S. Represntatives or Senators.

5) “The Constitution doesn’t provide a means to recall U.S. Representatives or Senators”.

True. There are lots of issues that the U.S. Constitution does not address. That’s why our founding fathers later included the 10th Amendment (link). It states simply, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In simplest terns, since the U.S. Constitution has NOT provided a means for the citizens to remove Representatives or Senators and has NOT forbidden the States or the people from doing so, then it is reserved to the States or the people. Fortunately, Louisiana is one of the 18 states that have passed laws providing for the recalling of “Any public officer” other than judges. U.S. Representatives and Senators or NOT judges, so can be recalled.

6) “The 10th Amendment forbid it.”

The Tenth Amendment of which Constitution? See note 5.

7) “Constitution experts have …..”

Sorry, but Constitutional experts are simply people like you and I, who have opinions. Some have the opinion that it can be done, some have the opinion that it can’t be done.

 

Thoughout the internet, in the social networking groups, in the blogs, etc., there have been many who have made a lot of noise about recalling Mary Landrieu. Up until now, I’m sure it has been an amusement to her ilk. On December 29, 2009, Someone finally did something about it and filed the petition with the Secretary of Sate’s office. I for one am enthusiastically joining in the effort and will never look back.

Legally, we CAN recall Mary Landrieu. Ethically and morally, we CAN recall Mary Landrieu. Ethically and morally, we SHOULD recall Mary Landrieu. I can promise, if we accomplish this daunting task, it will have a snowball effect in Baton Rouge AND Washington, Nay-sayers notwithstanding. One thing is a fact, however, as long as we continue to roll over and play victim, we will continue to be made fools out of by the likes of Mary Landrieu. Attending meetings and rallies, waving banners and placards and making a lot of noise changes NOTHING … if we do nothing else to change things. Louisiana voters are blessed with the statutes allowing us to recall public officials who are derelict in their duty, and we should take advantage of those laws. Yes, laws do mean something … as long as we use those laws.

I want to do something about the problems in Washington. What about you?”

http://moveonmary.org

Pastor James Manning, Beck and O’ Reilly are trying to Sabotage the Obama Eligibility movement, Bold and Fresh, Glenn Beck Bill O’ Reilly show, Westbury NY, Saudis bought Fox, US Constitution, News blackout

We have known for over a year that Bill O’Reilly has ignored and insulted the Obama eligibility movement. Recently Glenn Beck insulted average Americans who question Obama’s eligibility and adher to the US Constitution.

From the Conservative Monster, January 23, 2010.

“Pastor Manning – Beck and O’ Reilly are trying to Sabotage the Obama Eligibility movement”

“Tonight was the “Bold and Fresh” Glenn Beck/Bill O’ Reilly show in Westbury, NY. Thousands of their loyal fans showed up and they were greeted by an enthusiastic crowd from Pastor Manning’s church as they entered the parking lot. The Fox fans were met with leaflets and church songs, it was quite a site to see. There were about 50-60 people, but their spirit was strong.

There should have been 5,000 people protesting tonight, but too many people are brainwashed by Fox News and the Tea Party movement that the Obama eligibility issue is a non-issue. I have heard so many excuses and I am not buying any of them. This issue is bigger than Watergate and that is why there is a news blackout on the entire issue on all networks.

I almost did not make this protest due to sheer exhaustion, but I knew that I had no choice to make it to Westbury, NY. Why? Because the people need to be informed of this ‘news’ that is being blacked out by all networks and print in the media. If I did not report about this protest, it would have gone unreported. I was the ONLY journalist there covering this protest.

I want everyone to know that I do like Fox and Beck, but not as much as I used to like them. Beck’s Jan. 4th attack on the American people (many of them his fans) that dared to ask Obama for evidence that he is a natural born citizen was not only betrayal, it was suspicious. 

Many of the Fox fans did not even know why we were out there protesting. One of them shouted “Communism does not work.” I approached him and I told him “We are here because Beck and O’ Reilly are part of a news blackout on the Obama eligibility issue and we want that blackout lifted.” I explained other details briefly and in under 30 seconds the gentleman said “Wow, that is interesting indeed.””

“Glenn Beck, Bill O’ Reilly, countless others in the media and both political party’s need to be held accountable if any violence breaks out when Obama is removed from office. I allege that THEY knowingly covered up this issue prior to the election to protect Obama and they betrayed this nation in the process.
FYI – Fox news was attacking Congressman Deal today on the show Cashin’ in. He is the only one in congress with the guts to send Obama a letter asking that he release his birth and school records to the public.”

Read more:

http://theconservativemonster.com/

Pastor Manning – Beck and O’ Reilly are trying to Sabotage the Obama Eligibility movement

Does this explain why Fox ignores or insults those questioning Obama’s eligibility?

Paul Kirk can’t vote after Tuesday, Health Care Bill, MA election law, Qualification not certification, Massachusetts law, Senate precedent, US Constitution, Kirk temporary MA Senator, Republican attorneys

On January 10, 2010, this blog reported:
“Given the MA statutes, state ethics laws and the precedent of swearing in Representative Niki Tsongas one day after the election, the Democrats have a major problem trying to perpetrate another illegal act, especially after they have advertised it ahead of time.”
Will MA Democrats try to delay Scott Brown certification?

Now we learn that temporary MA Senator Paul Kirk can’t vote for the Health Care Bill after next Tuesday.

From The Weekly Standard, January 16, 2010.

“Kirk Can’t Vote After Tuesday
GOP lawyers say Paul Kirk will no longer be a senator after election day.”

“Appointed Senator Paul Kirk will lose his vote in the Senate after Tuesday’s election in Massachusetts of a new senator and cannot be the 60th vote for Democratic health care legislation, according to Republican attorneys.

Kirk has vowed to vote for the Democratic bill even if Republican Scott Brown is elected but not yet certified by state officials and officially seated in the Senate.  Kirk’s vote is crucial because without the 60 votes necessary to stop a Republican filibuster, the bill will be defeated.

This would be a devastating loss for President Obama and congressional Democrats.  The bill, dubbed ObamaCare, is the centerpiece of the president’s agenda.  Brown has campaigned on becoming the 41st vote against ObamaCare.

But in the days after the election, it is Kirk’s status that matters, not Brown’s.  Massachusetts law says that an appointed senator remains in office “until election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy.”  The vacancy occurred when Senator Edward Kennedy died in August.  Kirk was picked as interim senator by Governor Deval Patrick.

Democrats in Massachusetts have talked about delaying Brown’s “certification,” should he defeat Democrat Martha Coakley on Tuesday.  Their aim would be to allow Kirk to remain in the Senate and vote the health care bill.

But based on Massachusetts law, Senate precedent, and the U.S. Constitution, Republican attorneys said Kirk will no longer be a senator after election day, period.  Brown meets the age, citizenship, and residency requirements in the Constitution to qualify for the Senate.  “Qualification” does not require state “certification,” the lawyers said.”

Read more:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/barnes-massachusetts-senatorial-race-and-obamacare

Thanks to commenter JD

Glenn Beck, Birthers, Obama eligibility, AKA, Email, Birth certificate, Obama college records, Beck insults Americans, Glenn Beck Radio Show, Fox, Natural born citizen, US Constitution, Certification of Live Birth, American citizens idiots?

Why has Obama employed a legion of private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?…Citizen Wells and millions of Americans

 

Glenn Beck, you are a lucky man. We have been trying to figure out for over a year why you have avoided touching the Obama eligibility issues. It is now widely believed that the Saudi ownership of a large part of Fox is the main reason. If it were not for your being popular and consistently revealing the truth about Obama and his associates, you would be toast. Your recent insults of average, hard working, concerned Americans was unacceptable. We are giving you a chance to wake up and apologize.
The following is an email recently sent to Glenn Beck. It is well written and well documented.

“A question of integrity
 
January 12, 2010
 
The following e-mail was sent to Glenn Beck on January 8, 2010.
 
Dear Mr Beck,
 
A colleague forwarded to me the following e-mail, received from you:
 
From: Glenn Beck
To: Listener
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 2:19 PM
Subject: Glenn returns fired up, ready to go
 
“Birthers Birthing

Just like the notorious ‘seminar callers’ Rush talks about, there is a new type of seminar caller out there trying to get on talk radio: the birther. Sure, there are plenty of idiots out there who actually think Barack Obama was not born in the United States and this is a way to get him impeached. But most reasonable people don’t believe that. It’s so ridiculous that it’s actually a good distraction for Obama, because it’s an easy win for him and distracts from the real issues. Is that why so many birthers seem to be on different talk shows lately? Glenn explains. ( Transcript, Insider Audio)”
 
It is both shocking and appalling, Mr Beck, that you would write, much less send, something like this.  That you apparently did is making scores of Americans question not only your veracity but also your integrity.
 
There is no issue more important to this nation than the question of Also Known As (AKA) Obama’s eligibility to the office he holds.
 
If, as the evidence more than adequately indicates, AKA is not eligible to the office he holds, the United States Constitution is in great peril as is every right guaranteed the people of this nation under that document, including your right of free speech under the First Amendment.  Whether AKA legitimately holds the office of president is of paramount importance to every issue you address regarding his Marxist agenda.
 
You refer to the people gravely concerned by what, by all indications, is an egregious breach of our Constitution, as “birthers.” 
 
But I ask you, can you prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that AKA is eligible to the office he holds?
 
Have you seen AKA’s actual birth certificate issued at the time of his birth?  Have you?  Because, if you have, you are the only one, besides AKA, who has seen it.
 
AKA admits in his book, Dreams from my father, that he found his actual birth certificate among papers in his maternal grandparents home, in Hawaii, when he lived with them.  That being the case, Mr Beck, why the need to produce a laser printed document?  Why not simply produce his actual birth certificate as John McCain did when his eligibility was questioned? 
 
But we have seen the pictures of the Certification of Live Birth?  That we have.  And you know what, Mr Beck, they prove absolutely nothing.  “Here officer, let me show you the picture I have of my drivers’ license; it is no doubt just as acceptable as my actual drivers’ license!”
 
I have to ask, have you actually seen the Certification of Live Birth that AKA has claimed is his birth certificate?  No, I don’t mean pictures, I mean the actual document?  If you haven’t, then how do you know it’s legit?  In the day and age of PhotoShop, how do you know it wasn’t forged, especially in light of the fact that the digital files behind all those pictures on the internet show the pictures have been altered?
 
Don’t you find it rather odd that AKA has spent close to $2 million trying to keep his actual birth certificate, which he has, concealed while John McCain, when the question of eligibility arose, whipped his out for any and all to look at?
 
You’ve “spent minutes pondering that question”?  Really?  Does that have more to do with mental acuity or does it have more to do with the clown persona you seem to like to exude?
 
You have been quoted as saying that you believe those requesting that AKA produce his actual birth certificate are discrediting themselves.  Really?  On what do you base your assertion?
 
Do you base it on the fact that AKA has admitted he was a dual citizen at birth?  A dual citizen is not natural-born.  A natural born citizen is born of two American parents on American soil, a fact which AKA acknowledged when he became a co-sponsor of SR 511, passed by the Senate, and providing a “sense” of the Senate regarding John McCain’s eligibility. 
 
While AKA may have been born on American soil, his father was a British subject.  He is not natural-born and is not, therefore, eligible to the office of president under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, United States Constitution.
 
What about that do you find so hard to comprehend?
 
That, above and beyond all your clueless comments and accusations, is the crux of the situation.
 
But there is more that does play into this matter beyond the dual citizenship.  While it secondary to the fact of dual citizenship and ineligibility to the office of president, it is relevant to the matter.
 
How do you address the fact that when AKA claims he was born, there was a law in effect, in Hawaii, which allowed for the birth registration of foreign-born children?  That law was not repealed until 1972.  What this means, Mr Beck, is that until said time as AKA’s actual birth certificate, which he has, is produced and examined, where he was actually born is up for grabs.  The claim that he was born in Honolulu, in the face of that law, means nothing.
 
If he was born outside the United States, there is no question that he is not eligible.
 
So, please, tell us on what you base your assertion?  Or is the case more that you don’t want to be bothered by the facts?
 
You assert that AKA is an American.  He may be an American but that does not equate to being natural born.  But then, there has been no proof presented that he is an American, so your assertion is not based on fact.
 
There is yet more.
 
In Ann Soetoro v Lolo Soetoro, filed August 1980 when AKA was 19, it is stated that AKA is a “dependent [of the respondent, Lolo Soetoro] for the purposes of education.”  How is it possible for AKA to be considered a legal dependent of Lolo Soetoro absent AKA being legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro?  You are aware, are you not, of the registration of AKA at the Fransiskus Assisi Primary School in Jakarta, listing his name as Barry Soetoro and his citizenship as Indonesian?  That registration is dated January 1, 1967.
 
Was AKA, at the age of 19, named as a dependent of Lolo Soetoro for the purposes of education, so he could obtain, as an Indonesian citizen, foreign student scholarships to Occidental?  Is that why his Occidental records, Columbia records and Harvard records have all been sealed? 
 
And this leads to another question.
 
If ever eligible to do so, where are the legal documents wherein AKA reclaimed his American citizenship at age 18, one year before he was listed as a dependent of Lolo Soetoro in the Soetoro divorce papers?  Have you seen the legal documents where AKA reclaims his American citizenship?  If you have, you would be the first because no one else has.
 
AKA pledged, while campaigning, to be transparent.  That being the case, Mr Beck, why has AKA, as no other president before him, sealed every record that would divulge his past?  If AKA has nothing to worry about, has nothing to hide, why has he deliberately sealed his past from public view?
 
You have claimed those who have addressed the eligibility issue are a bunch of “idiots” hatched by the AKA camp to sideline more important issues.
 
If there is an “idiot,” it’s definitely not those you erroneously call “birthers.”
 
There is no issue more important to the very documents on which this nation was founded, than the question of AKA’s eligibility to the office of president.  If he is not our legitimate president, then every bill, every executive order, ever document he has signed is null and void, including the money appropriated to bail out his Wall Street buddies and benefactors.
 
And if he is not eligible to the office of president, a constitutional crisis exists.
 
You claim to stand for the Constitution.  You rail against graft and corruption; against dishonesty in government; against the bureaucracy that spins the truth.  Yet you believe that somehow, through all of that, and in the face of the evidence, the sealing of documents, the hiding of records, the scrubbing bubbles being applied to the internet to cleanse it of anything remotely connected to his past, that he is somehow telling the truth. 
 
Are you really so naïve?
 
In the end, your vitriol aimed at those concerned that our constitution is being shredded really says more about you than about those you take aim at.  If there is anyone doing the bidding of the AKA camp, it isn’t those concerned about a man sitting in the Oval Office, occupying the White House, who does so in violation of the United States Constitution, placing this nation in peril and endangering the rights of every American, you included.
 
If there is one issue that is more important than any other, it is the issue of AKA’s eligibility to the office he holds.
 
Only those augmenting AKA’s Marxist agenda are complicit in keeping the eligibility issue pushed under the rug.
 
Note:  As of this posting, Glenn Beck has not responded; not that I expected he would.  Has Glenn Beck been threatened if he speaks on the eligibility issue as other radio and television personalities have apparently been threatened?  It would stand to reason that he has.  It also stands to reason that the almighty dollar is much more important to Glenn Beck than what is right.  And therein lies the problem most true patriots have with those who purport themselves to be leaders in the cause of liberty.
 
Postscript:  The issue of the two social security numbers known to have been used by AKA, one issued in Connecticut, the other in Michigan, also play into the equation.  If AKA is a legal citizen, why would he need to use social security numbers not issued to him?”

Posted with permission of Lynn.

Barack Obama, Commander in chief?, US Constitution, Oath of office, US Military, ZachJonesIsHome, Tortured Duty & Tortured Mission, Military service, Natural born citizen issue will not go away

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
So help me God.”
US Military officer’s oath of office

 
Officers in the service of the United States are
bound by this oath to disobey any order that
violates the Constitution of the United States.

From the 20th Amendment to the US Constitution.

“or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until
a President shall have qualified;”

I never refer to Barack Obama as president. The 20th Amendment to the US Constitution reveals why.

Zach, the name I use for the owner of the Zach Jones Is Home blog, has been a patriot blogger for almost two years, in the struggle to expose the truth about Barack Obama and to save this country. I have had many phone and email discussions with Zach. He has been an invaluable contributor to this blog and to the combined efforts of citizen journalists. In the article below provided by Zach today, January 1, 2010, Zach writes of his and his family’s military service. I would like to thank Zach, his family and all of those who have served this country in the military. I would also like to thank Zach for his efforts to reveal the truth about Obama and to take back this country. 

From Zach Jones Is Home, January 1, 2010.

“American Soldiers – Tortured Duty & Tortured Mission – The Whys and Whats Becoming Harder to Answer?”

“Families that honor military service are spread all across this nation.  I grew up in one. Even as a teenager in the sixties, I remember knowing that freedom wasn’t free.  My father had served in Patton’s 3rd Army, fought in the Battle of the Bulge, and served as a guard at the Nuremberg War Trials. How could I not know the price of freedom? WWII, now that was a just war.  Everyone knew it.  Everyone knew the war had to be won at all costs because failure clearly meant tyranny and death for an entire people, the Jewish people. Everyone knew, even the media knew the Whys and Whats.  Why they were fighting? What they were fighting for? They knew the cost of winning and losing! And,  victory wasn’t a dirty word.

However, my brother and I served in the United States Navy during a time in America’s history dominated by numbing callousness, selfishness, and indifference.  The loss of the Vietnam War brought about by the media and endless protests of duplicitous, naïve dreamers and schemers; the festering pain of Watergate continuously exploited by politicians in D.C., the good but lackluster caretaker President Ford portrayed as a bumbling stumbling fool on Saturday Night Live, the My Lai massacre and Lt. Calley’s conviction not quite distant enough to avoid its stench, and a war/corruption weary people’s vote for change promised by Jimmy Carter all marked this period.  Amazingly, like today, Carter’s change didn’t live up to expectations. Instead it brought gas lines, high inflation, 20+ percent interest rates and high unemployment – despair.”

“It was a perfect storm that had brought us Carter Presidency.  And with it’s battered and bruised image, the United States military seemed to have a hell of time riding out that storm until President Reagan could put his hands to the reigns. Reagan’s zero-tolerance drug testing came along after I got out and things started turning around rather quickly according to my brother.  I believe the foundation that President Reagan built (or rebuilt) continues to serve soldiers today and will not be easily surrendered by the military leadership.”

“See no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil is not a command structure that serves the military or the individual soldier well.  Neither is going with the flow.

But it’s the military leadership, the career guys and gals, who have a shot at controlling or changing the flow. Yes, sometimes they fail, but it’s their job to address the issues. It’s especially egregious when they, like politicians, just won’t see or acknowledge that something is becoming a problem – when they don’t want to get ‘their’ hands dirty or risk jeopardizing ‘their’ career paths.  Two words – Ft. Hood.

And so I come to write this conflicted accolade to today’s American Soldier.”

“Soldiers serving in the first few years after 9/11 must have had an incredible sense of the Whys and Whats that carried them through each and every day.”

“Today, we have Obama in the Oval Office and a Democratic controlled Congress (dominated by the radical left since 2006) and they are galloping as fast as they can towards creating a socialist system that would make Vladimir Ilyich Lenin proud. If you look past the rhetoric you easily see that they are attempting to create larger and larger voting blocks that are wholly dependent on the federal government, hands out, afraid to question anything, afraid to vote for anyone calling for personal responsibility. Having a nation of sheeple, like birds at a bird feeder, is not good for the country or our future. Look at the recent action Obama took diminishing our American sovereignty on Dec. 17. Constitution be damned.  Does anyone really think the Second Amendment is safe?”

“I use the phrase “defending freedom overseas” instead of “around the world” because, as much as I love them, I’m not sure they are defending our freedoms at home.  I can’t really blame the enlisted soldier because when I was in the military, I didn’t have time to keep up with what politicians at home were attempting to do to us. I basically thought politicians were all self-serving pieces of crap and the voting process would weed them out.  Unfortunately, that’s not the case today. (The statement that politicians “were all self-serving pieces of crap” is still accurate, but the vote might not be able to undo the damage they are doing to our freedoms and the Constitution.)

And the military leadership continues to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil and ignore “the flow” that’s becoming more and more turbulent.

(And the American soldier is expected to accept “the flow” as he or she finds it?)”

“All of these illustrate situations where officers up the chain of command, including the “Commander In Chief”, appear ready to shirk their duty to the Constitution and America Soldiers under their command so they can protect their relatively trivial career ambitions and/or pursue their personal political agendas.

This is when it becomes hard to answer the Whats and Whys.  What does support and defend the Constitution mean?  Who are the enemies of the United States?  Why am I defending something that seems optional for my superior officers?   What is really important to the chain of command – advancement, career or the Oath? Who are the Oathkeepers? Why should I obey my superior officers when they choose to ignore parts of the Constitution? What’s the point? What am I doing that protects the Constitution and the Freedoms of my family and friends?”

“The duty – I think of this as the soldier doing his or her best to live up to the oath they took when they enlisted.  Basically the duty is to support, protect and defend the Constitution and the freedoms/protections flowing from it to each and every citizen.”

“The “natural born citizen” issue will not go away and I’m sure it’s on the minds of many in the military; it affects morale, re-enlistment decisions, and how many traditional military supporters view the institution.  It’s similar to how the epidemic of drug use in the 70’s military effected civilians & soldiers who knew about the problem and cared about what it said about the institution.”

“To the American Soldier – Thank you for your service and sacrifices for this country.

I am truly sorry to be in the position of having to speak so bluntly about an institution that I love.”

Read the rest of this great article from a friend, soldier and patriot:

http://zachjonesishome.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/american-soldiers-tortured-duty-tortured-mission-the-whys-and-whats-becoming-harder-to-answer-the-bopac-report/

Obama citizenship status, Natural born citizen, Obama illegal alien?, Kerchner V Obama, Attorney Mario Apuzzo, Obama not born to a US citizen father and mother, US Constitution, Hawaii or Kenya

Although this blog has not focused on Barack Obama’s citizenship status but  rather his status as a natural born citizen, Obama may indeed be an illegal alien.

Mario Apuzzo, the attorney in the Kerchner V Obama and Congress lawsuit, has presented an indepth analysis of the US Constitution and US laws and how they pertain to information supplied or not supplied by  Obama.

“What Is Putative President Obama’s Current U.S. Citizenship Status?”

“We have seen that Obama cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” because when he was born, regardless of what place that may be, he was not born to a United States citizen father and mother. The “natural born Citizen” clause of our U.S. Constitution requires that both of the child’s parents be U.S. Citizens at the time of birth. Rather, if Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims, then under the liberalized and questionable meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” he can be a born Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” and a “citizen of the United States at birth” under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 (a). Again, that citizenship status does not make him an Article II “natural born Citizen.” But what would Obama’s citizenship status be if he was not born in the United States? First, let us examine why there is still existing doubts as to whether Obama was born in Hawaii. Second, let us examine what law would apply to determine Obama’s citizenship status should he not be born in Hawaii or any other part of the United States and what his citizenship status would be under that law.

These are the reasons for the existing doubts regarding Obama’s place of birth:

1. What Obama or some other unknown person posted on the internet is not a birth certificate (BC). Rather, he/she posted a digital image and picture of a questionable “certification of live birth” (COLB) which at best is only prima facie evidence of the place of his birth. The prima facie value of this document fails in light of numerous existing factual circumstances which contradict the COLB’s validity and which have not been adequately explained by Obama.

2. According to Obama and his Press Secretary, Mr. Gibbs, this digital document alone is supposed to allow Obama to qualify to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Military. According to them, this electronic image alone is sufficient to prove that Obama is a U.S. citizen and therefore qualified to have the full power of the executive vested in him. It is unbelievable that Obama would expect the American people to grant him such license over their lives based simply upon an electronic image on a computer screen. It is even more unbelievable that the Electoral College, our Congress, political institutions, security forces, and media would allow him to get away with it. This document, which in its paper form is undoubtedly a legal document, has no probative value given that it was posted by some unknown person on the internet as a digital image without following any prescribed electronic media security protocols. We know that digital images can be easily manipulated through computer technology. See http://technology.findlaw.com/articles/01102/010555.html for an explanation of the need to follow defined federal and state standards when it comes to electronic/digital information transmittal of legal documents. If Obama expects this digital image of a COLB to have such unprecedented value which allows him to be President of the United States, then he should at least show that the electronic image he posted meets electronic/digital security standards.

3. While not officially confirmed, the authenticity of the COLB computer image has been questioned by at least two digital image experts who have concluded that the COLB image is a forgery.

4. Obama says he was born in a hospital. A birth certificate provides the name of the hospital where the birth occurred and the name of the doctor delivering the baby. The COLB does not have this vital corroborating information.

5. The key point that Obama supporters are redirecting attention away from is that the underlying foundational information supporting his Certification of Live Birth is unknown. This unknown information may not matter much when it comes to an ordinary person. But for someone running for President of the United States and currently sitting in that Office it is of crucial importance.

6. When Obama was born in 1961, Hawaii had in effect the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program which it established in 1911 and which it terminated in 1972. Someone could under Act 96 get a certificate claiming a Hawaiian birth even if he was physically born in a foreign country by an adult or parent falsely claiming to the director of health that he was born in Hawaii when in fact he was born abroad. Hence, because of the contradictory evidence that exists such as statements made by relatives and newspaper reporters in Kenya and elsewhere regarding where he was born, plaintiffs are entitled to pierce the alleged COLB and examine the file that is in the possession of the Hawaiian Secretary of State which may contain a sworn application/petition in which some party set forth circumstantially all the facts upon which the application rested and supporting sworn affidavits of witnesses. The file could also contain the results of the Secretary or his designee examinations under oath of the applicant or other person who may have been cognizant of the alleged facts regarding the application/petition along with other documentary evidence that they may have obtained as a result of issuing subpoenas for books and other papers.

7. The DoD 5220.22-M, “National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual,” 2/28/2006 (NISPOM) provides baseline standards for the protection of classified information released or disclosed to industry in connection with classified contracts under the “National Industrial Security Program (NISP). It prescribes the requirements, restrictions, and other safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure of classified information. It also states at 2-209 that only U.S. citizens are eligible to receive a security clearance. The Manual requires a contractor to show proof of U.S. citizenship. It states at 2-208: “For individuals born in the United States, a birth certificate is the primary and preferred means of citizenship verification.” http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/522022mchaps.pdf. Surely, we should require such documentation of someone seeking to occupy the Office of President of the United States.

8. At the time that Obama was sworn in as President, not even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands accepted a certification of live birth (COLB) as conclusive evidence of being a native of Hawaii for its Homeland program. From its web site: “In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.”

9. Since the controversy over Obama’s alleged birth certificate, Hawaii has changed its web page to read as follows:
“Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.”http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl.

10. Despite the numerous law suits that have been filed against Obama, he continues to refuse to release his original birth certificate and has opted rather to spend large sums of money using lawyers to defend himself and to cause the courts and litigants to expend large amounts of time and resources pursuing litigation against him and other third parties. He relies on procedural and other threshold arguments such as jurisdiction, justiciability, standing, political question, separation of powers, mootness, and ripeness rather than simply produce his original birth certificate and make a motion for summary judgment with prejudice as to the merits so that no other future cases can be brought against him and others which would then put an end not only to the ongoing drain of money, time, and other resources but also to the great public outrage that continues to increase over time regarding his constitutional eligibility.

11. For some unknown reason and relying on federal and state privacy laws, Obama has refused to publicly release his original Certificate of Live Birth (BC) even though in his book, Dreams from My Father, he stated that he had it.

12. Obama and his half-sister, Maya, have each stated that he was born in different hospitals in Hawaii. In November 2004, in an interview with the Rainbow Newsletter, Maya told reporters her half-brother, Sen. Barack Obama, was born on August 4, 1961, at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu. But Obama has said he was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children, also in Honolulu. Changing her story, in February 2008 Maya then told reporters for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that Obama was born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children.

13. On February 5, 2008, Madelyn Dunham was still alive, but the Obama campaign did not make her available for interviews with the media. Obama’s maternal grandmother surely would have known where her grandson was born but Obama refused the media access to her. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004164387_brodeur05m.html.

14. Neither of the two or any other hospital in Hawaii or anywhere in the world has been willing to come forward and claim its place in history as being the hospital where the first African-American U.S. President was born. There is no Hawaiian hospital that has confirmed that Obama and/or his mother were present in any such hospital at the time of Obama’s alleged birth in Honolulu. Not a single person has come forward, not a doctor, nurse, hospital administrator, nor any one else to confirm Obama’s birth in Hawaii. “We don’t have plans to do anything,” said Kapi’olani Medical Center spokeswoman, Claire Tong, when asked how the center plans to commemorate the soon-to-be 44th U.S. president, who, according to Obama’s family and other sources, was born at that hospital on Aug. 4, 1961. “We can’t confirm or deny it — even though all the information out there says he was born at Kapiolani Hospital. And that’s because of the HIPA law.” Tong acknowledged that the center has received daily inquiries from news agencies far and wide asking for confirmation of Obama’s birthplace. Despite her wanting to do so, Tong said it is not possible. “Our hands are tied,” she said. http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081109/NEWS01/811090361/-1/specialobama08. I wonder why Tong said that “even though all the information out there says he was born at Kapiolani Hospital.” He surely did not even slightly hint that any information in the hospital supported such a claim. One would think that Obama would do a simple thing and give the hospital permission to release the information to the news-thirsty public. After all, what harm to his privacy would he suffer from authorizing the hospital to simply confirm that the President of the United States was born there?

15. Attorney Philip Berg has served subpoenas on the hospitals mentioned by Obama and his half sister as the place where Obama was born to obtain the medical records which would show the fact of Obama being born in either one of them but Obama has refused to sign the consent that the hospitals need to release the documents.

16. “Birthplaces and boyhood homes of U.S. presidents have been duly noted and honored for nearly as long as America has been a nation. In the case of such towering figures as Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, those early locations have been deemed national treasures and historic sites, visited annually by the multitudes.” http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081109/NEWS01/811090361/-1/specialobama08. But we have not seen any movement by any public charity or foundation, non-profit organization, or government agency to commemorate Obama’s place of birth in Hawaii.

17. We have not seen any media events or news conferences at the hospital where Obama was born which I am sure is a place the location of which is highly news worthy not only to the American people but to the whole world. Hence, we do not even know in which hospital Obama was born.

18. Other than the COLB and the two newspaper announcements whose basis for information is the same single source, there does not exist one known corroborating medical or other document of any kind which shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. The Honolulu Advertiser, on Sunday, August 13, 1961 contained the following short announcement: “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, son, Aug. 4.” The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, an unaffiliated, competing publication, carried the exact same notice the following day. The numerous birth announcements above and below the Obama listing also were identical in both papers. Advertiser columnist and former Star-Bulletin managing editor, Dave Shapiro, was not at either paper in 1961, but he remembers how the birth notices process worked years later when both papers were jointly operated by the Hawaii Newspaper Agency, which no longer exists. He states: “Those were listings that came over from the state Department of Health . . . . They would send the same thing to both papers.” http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081109/NEWS01/811090361/-1/specialobama08. Hence, we can see that the information for those birth notices comes straight from the state Health Department’s Vital Records Division. Hence, the birth announcements, not having their source of information in some other place, do not add any corroboration to the COLB. Other secondary evidence may include baptismal or circumcision certificates, hospital birth records, or affidavits of persons having personal knowledge about the facts of birth. Other documentary evidence can be early census, school, or family bible records, newspaper files, or insurance papers. No such documents have been produced for the American public. Furthermore, no one has been able to confirm that Obama’s mother and father in fact ever lived at 6085 Kalaniana’ole Highway, Honolulu.

19. Although Obama has had a first-class education that spanned 25 years, there is only a single document that has ever been released, the application for entrance to the Franciscus Assisi Primary School in Indonesia. That document was discovered by independent investigators. That documents shows that Obama was an Indonesian citizen. It is also reported that his Kindergarten records are missing. Needless to say how probative these kindergarten records would be since they would contain his legal name, parents’ names, date of birth, place of birth, and vaccination records.

20. No public official in Hawaii has publicly confirmed with any conclusive and credible evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. Whatever statements Director of Hawaiian Department of Heath, Fukino, has made are not conclusive on the question of whether Obama was born in Hawaii. What is lacking is what information the Department is relying upon to make its statements. Just from her statement alone, we also do not know what evidence exists in the Department of Health file to corroborate what is stated in the “original birth certificate.”

21. We have not heard from one international, federal, state, or local police or security agency that Obama’s birth place has been officially confirmed.

22. On June 27, 2004, the East African Newspaper, The Sunday Standard, in its article entitled, Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate, declared in its newspaper that Obama is Kenyan-Born. This long pre-dates Obama’s decision to run for President when the truth about his birth location was not being hidden. This is not the only African paper that made such statements during a time that Obama’s birth place was not an issue.

23. An Investigator working for Philip Berg, Esq. learned the following which is contained in the investigator’s affidavit dated October 30, 2008, that was filed with a Federal District Court in the case of Berg v. Obama, 08-cv-04083: Obama’s step-grandmother, Sarah Obama, told Bishop McRae, who was in the United States, during a telephonic interview on October 12, 2008, while she was in her home located in Alego-Kogello, Kenya, that was full of security police and people and family who were celebrating then-Senator Obama’s success story, that she witnessed Obama’s birth in Kenya, not the United States (the English and Swahili conversation is recorded and available for listening). She was adamant about this fact not once but twice. The conversation which was placed on speaker phone was translated into English by “Kweli Shuhubia” and one of the grandmother’s grandsons who were present with the grandmother in the house. After the grandmother made the same statement twice, her grandson intervened, saying “No, No, No, He [sic] was born in the United States.” During the interview, the grandmother never changed her reply that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. The fact that later in the same interview she change her statement to say that Obama was born in Hawaii does not change the fact that she at first stated twice that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. I cannot imagine a grandmother not knowing whether she was present or not at the birth of her American Senator and U.S. Presidential candidate grandson.

24. The investigator then personally went to the hospital in Mombasa, Kenya. He spoke with the Provincial Civil Registrar and he learned that there were records of Ann Dunham giving birth to “Barack Hussein Obama, III” in Mombassa, Kenya on August 4, 1961. The investigator then “spoke directly with an Official, the Principal Registrar, who openly confirmed the birthing records of Senator Barack H. Obama, Jr. and his mother were present, however, the file on Barack H. Obama, Jr. was classified and profiled. The Official explained Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. [sic] birth in Kenya is top secret. [H]e was further instructed to go to the Attorney General’s Office and to the Minister in Charge of Immigration if [he] wanted further information.”

25. The Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, Peter N.R.O. Ogego, confirmed on November 6, 2008, during a radio interview with Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels, and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF’s “Mike In the Morning,” that “President-Elect Obama” was born in Kenya and that his birth place was already a “well-known” attraction. The radio interview went as follows:
Clark: “We want to congratulate you on Barack Obama, our new president, and you must be very proud.”
Ogego: “We are. We are. We are also proud of the U.S. for having made history as well.”
Fellhauer: “One more quick question, President-elect Obama’s birthplace over in Kenya, is that going to be a national spot to go visit, where he was born?”
Ogego: “It’s already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive.”
Fellhauer: “His birthplace, they’ll put up a marker there?”
Ogego: “It would depend on the government. It’s already well known.”
http://my.wrif.com/mim/index.php?s=Ogego
Later on, Ogego’s assistant, denying that Obama was born in Kenya, insisted Ogego was speaking about Barack Obama Sr., and not President-elect Obama.She said she could not say why Ogego responded the way he did. Listening to the radio interview in its entirety, it is very obvious the interviewers were all talking about President-elect Barack Obama and not his father. It is doubtful that Obama’s father’s paternal grandmother (Obama’s great-grandmother) was still alive. We would also expect that Ogego would have said that Obama was not born in Kenya, but there is an attraction there to honor his father. If it were true that Ogego was referring to Obama’s Sr. and not Obama Jr., we should have heard about and received credible evidence as to what preparatory steps had already been taken in Kenya to honor the birth place of Obama Sr. In evaluating Ogego’s statement, we have to also remember that Obama’s grandmother also said that Obama Jr. was born in Kenya. Hence, Ogego’s assistant’s claim that Ogego thought they were talking about Obama’s father does not appear credible.

26. It is alleged that the Kenyan government authorities have refused to cooperate and have thwarted all efforts by anyone to obtain any documents concerning Obama.

27. Obama has refused all effort to have him release the following documents, relying on sealing of records and/or privacy laws: Punahou High School records, Occidental College records, Columbia College records, Columbia Thesis paper, Harvard College records, Selective Service Registration, medical records, Illinois State Senate records, Illinois State Senate schedule, Law practice client list, Certified Copy of original Birth Certificate, Harvard Law Review articles that were published, University of Chicago scholarly articles, exit and entry immigration records covering all of Obama’s travels out of the United States; passports; and record of baptism, if any.

28. Fightthesmears.com and factcheck.org have since maintained silence on the birth place issue after the questionable COLB was posted on the internet.

29. Other than a digital composite image representation on the internet of a questionable letter dated January 24, 2009 that he allegedly wrote to Kapi’olani Medical Center congratulating the hospital on its centennial celebration (it is reported that he refused to confirm that the letter was genuine, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103503), Obama has remained silent and has not declared publicly after his COLB and place of birth were questioned that he was born in Hawaii.

30. No member of the media, any political party, the Executive Branch of Government, Congress, any political institution, the Judiciary, or any law enforcement entity, has publicly stated that he or she has independently confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii. Nor has House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, the Chair of the Democratic National Convention, publicly announced that she confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii.”

Continue reading:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-is-putative-president-obamas.html

ACORN funding cut, Judge Nina Gershon, December 14, 2009, Open Thread, Left hypocracy, Separation of powers, Judicial out of control, US Constitution

I have been reading and analyzing the ruling from US District Court Judge Nina Gershon, the complaint filed by ACORN attorneys and associated legal opinions and definitions. Judge Gershon, appointed by Bill Clinton, has a far left liberal view of the world and this comes through in her decisions.

How convenient and how liberal

When Obama obtained the electoral college vote and sanction from Congress (in defiance of the US Constitution) it was touted as the will of the people.
Now Congress has cut off funding to ACORN, it has the authority to do so, and District Court Judge Gershon (in defiance of the US Constitution) has ruled this unconstitutional.

Judge Gershon refers to the separation of powers and mistakenly does so when she buys into or embraces the alleged Bill of Attainder from Congress. In reality, she is violating the separation of powers when she impedes Congress from exercising their consitutional mandate to fund or remove funds on behalf of the American people.

This pattern of being guided by far left liberal agendas followed by  irresponsible rulings has been manifest for many years. You may remember the case from November 1999, the so called art exhibit containing a painting of the Virgin Mary that includes some elephant dung. It was apparent from Judge Gershon’s ruling then that she had an agenda that was contrary to protecting the American public and taxpayers.

“Mayor Says Judge Rushed Decision in Museum Case”

“Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani accused a federal judge yesterday of rushing to issue her ruling in the Brooklyn Museum of Art case to block city lawyers from fully investigating the finances of the museum’s ”Sensation” exhibition.

Mr. Giuliani stepped up his attacks on Judge Nina Gershon of United States District Court in Brooklyn one day after she ruled that he had no right to cut the museum’s city financing because he felt ”Sensation” was offensive and blasphemous. The exhibition includes displays of dead animals and a painting of the Virgin Mary that includes some elephant dung.”

Read more:

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/03/nyregion/mayor-says-judge-rushed-decision-in-museum-case.html

The trend is obvious. Judge Nina Gershon has an agenda that blinds her from a realistic interpretation of the US Constitution, one that protects the citizens of the US.

I hope to present a more technical analysis of Judge Gershon’s ruling soon.

WE must insist that Congress not comply with this radical ruling. Tell them to press on.

ACORN, Judge Nina Gershon, US Constitution, Idiot judges, US Congress, ACORN funding, Open thread, December 13, 2009

We must give Congress an enema in 2010. Vote out jackasses, vote in statesmen who adhere to the US Constitution.

With the assistance of a new congress, we must next remove the illegal usurper Barack Obama.

Then we must remove incompetent, biased judges, state officials and then fix our schools.

Many of you are aware of a absurd decision by US District Court Judge, Nina Gershon. There are several possible reasons for Judge Gershon arriving at her unconstitutional conclusion. I can state with authority that the far left wackos have inundated the internet with their Orwellian word smithing to make it appear that Congress has broken the law by cutting off funding to ACORN. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Read the decision, do some research and check back here. I have read enough already to know that this judge should be impeached.

Judge Nina Gershon Decision
http://ccrjustice.org/files/Judge%20Gershon%2012%2011%202009%20PI%20Order.pdf

Rush Limbaugh, Simple question, Citizen Wells challenge, Obama birth certificate, US Constitution, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Birth certificate fair question, Obama attorneys, Why Obama avoids

Sarah Palin, Alaska Governor, Vice Presidential Candidate, author and rookie journalist said that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a fair question.

“Palin Says Obama Birth certificate is Fair Question”
“Sarah Palin on the Rusty Humphreis Show discussing Obama’s birth certificate. She argues that just as she showed trigs birth certificate Obama should have to show his.”

Sean Hannity recently maintained journalistic standards on his radio show.

“On the Hannity Radio Show, yesterday, December 8, 2009, Sean Hannity echoes what Sarah Palin stated about Obama’s birth certificate being a fair question. He stated that World Net Daily was just doing due diligence by questioning the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate. He stated that a lot of people are afraid to ask the question.”

Recently, the Citizen Wells blog challenged Rush Limbaugh to ask the simple question regarding Obama and his efforts to hide his records.

“”Sacred honor” isn’t a phrase we use much these days, but every American life is touched by the bounty of this, the Founders’ legacy. It is freedom, tested by blood, and watered with tears.”… Rush H. Limbaugh, Jr. (father of radio host)”
“There are at least 3 reasons why Rush Limbaugh will ask the question of the century:
1. It is a self evident truth. Rush will risk ridicule for a just cause.

2. Rush Limbaugh is the man of the hour. This question will define this century.

3. Rush Limbaugh’s father would have asked this question.”

our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor

To: Rush Limbaugh

From: Citizen Wells
We are not asking you to delve deep into legal matters, into court cases, into legal precedents or definitions. We are simply asking you to ask the question that a fifth grader could ask and answer.

 
The question is why?

“1. Barack Obama has employed a legion of private and government attorneys to prevent revealing his country of birth. Innocent and eligible persons seeking the office of president do not do that.”