Results 1 to 10 of 5731
97LikesThread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksHybrid View
-
08-16-2012, 03:30 AM #1Senior Member
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
- Posts
- 117,087
Occidental activist: I thought Obama was 'gay'
Is a big secret from Obama's past about to come out of the closet?
A former radical activist from Occidental College is finally spilling the beans, saying he thought 19-year-old Barack Obama and his roommate were homosexual lovers, and that Barack was the "boy toy" in the relationship.
We've got photos and the full story.
Read the latest now on WND.com.
Last edited by AirborneSapper7; 08-16-2012 at 03:32 AM.
Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)
-
08-16-2012, 12:42 PM #2Senior Member
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Getyourassoutahere, Texas
- Posts
- 3,783
Your link doesn't work.
Originally Posted by AirborneSapper7
Occidental activist: I thought Obama was 'gay'
Is a big secret from Obama's past about to come out of the closet?
A former radical activist from Occidental College is finally spilling the beans, saying he thought 19-year-old Barack Obama and his roommate were homosexual lovers, and that Barack was the "boy toy" in the relationship.
We've got photos and the full story.
Read the latest now on WND.com.
...I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid...
William Barret Travis
Letter From The Alamo Feb 24, 1836
-
10-29-2012, 06:35 AM #3Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
- Posts
- 3,208
Social Security Numbers
The SSN Numbering Scheme
Number Has Three Parts
The nine-digit SSN is composed of three parts:
- The first set of three digits is called the Area Number
- The second set of two digits is called the Group Number
- The final set of four digits is the Serial Number
Area Number
The Area Number is assigned by the geographical region. Prior to 1972, cards were issued in local Social Security offices around the country and the Area Number represented the State in which the card was issued. This did not necessarily have to be the State where the applicant lived, since a person could apply for their card in any Social Security office. Since 1972, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant's mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence. Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, either prior to 1972 or since.
Generally, numbers were assigned beginning in the northeast and moving westward. So people on the east coast have the lowest numbers and those on the west coast have the highest numbers.
Note: One should not make too much of the "geographical code." It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that.
(Complete list of the geographical number assignments.) [042 = Connecticut]
See the latest Social Security Number Monthly Issuance Table for the latest SSN area ranges issued to date. Alleged Social Security numbers containing area numbers other than those found on that table are impossible.
The SSN Numbering Scheme
(From the Wayback Machine for March 31, 2001.)
Last edited by MinutemanCDC_SC; 10-29-2012 at 06:48 AM.
One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.
Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.
The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!
-
02-05-2013, 07:13 AM #4Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
- Posts
- 3,208
posted as a comment to "Busted: 1940 Census Confirms Obama Alias; Born in 1890"
N.B. The U.S. Census does not include SSNs, so the above title is incorrect.
@douglasdauntless, I'm not aware of the adult gin joints being High School Barry's motive for securing fake ID, as "gin" was reportedly not one of his preferred mood adjusters. But he did need a SSN to get a job at Baskin-Robbins in 1977. Social Security Administration verification of his personal identifying information on an SSN application in 1977 would have possibly raised questions about his post-birth registration in Hawaii in 1961.
On Aug. 7, 1961, his grandmother, Madelyn (or Madlyn) "Toot" Dunham, registered his birth in absentia as a non-hospital birth, and she fraudulently claimed that he was born at Kapi'olani M&G Hospital in Honolulu, even though he was actually born in the Lady Grigg Maternity Unit of Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya, with James O.W. Ang'awa as attending physician.
She also falsely claimed that his mother and father of record lived at 6085 K Hwy. just off Waikiki Beach, when Barack Sr. could hardly afford tuition and a student apartment. Establishing non-cohabitation for separation, Anna and young Barack never set foot in Hawaii before Barack Sr. left for Harvard in June of 1962, so even the newspaper birth announcements made by the Honolulu DOH were a sham; they were automatically triggered by the fictionalized Hawaii birth registration which Madelyn Dunham filed at the Honolulu DOH on Aug. 7, 1961.
I cannot prove the following in court, but it is the simplest, non-contrived explanation which corresponds to the known facts, motive, and opportunity. There is no known evidence to disprove it, except the proven-fabricated documents which back the Barack Obama II birth myth.
In 1977, Madelyn Dunham had to provide young Barry with a fake SSN to avoid any Social Security Administration cross-checking of the non-hospital birth registration of a birth at Kapi'olani Hospital against the birth records at Kapi'olani Hospital, which has denied having any record of Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama ever being a patient there. With the ready advice of Communist Frank Marshall Davis on how to create a fake identity, Mrs. Dunham used her volunteer position at the Honolulu Probate Judge's office to lift from the records of the deceased a SSN which had not yet been filed as deceased with the SSA. That deceased person was Harrison J. Bounel of Connecticut and New York, who had just recently died in Hawaii.
Years later, after Mr. Obama acquired from Tony Rezko the 5046 S. Greenwood property in southside Chicago, that address was recorded along with Mr. Obama's assumed SSN beginning with "042". Thus Harrison J. Bounel (deceased), the true owner of that SSN beginning with "042", posthumously acquired an address of 5046 S. Greenwood in Chicago.Last edited by MinutemanCDC_SC; 02-07-2013 at 10:07 AM.
One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.
Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.
The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!
-
02-07-2013, 09:34 AM #5Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
- Posts
- 3,208
How they stole the 2012 elections
(Hat Tip to bobmann101, who compiled most of the following links.)
WND Poll: What role, if any, did vote fraud play in the 2012 election? [1295 Votes]
- We may never have a free and fair election again in America if we don't start exposing abuses and prosecuting them (53%, 681 Votes)
- The election was stolen – pure and simple (25%, 322 Votes)
- It played a decisive role in the presidential election, robbing the real winner of victory (8%, 98 Votes)
- It is abundantly clear now that presidential elections in the U.S. are rigged in favor of Democrats (7%, 89 Votes)
- There's enough doubt about the fairness of the election that is causing Americans to lose confidence in the vote (3%, 42 Votes)
- Democrats are fine with cheating and law-breaking, as James O'Keefe demonstrated in his videos (3%, 34 Votes)
- Other (2¼%, 29 Votes)
Read more at Did Obama steal the 2012 election? | WorldNetDaily
Colorado Counties Have More Voters Than People | RedState
Forensic profiler: Obama is subconsciously confessing election fraud | WorldNetDaily
THE BIG LIST of vote fraud reports | WorldNetDaily
Cuccinelli seems to agree voter fraud helped Obama - Virginia Politics | The Washington Post
22 Signs That Voter Fraud Is Wildly Out Of Control And The Election Was A Sham | The American Dream
Discrepancies Found in Election Results from Several Swing States | Breitbart
Governor Romney would have won in the electoral college, 270-268, if he had received 333,912 more votes in four swing states: 103,482 in Ohio, 73,859 in Florida, 115,911 in Virginia, and 40,660 in New Hampshire. | Breitbart
Election Fraud? Barack Obama Won More Than 99 Percent Of The Vote In More Than 100 Ohio Precincts | Market Daily News
Claims increase of machines switching votes in Ohio and other battleground states | Fox News
The Hamilton Co., Ohio, Director of Elections removed two precinct election judges for allowing several dozen unrregistered voters to cast regular ballots (not provisional ballots).
Woodbridge, Virgiania, poll watcher Dara Fox reports massive voter fraud at her polling place. | WMAL-AM 630.
Why the Republicans don't/won't/can't challenge the Democrats about voter fraud or election fraud. | Fellowship of the Minds
... during the weekly True the Vote webcast, Catherine Engelbrecht (see her photo below) related a meeting she had with Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), asking what the GOP would do about voter integrity. The answer?
Nothing. They aren’t legally able to.
This all goes back to a lawsuit 31 years ago, in 1981. The following is compiled from an account on The Judicial View, a legal website specializing in court decision research and alerts, and from “Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615.
True the Vote’s Catherine Engelbrecht (read more about her, here)
In 1981, during the gubernatorial election in New Jersey (NJ), a lawsuit was brought against the RNC, the NJ Republican State Committee (RSC), and three individuals (John A. Kelly, Ronald Kaufman, and Alex Hurtado), accusing them of violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
The lawsuit was brought by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the NJ Democratic State Committee (DSC), and two individuals (Virginia L. Peggins and Lynette Monroe).
The lawsuit alleged that:
- The RNC and RSC targeted minority voters in New Jersey in an effort to intimidate them.
- The RNC created a voter challenge list by mailing sample ballots to individuals in precincts with a high percentage of racial or ethnic minority registered voters. Then the RNC put the names of individuals whose postcards were returned as undeliverable on a list of voters to challenge at the polls.
- The RNC enlisted the help of off-duty sheriffs and police officers with “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands, to intimidate voters by standing at polling places in minority precincts during voting. Some of the officers allegedly wore firearms in a visible manner.
To settle the lawsuit, in 1982 — while Ronald Reagan was President (1981-1989) — the RNC and RSC entered into an agreement or Consent Decree, which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance. The following is what the RNC and RSC, in the Consent Decree, agreed they would do:
[I]n the future, in all states and territories of the United States:
(a) comply with all applicable state and federal laws protecting the rights of duly qualified citizens to vote for the candidate(s) of their choice;
(b) in the event that they produce or place any signs which are part of ballot security activities, cause said signs to disclose that they are authorized or sponsored by the party committees and any other committees participating with the party committees;
(c) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their agents or employees to remove or deface any lawfully printed and placed campaign materials or signs;
(d) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their employees to campaign within restricted polling areas or to interrogate prospective voters as to their qualifications to vote prior to their entry to a polling place;
(e) refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose;
(f) refrain from having private personnel deputized as law enforcement personnel in connection with ballot security activities.
The RNC also agreed that the RNC, its agents, servants, and employees would be bound by the Decree, “whether acting directly or indirectly through other party committees.”
As modified in 1987, the Consent Decree defined “ballot security activities” to mean “ballot integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud.”
Since 1982, that Consent Decree has been renewed every year by the original judge, Carter appointee District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise, now 88 years old. Long retired, Debevoise comes back yearly for the sole purpose of renewing his 1982 order for another year.
In 2010, the RNC unsuccessfully appealed “to vacate or modify” the Consent Decree in “Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615 (C.A. 3, Mar. 8, 2012). [Case No. 09-4615 was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court but apparently was not accepted for oral arguments.]
This is a summary of the appeals judge’s ruling, filed on March 8, 2012:
In 1982, the Republican National Committee (“RNC”) and the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) entered into a consent decree (the “Decree” or “Consent Decree”), which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance. The RNC appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denying, in part, the RNC’s Motion to Vacate or Modify the Consent Decree. Although the District Court declined to vacate the Decree, it did make modifications to the Decree. The RNC argues that the District Court abused its discretion by modifying the Decree as it did and by declining to vacate the Decree. For the following reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
Surprise! The judge who denied the RNC’s appeal to “vacate” the 1982 Consent Decree is an Obama appointee, Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
[Atty. Orly Taitz writes that Obama appointee Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr., is the same judge who cast the deciding vote against her 2011 case, Liberi v. Taitz, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, Penn..]
Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr.,
U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
(Continued. . .)
Fellowship of the Minds has several more links - those in green - to accounts of voter fraud in 2012 by Democrats.
Last edited by MinutemanCDC_SC; 02-08-2013 at 02:13 AM.
One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.
Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.
The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!
-
02-09-2013, 12:09 AM #6Senior Member
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
- Posts
- 117,087
BREAKING: Supreme Court Opens Door To Challenge To Obama Forged IDs And Eligibility NEXT WEEK...
Chief Justice John Roberts Schedules A Case Regarding Obamas Forged IDs to be Heard in Conference Before the Full Supreme Court. Date: FEBRUARY 15, 2013.
The case titled Noonan, Judd, MacLeran, Taitz v Bowen provides a mountain of evidence of Barack Obama using a last name not legally his, forged Selective Service application, forged long form and short form birth certificate and a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425 which was never assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS. Additionally, this case provides evidence of around one and a half million invalid voter registrations in the state of California alone.
More from Huffington Post: Taitz's case argues that Obama is using false identification, a fake last name, a false Social Security number and forged birth certificates, and Selective Service applications to run for president. She originally filed the lawsuit against California Secretary of State Debra Bowen (D) in her attempt to prevent California's electoral votes from being counted and to prevent Vice President Joe Biden from counting the electoral votes earlier this month.
A federal judge in California dismissed this case last week. Taitz likened her current case to Watergate.
"Please, keep in mind, Richard Nixon was reelected and sworn in, but later was forced to resign as a result of Watergate. over 30 high ranking officials of Nixon administration including Attorney General of the United States and White House Counsel were indicted, convicted and went to prison," Taitz wrote on her website.
"ObamaForgery gate is a hundred times bigger then Watergate. More corrupt high ranking officials, US Attorneys, AGs and judges were complicit, committed high treason by allowing a citizen of Indonesia and possibly still a citizen of Kenya Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack (Barry) Soebarkah, aka Barack (Barry) Soetoro to usurp the U.S. Presidency by use of forged IDs and a stolen Social security number."
SCOTUS printout is below.
No. 12A606
Title:
.
.
Docketed:
Lower Ct:
Case Nos.:
.
Edward Noonan, et al., Applicants
v.
Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State
December 13, 2012
Supreme Court of California
(S207078)
Date
Dec 11 2012
Dec 13 2012
Dec 26 2012
Jan 9 2013
Jan 9 2013
Proceedings and Orders
Application (12A606) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Application (12A606) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Application (12A606) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013.
Application (12A606) referred to the Court.
Follow us: @redflagnews on Twitter
Last edited by AirborneSapper7; 02-09-2013 at 01:32 AM.
Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)
-
02-09-2013, 01:28 AM #7Super Moderator
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Location
- Heart of Dixie
- Posts
- 36,007
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2013
2012 Presidential Election Results are a joke!
Why did not a single newspaper reporter or TV journalist take five minutes to examine the 2008 Federal Election Commission election results report which Obama arrogantly posted on the White Housewebsite prior to my finding it there on Nov. 28, 2009 as a slap in the face to California attorney Orly Taitz?
Taitz filed a Quo Warrantolawsuit against Obama, demanding to know by what authority he sat in the Oval Office (believing that would somehow make Obama produce his birth certificate? By posting the FEC document, Obama was telling her, "...by winning the election." Had Obama, or anyone on the White House IT staff looked at the document they had posted, they would have noticed one glaring mistake. There were more votes than voters. Well, wait a minute—someone did. They simply "cut out" the mistake before posting the document. It was the blank box that should not have been blank that caught my attention and made me examine the document—and then go to the FEC website where I found the same document. Completely filled out. Line one on the White House websitesaid: "Number of registered voters: 169 million. Number of registered voters who voted: BLANK. Percentage of registered voters who voted: 56.8%" If you know how manyregistered voters there are, and you know what percentage of those voters voted, you have to know how many registered voters voted since the percentage comes from the other two numbers. You can't have two of them without the third. Line one on the FEC document said: "Number of registered voters: 169 million. Number of registered voters who voted: 96.992 million. Percentage of registered voters who voted: 56.8% The bottom line on both the FEC document and the White House document told the whole story: "Number of votes counted: 132,618,580." There were 35,626,580 more votes than voters.
Although the government is constitutionally required to post those numbers, the FEC document did not end up in the public domain anywhere where I could find it. It took me about 12 hours to find most of the information. The only stat I did not find was the number of registere dvoters. That aside, various leftwing ]websites, bragging about Obama's second "win," provided me with the rest of it. Percentage of registered voters who voted: 57.7%. Number of registered voters who voted: 90,682,968. Number of votes counted: 126,985,809.
In 2012, there were 36,302,651 too many votes. Don't forget, this time around, the Obama-ites stole about 6 million votes from registered Republicans by early-voting them, that needs to be added to the vote spread, so the vote theft in 2012 was somewhere around 42,500,000. Obama was credited with winning 61,173,739 votes to Romney's 58,167,260 votes. Ignoring the stolen "GOP election day voter" votes by someone early voting their names, the totals tell us that Barack Obama didn't really win 61,173,739 votes in 2012, he only won 24,871,088 votes—or 8,959,229 votes less than he actually won in 2008 (which totaled 33,830,317 votes).
If you could correct the totals by giving the stolen votes back to the registered GOP voters in the battleground states who complained someone early voted them, Romney's total in 2012 would not be 58,167,260 votes—it would have been closer to 64,167,260 votes. Even without deducting the voting machine theft which was rampant throughout the United States, Mitt Romney would have been the 45th President of the United States. Or rather, he should have been. If I could catch the theft in 12 hours, the FEC with the power to subpoena, could have had that information by the time their office opened on Wednesday morning. But sadly for America, Obama was controlling the head of the FEC..
Once again, if a simple blogger without a research staff or access to the Democratic or ]Republican Parties, or access to this data without a FOIA request, can uncover this information within 12 hours following each election, why didn't the leftwing mainstream media do its job and kick over a few moldy, social progressive rocks? The answer? Because a cabal of globalist, one-world, New World Order politicians, princes of industry and barons of banking and business with membership in the Trilateral Commission (which was formed in 1973 as an adjunct arm of the Council on Foreign Relations [founded in 1921]) to disarm the world and create world government had a Manchurian Candidate in the race, and to accomplish their objective, they needed him to win.
Since the 25 largest newspapers in the United States, Reuters and the Associated Press are controlled by them, it's a safe bet the only rocks they would ever kick over would have been those the Trilateralists wanted kicked over—which was none of them.[/COLOR]
by JonChristian Ryter
http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2013/02/2012-presidential-election-results-are.html
-
02-15-2013, 03:26 PM #8Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
- Posts
- 3,208
[ED.: For those of us who believe that due process in the courts still has power to redress grievances against the usurper dictator, Torm Howse's 2009 U.S. Code compilation is worth reviewing.]
11-03-09 [ don't see all the links? view this, online at: http://unitedcivilrights.org/uscode-v-obama.html ]
Greetings to all Plaintiff parties, counsel, and thousands of supporters, behind a selection of m-a-n-y Obama "eligibility" cases filed within the States' and U.S. federal court systems.
[ see list of all the many original recipients, online at: http://unitedcivilrights.org/uvo-distribution.html ]
The legal info below shall end the faux "Presidency", and shall result in: Re-Election 2010
Or, since the Constitution requires all VP candidates to *separately* run: Re-Election 2010
As provided to you all below, the various hammering statutory laws of the United States Code "shall.." be plenty enough to expose all of the pertinent records for Mr. Obama's lack-of-citizenship, lack-of-natural-born-status, and, accordingly, his utter lack of valid eligibility for the Presidency. No more caselaw, legal doctrine, or anything else that provides the judges any sort of "discretion"... These are the commanding statutes of the United States, and Obama "shall" vacate the office.
The main "social" and "political" problem? Lack of solid direction in having the new/proper Administration already to go, so that the transition of power, itself, is fairly described, predictable, definable, and reasonably dependable in confidence to the American public, especially under such an unusual Constitutional situation... Therefore, and pursuant to the Constitution's express design, I have provided the correct Acting President and Acting Vice-President, below, and also proposed a well-balanced selection of the entire new Joint Administration Cabinet's twenty-one (21) officials, most of whom are well-known.
Cheers and Blessings in Constitutional Truth,
little ol' me
Why haven't any of you used the simple power of the United States Code mandates that are directly on point??
Like, as in, uhm?.. U.S.C. Title 44, Chapter 22: "PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS"
[Thank veteran Congress members for passing the Presidential Records Act of 1978]
The statutory law of the United States Code is extremely clear, even often in multiple ways, that:
a) the AG *cannot* represent/defend Obama in any challenge that involves a question of his citizenship, for the relevant statutory laws mandate that the AG be on the *prosecuting* side against Obama, if the AG is involved, at all... In fact, whether intentional or not, Obama and Holder can be hit with "constructive fraud", at the very least...
b) the AG also *cannot* represent/defend Senators or the Senate body, itself, in these constitutional questions, either... Again, whether intentional or not, you have that "constructive fraud" against the rule of law thing again...
c) there are various statutory standings provided for even "mere" individual Citizens to sue Obama, Congress, etc.
d) Obama's "Presidential records" are expressly PUBLIC by mandate of simple written law (and, combined with using AG Holder & U.S. Attorneys, i.e., our *taxdollars*, in an expressly-unconstitutional manner, defending Obama in any citizenship issues, then Obama gets to pay back every single red cent of that $1.7+ million spent so far... plus interest and penalties, naturally... plus, getting deported, or imprisoned, or whatever else...).
e) additionally, there are all sorts of various federal agencies/heads to statutorily go after Obama's eligibility through.
I have detailed and provided the direct links to all of these applicable federal statutes, below.
Of course, we all know that Obama and his agents have fully admitted his dual-citizenship at birth, which precludes him from ever being President, even notwithstanding the obviously-suspicious concealment of virtually all pertinent records...
[ED.: You may want to skip four paragraphs down, to "NOTICE RE: MDL CONSOLIDATION OF 'OBAMA ELIGIBILITY' CASES:".]
Who, then, are the lawful United States Prez and VP, per the original Constitution, right now, at this very moment??
That's easy enough to answer:
1. Mr. John McCain, Republican, *is* the President, temporarily, until the Re-Election that must be done, promptly.
2. Mr Ralph Nader, Independent, *is* the Vice-President, temporarily, until the Re-Election that must be done, promptly.
(and, those two are not my personal combo pick, but that IS the result of law per the original Constitution, so fine...).
Oh, and no worries about any "vacuum of power" anxiousness, because of this proposed new Joint Cabinet to be used during the temporary period, accepting this well-balanced set of American leaders (yes, every person listed is eligible and legally qualified to hold the position indicated - you better believe I double-checked that, first...):
http://www.editgrid.com/user/indianacrc/newJointCabinet
America needs officials that actually have skill and talent, as our Cabinet - not always a bunch of political flunkies. Further, I have balanced the new proposed Cabinet as 1/3 Dem, 1/3 Rep, and 1/3 all other legally-"major" parties, also indicated an increase in the number of resulting women upon the President's Cabinet, and additionally sought more harmonious balance within religious and ideological characteristics of the group of officials, plus added geographical and age diversity into the mix, so as to well-represent the vast majority of America, as the temporary power *within* the White House... you see.
NOTICE RE: MDL CONSOLIDATION OF "OBAMA ELIGIBILITY" CASES:
Since, even after allowing an entire year now since the fraudulent 2008 General Election, it STILL seems that nobody is able to get actually serious enough to throw a flagrantly-obvious impostor/usurper out of office, in using the court system and the laws already in force, it seems there's no choice but to soon enter into each of your own respective cases, immediately move to consolidate them all together under MDL (federal Multi-District Litigation), and maybe also bump it up into a huge mass-action or class-action suit, allowing for each and every U.S. Citizen, Taxpayer, Voter and Landowner to be able to self-join/self-intervene by geography (i.e., by jurisdiction), using simple checkbox "legal standing" forms made available online, and then self-filed per each of their own respective Divisional courthouses. And, I just happen to have a nationwide network of 3200+ online groups (for every single State, County, Parish, Borough and Independent City across the whole country) to actually do it, if really needed... That is, unless I can finally see some serious progress made *by the others leading* in these various "NObama" impostor/usurper cases still active in any court, and that good progress implemented in the most urgently quick and direct fashion, by using any or all of the legal info/ammo provided below.
APPLICABLE STATUTES RE: OBAMA'S "PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS":
Let's start out with THE most basic/direct way to end all of this nonsense, once and for all, ok???
A simple review of United States Code, Title 44, Chapter 22: "Presidential Records", provides what is needed.
Title 44, CHAPTER 22 — PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht..._44_10_22.html
§ 2201. Definitions
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
i.e., Obama's "Presidential records", including all *Constitutional* and similar official documentation, are expressly NOT protected to any forms of privacy or concealment allowed, like his "personal records" are allowed to be..
and, indeed, since the United States now actually OWNS those same "Presidential records", and not Obama!, see
§ 2202. Ownership of Presidential records
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html
then the United States has NO possible legitimate reason, whatsoever!, to withhold documentation - from ITSELF, hint, hint - of the question of existence, or not, of the properly authenticated qualifications of Mr. Obama, et al... i.e., of it's own "CEO"... No, the "shareholders" of America are absolutely entitled to see authentication, proven and confirmed.
IN FACT, it is actually Obama's **STATUTORY DUTY** to ensure his "Presidential records" are made public...!!!
§ 2203. Management and custody of Presidential records
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...3----000-.html
and, to the point necessary:
§ 2204. Restrictions on access to Presidential records
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...4----000-.html
paragraph (c)(1) of which provides that those "Presidential records", i.e., THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND ANY OTHER SUCH "QUALIFICATIONS" DOCUMENTATION, "shall" be made public, pursuant to
Title 5, § 552. Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html
Sooo.. merely use the existing jurisdiction of your current "eligibility" case, to subpoena the relevant collection of "Presidential records" from the Archivist and/or National Archives and Records Administration, pursuant to
§ 2205. Exceptions to restricted access
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...5----000-.html
under paragraph (2)(A) thereof, and, VOILA! Case closed, slam-dunk, Obama IS done. Over and out. The end.
(and Mr. McCain and Mr. Nader take over White House power until the Re-Election is held promptly thereafter, as acting President and acting Vice-President, per the original selection process order under the original Constitutional design, as the Presidential vote-getters # 2 and # 3 behind invalid Obama, who is not a natural born Citizen, "failed to qualify", etc.)
For further pertinent records handling info, see also:
CHAPTER 29—RECORDS MANAGEMENT BY THE ARCHIVIST OF THE UNITED STATES AND BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht..._44_10_29.html
and
CHAPTER 31—RECORDS MANAGEMENT BY FEDERAL AGENCIES
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht..._44_10_31.html
REGARDING CONSTANT FAILURES VIA "STANDING" ISSUES:
Also, after all of these many cases **continually dismissed** for ONE recurring issue - i.e., STANDING TO SUE - I am simply a-m-a-z-e-d that none of the present cases, with maybe the exception of Donofrio, and that only to a limited degree, have even remotely-adequately addressed any of several available, concrete-solid standing postures of virtually any U.S. Citizen, eligible Voter, Taxpayer, Landowner, or the like. The wide range of standing postures at option includes all manner of first-person, second-person, and third-party standing scenario availabilities. Here, for those of you that wish to learn about LEGAL STANDING, are just several online options, of many out there, to begin with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm
http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scr...44a48fa74a5d3a
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing
http://www.yourdictionary.com/law/standing
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...tanding-to-sue
http://www.answers.com/topic/standing-to-sue
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/fo...4/civ00035.htm (i.e., "the Government ADMITS...")
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O18...dingToSue.html
Sooo, as merely a FEW examples, only, there are easy, straightforward uses of either vertical and/or horizontal ‘privity’ for bulletproof standing, due to the running of Hillary Clinton, Dr. Keyes, and etc. against Mr. Obama for the same position – i.e., “Berg ex rel. Clinton v. Obama, et al.” or "Taitz ex rel. Keyes v. Obama, et al." - so as to not even be requiring the person of interest to be the petitioning party, in the first place... let alone the power of using the direct petitioning parties, themselves, if using ADEQUATE standing authorities... written into play... Then, there's an entire myriad of standing options under compelling various federal officers to do THEIR duty to investigate Obama's qualifications, see even the multiple *statutory* standings provided below. There's also other legal relational standings, like fiduciary duties of one person/entity to another.. hint, hint.. And, there were/are plenty of other solid, indisputable, and basic foundations for full legal standing for use in play, including, but not limited to, arguments under and via ‘collateral contract’, ‘trusts’, ‘agency’, and the ‘assignment of contractual rights.’ And, again, there's the direct legal standings of voters, taxpayers, and each Citizen... the KEY is all is well as long as the proper amount of binding authority is finally brought into written play, first! There is *overwhelming* authority on establishing *all kinds* of standing, so what IS the problem so far in sadly systemic, routine failures by "eligibility" Plaintiffs to adequately address the wide variety of indisputable STANDING authorities???
Heck, I, as a mere Citizen, have full standing by my own Citizenship, and its attributes of voting, paying taxes, Obama's and/or the Fed's and State's fiduciary duties to me, and also as a landowner, if I owned land at the moment.. Moreover, I have standing, again, but in the second/third-person, as "ex rel" on behalf of any other Citizen, to protect his or her Rights and Interests, as their "next friend", and the same "ex rel" on behalf of any part of Government towards another part, etc...
Remember, you are guaranteed a "remedy" for a wrong, Constitutionally... Gad-zoinks people!!!, even also under the Federal Constitution, there is *explicit* Citizen standing already provided. See Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1... cf. Amendments 9 & 10... see also Art. IV, Sec. 4, first participle/clause. You can also achieve citizen standing through being denied the right to a *meaningful* vote, and therefore making challenge under Amendment XIV, Section 2 (to compel changing the local basis of representation, duh, even if that is not your *primary* goal.. hint, hint..). Now then, go back and read the end of that First Amendment again..
But, enough about the utter joke of standing.. The following list is a selection of MANY statutory ways to throw Obama "out da house", quickly. Please now implement and use at least SOME of them in your own cases, right away, so that I can get back to preparing other key God, Country, and Family issues (SepChurchState, Creation-Evolution, ElectionFraud, Economy/SocialPrograms, FedRsrv/GoldStd/Dollar, rebalance of power, individual liberties, limited government, etc.), for their actual restorations, via a brand new kind of huge federal legal challenge, to get us back at least close to the Framers' original Constitutional design and intent, as soon as it is possible for one poor man to get it all ... done, and done right.
Yeah, that's right. I have chosen to live near poverty for years now, fighting part-time or more for restoration of America.
If you like my help, I could sure use donations, left side on http://unitedcivilrights.org, to upgrade to full-time restoration.
EXISTING STATUTES PROVIDE VARIOUS ROUTES TO OBAMA:
Indeed, a simple once-through, of every possibly-relevant Title of the entire United States Code, looking for the "potentials", reveals at least a few dozen more direct ways to go after Obama, reveals that AG Eric Holder and his U.S. Attorneys are in **multiple statutory DIRECT conflicts-of-interest** by representing Obama, over citizenship questions, instead of representing the *express* interests of the United States and its several by-statute agencies/departments to the direct contrary of Obama's legal interests, and even reveals that "AG-Elect" Eric Holder could now be removed from office, for merely participating on the wrong side in Obama's citizenship problems... In other words, get rid of Holder & U.S. Attys OUT of these "eligibility" cases, immediately, since you now have, below, the clear-cut, mandate power of law to do so!
from United States Code, TITLE 2, The Congress:
--> example - go after Obama's *Senator* records from the 2004 Illinois election, to check eligibilities...
§ 1a. Election to be certified by governor
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1---a000-.html
§ 1b. Countersignature of certificate of election
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1---b000-.html
but see, for "devil's advocate" knowledge,
§ 118. Actions against officers for official acts
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...8----000-.html
yet, not to worry!, because the special circumstance is Obama being a U.S. Senator, and under
§ 118a. Officers of Senate
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...8---a000-.html
section 118 actually doesn't apply to Obama, so no representation/defense by AG Eric Holder or his US Attorneys...
and besides, the Senate and Senators have their own *statutory* representation, anyway:
§ 288. Office of Senate Legal Counsel
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...8----000-.html
see also
§ 288c. Defending the Senate, committee, subcommittee, member, officer, or employee of Senate
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...8---c000-.html
...but, most definitely, the AG (nor his staff, the U.S. Attorneys...) *cannot* represent either the U.S. Senate, former Speaker Cheney, current Speaker Pelosi, Reid, or etc., when it comes to the question of citizenship/qualification of Obama as President-Elect, but the representation *must* be ONLY the Senate Legal Counsel, for any/all of them... because of:
§ 288h. Defense of certain constitutional powers
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...8---h000-.html
and, also because of:
§ 288k. Attorney General relieved of responsibility
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...8---k000-.html
and, also because the AG's direct conflict-of-interest is inherent in challenging Obama's citizenship, see, e.g.:
Title 8, § 1501. Certificate of diplomatic or consular officer of United States as to loss of American nationality
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
Also under Title 2 of the United States Code, please take note of federal statutes concerning the FEC.
Title 2, § 437c. Federal Election Commission
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...7---c000-.html
(b) Administration, enforcement, and formulation of policy; exclusive jurisdiction of civil enforcement; Congressional authorities or functions with respect to elections for Federal office
(1) The Commission shall administer, seek to obtain compliance with, and formulate policy with respect to, this Act and chapter 95 and chapter 96 of title 26. The Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the civil enforcement of such provisions.
** whereas that same Chapter 95 of Title 26 referenced above includes/specifies:
** when referring to aspects of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, including eligibilities...
§ 9011. Judicial review
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
** which gets most any INDIVIDUAL PERSON the right of STANDING to go after Obama, via paragraph:
(b) Suits to implement chapter
(1) The Commission, the national committee of any political party, and individuals eligible to vote for President are authorized to institute such actions, including actions for declaratory judgment or injunctive relief, as may be appropriate to implement or contrue [1] any provisions of this chapter.
** while back in Title 2, re: the FEC itself, there is ALSO express/specific judicial review available again to "any individual eligible to vote in any election for the office of President"...:
§ 437h. Judicial review
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...7---h000-.html
soooo, there is more than one way of obtaining *statutory standing* to sue Obama, et al... and there are others, too...
The creative legal mind can certainly leverage this statute against Obama, somehow, hint, hint:
Title 2, § 441h. Fraudulent misrepresentation of campaign authority
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000441---h000-.html
Continuing with remaining Title 2 potentials, believe it or not (and, it figures...), there is nothing very useful under here, as they obviously didn't want themselves really held accountable in any meaningful manner, if they could avoid it, duh..:
Title 2, CHAPTER 24 — CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sup_01_2_10_24.html
SUBCHAPTER IV—ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL DISPUTE-RESOLUTION PROCEDURES
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sup_01_2_10_24_20_IV.html
so, skip all of that, except make a mental note that Congress has "unlawfully" shielded themselves from judicial accountability?
from United States Code, TITLE 3, The President:
§ 15. Counting electoral votes in Congress
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...5----000-.html
like stated in Constitution, objections to electoral vote must be called for by the Speaker
likewise, either Biden, and/or Pelosi, God forbid, can be compelled under 28 USC 1361 to "qualify" Obama and themselves:
§ 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...9----000-.html
another statutory parallel to the Constitutional provisions
from United States Code, TITLE 5, Government Organization and Employees:
Even MORE legal authority to leverage/expose Obama through the FEC, via Title 5 of the United States Code, as to otherwise judicially compelling ALL OTHER duties of the FEC to be manifested into reality, including eligibilities...
Title 5, CHAPTER 7 - JUDICIAL REVIEW in general
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...10_I_30_7.html
§ 701. Application; definitions
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
i.e., the FEC is *not* listed as an excluded "agency" to judicial review
and confirm also via:
§ 702. Right of review
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html
which includes rights of *individuals eligible to vote for President* to sue in federal court, i.e., STATUTORY STANDING
and, while the available scope of review for the federal court used is quite wide and grand, indeed, *constitutionally*:
§ 706. Scope of review
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...6----000-.html
Then, there's also going through the angle of the federal Office of Personnel Management
§ 1103. Functions of the Director
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...3----000-.html
i.e., to judicially compel, by 28 USC 1361 federal officer duty mandate (see Title 28 below), the Director of OPM to "qualify" Obama as a bona fide qualified federal employee, i.e., as a bona fide U.S. Citizen, etc.
i.e., as in their statutory duty to ensure Obama's "loyalty" to the USA...
§ 1304. Loyalty investigations
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...4----000-.html
Then, as to compelling the various Secretaries of State (in the various different sister States) to "ensure validity" of Obama's qualifications and eligibility, those such Plaintiffs can maybe use:
§ 1502. Influencing elections; taking part in political campaigns; prohibitions; exceptions
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html
particulary paragraph (a)(1) and maybe also (a)(2) thereof
Heck, also under Title 5, you could use the compelling of the Merit Systems Protection Board, in the same way as compelling the Director of OPM above, pursuant to
§ 1505. Hearings; adjudications; notice of determinations
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...5----000-.html
and under paragraph (2) thereof, to have Obama removed from office...
which would be agency whitewashed, of course, so then you have statutory right to judicial review, thereafter
§ 1508. Judicial review
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...8----000-.html
Also under Title 5 of the United States Code are other commanding "loyalty" statutes, such as
§ 3333. Employee affidavit; loyalty and striking (think: "withholding Presidential records") against the Government
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...3----000-.html
and by following through to the referenced statute therein:
§ 7311. Loyalty and striking
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
"An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he—
(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;"
i.e., we find that Obama is *affirmatively* violating paragraph (1) above, every day, as long as he refuses or "fails to qualify" as Prez under the Constitutional manner dictated, refuses to "make public" his "Presidential records" as per law, etc...
from United States Code, TITLE 8, Aliens and Nationality:
regarding defining a U.S. "national" or U.S. "citizen"
***OLDER
in general:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1_8_10_11.html
a couple of specifics worth tracing through the Library of Congress:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
***NEWER
in general:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...12_20_III.html
a few specifics usable thereunder are:
§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
§ 1408. Nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...8----000-.html
§ 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
§ 1488. Nationality lost solely from performance of acts or fulfillment of conditions
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...8----000-.html
You could/can compel the Sec of Homeland Security's duties (again, under 28 USC 1361 mandate) to investigate Obama's citizenship
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...3----000-.html
(which also, again, shows the inherent conflict-of-interest with the AG representing/defending Obama's citizenship issue)
AND/OR
you could/can compel the Sec of State (Hillary) to do the same thing, i.e., investigate Obama's citizenship
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...4----000-.html
which also, by the way, adds a nice touch of direct conflict-of-interests into the game
see also:
§ 1227. Deportable aliens
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...7----000-.html
(multiple angles of attack v. Obama herein, see *especially* (a)(3)(D) thereunder)
(again, showing inherent conflict-of-interest in the AG defending Obama's citizenship issues..)
Maybe a clever Plaintiff party could leverage this statute into deciding the eligibility issue from another angle:
§ 1501. Certificate of diplomatic or consular officer of United States as to loss of American nationality
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
see also:
§ 1642. Verification of eligibility for Federal public benefits
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html
Obama's various federal benefits, i.e., wages, medical, pension, etc., cannot be received by any "alien"
"proof of citizenship" required under (a)(2) thereunder, but admittedly maybe a stretch to implement...
also, add any federal benefits being received by Michelle Obama, and by his two daughters, even?...
see also:
§ 1644. Communication between State and local government agencies and Immigration and Naturalization Service
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...4----000-.html
from United States Code, TITLE 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure:
Oh, on that many inherent conflicts-of-interest by the Atty Gen in representing Obama over citizenship issues?
So, after knowing the above statutes that specify when and when not, then see:
§ 528. Disqualification of officers and employees of the Department of Justice
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...8----000-.html
(throw the bum, "AG-elect" Eric Holder, OUT OF OFFICE!)
see also:
§ 530B. Ethical standards for attorneys for the Government
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...0---B000-.html
see also:
§ 547. Duties (of all of the U.S. attorneys)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...7----000-.html
and, see also (kewl!):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
Referenced several times above, can be used against Obama, or ANY other federal official...
§ 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
And, don't ever forget about the awesome power and flexibility of seeking any kind of WRIT:
§ 1651. Writs
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
from United States Code, TITLE 42, The Public Health and Welfare:
a little bit of creative thinking, or "connecting the dots", can be leveraged with:
§ 1971. Voting rights
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
then also, why not go after Obama's OWN (Chicago/Illinois) vote being unlawful (as an illegal alien, false citizenship, etc.), via:
§ 1973i. Prohibited acts
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...3---i000-.html
see especially paragraphs (c) and (d) thereunder, like CONCEALING MATERIAL RECORDS!!!
see also, and *think* while reviewing:
§ 1973gg–9. Civil enforcement and private right of action
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...3--gg009-.html
(to ensure "statutory standing" due to the *private right of action*...)
and likewise regarding Obama's continued concealment of records, but used under his OWN voting qualifications in Chicago, in both 2004 and 2008:
§ 1974a. Theft, destruction, concealment, mutilation, or alteration of records or papers; penalties
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...4---a000-.html
and the procedure to implement (hint, use "ex rel State of Illinois"?)
§ 1974b. Demand for records or papers by Attorney General or representative; statement of basis and purpose
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...4---b000-.html
and, so, of course, the jurisdictional hook:
§ 1974d. Jurisdiction to compel production of records or papers
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...4---d000-.html
While, all sorts of different "teams" and "organizations" including Obama in them can be arranged/claimed/accused under
§ 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...5----000-.html
especially paragraph (3) thereunder..
AND which therefore gives another *original jurisdiction* to the federal court under:
Title 28, § 1343. Civil rights and elective franchise
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...3----000-.html
along with the obligatory Section 1983 civil rights claims, of course...
from United States Code, TITLE 44, Public Printing and Documents:
includes the mandates regarding all "Presidential Records" - see all info/ammo at very top.
from United States Code, TITLE 50, War and National Defense:
Can we spell all of the different names of the "radicals" associated with Obama, both prior and present, stir in a little Acorn soup, allege the basic, obvious facts on paper, and leverage this, even? The skilled legal practioner can surely do it:
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 23 > SUBCHAPTER IV — COMMUNIST CONTROL
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht..._23_20_IV.html
And, just for good measure, everything you wanted to know about the new Presidential declaration of National Emergency regarding the swine flu, or H1N1 derivative, and including how and when to terminate any national emergency:
CHAPTER 34 — NATIONAL EMERGENCIES
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht..._50_10_34.html
Heck, people, all of that is JUST from poring through ONLY the entire United States Code (USC). What if someone took the time to sift through *the entire* Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), maybe research the available Secret Service documentation, manuals, and etc., or the same sets of endless rules and regulations from other relevant federal agencies/departments? What if Obama is breaking the law - again - every time he flies out of the country, and then "tries to re-enter" our Nation? Do you get the point? The age-old adage is that "no man is above the law", and, yet, people think the cliche is true, that high government officers can merely *get away* with acting like they are "above the law" - yet, I tell you the simple truth: the higher a government official is in rank, the more and more rules, regulations, laws and other authorities that exist in relation to their position, and they have, effectively, even more and more "leashes" snaring them down.. watching their every move. Indeed, I would call Obama the man who is "most UNDER the law" in America, actually... every Presidential candidate must be *necessarily* prepared to accept that role for his or her entire term of office... to be the most-leashed public servant that there is... to be subject to intense scrutiny... and, via 'on paper', i.e., accountable to the greatest amount and numbers of variously written laws...
The point is, Patriots of the United States of America, that there are various EASY and COMMANDING ways, already in full force of law, with which to obtain the "eligibility" records sought, or to find no sufficient records exist, and bring an end to this utter nonsense of a circus, if only a **comprehensive** review of the matters be done and actually implemented.
REPEAT OF SUMMARY:
The law of the United States Code is extremely clear, even often in multiple times and multiple ways, that:
a) the AG *cannot* represent/defend Obama in any challenge that involves a question of his nationality/citizenship, for the relevant statutory laws mandate that the AG be on the *prosecuting* side against Obama, if the AG is involved at all...
b) the AG also *cannot* represent/defend Senators or the Senate body, itself, in these constitutional questions, either...
c) there are various statutory standings provided for even "mere" individual Citizens to sue Obama, Congress, etc.
d) Obama's "Presidential records" are expressly PUBLIC by mandate of law (and, combined with using AG Holder & U.S. Attorneys, i.e., our *taxdollars*, in an expressly-unconstitutional manner, defending Obama in citizenship issues, then Obama gets to pay back every single red cent of that $1.7 million spent so far... plus interest and penalties).
e) additionally, there are all sorts of federal agencies/heads to go after Obama's eligibility through, by statutes.
ADDITIONAL LEGAL THEORIES & ARGUMENTS:
Lastly, let me also point out and ardently remind of these important items to consider into the mix:
1) - Clinton was held in contempt by a federal court, while he was still the President, ergo, jurisdiction exists:
http://law.jrank.org/pages/5671/Cont...t-Clinton.html
(See also, most especially, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, Jenness v. Fortson, Bush v. Gore, Kawakita v. U.S., U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, U.S. v. Rhodes, and Scheuer v. Rhodes [a different "Rhodes" case, unrelated], all from SCOTUS)
2) - Congress, itself, routinely turns to the judiciary to resolve issues, even to sue the President:
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press99/pr050199.htm
3) - EVERY President is sued in order to compel official duties, all the ... time, by business, individuals, and even other government and quasi-government entities. Just one example out of literally thousands:
http://www.apwu.org/news/webart/2008...t-080717-b.pdf
and go look at the online dockets and archived opinions of the various federal court types physically located in DC...
4) - Heck, it's even "ok" to actually sue the White House Executives for scandalous allegations of outright fraud:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002...usa.dickcheney
5) - You have to remember/realize the REASON *why* Obama goes around hiding/concealing records... because that is exactly what he has been taught from birth to do... His mother obviously embroiled herself into some sort of "bend rules" stuff over Barry's birth, somehow, and necessarily with someone else.. and HAD to later tell her son at least *something* about his unusual citizenship situation, at some time in his life. Further, with all the moving around the world (her work and etc.), especially to and through countries that were NOT being friendly with the United States, he was also taught through childhood NOT to have too much respect for the United States, or its culture and society... That's the kind of friends and others who Obama hung around with quite often during his formative childhood, teenage, and young adult years. Also, of course, all that passing through various nations in political turmoils might typically require travelers to forge and fake documents and statements, just to avoid delays and problems.. And, later, for Barry to take a new muslim/african name while living in the United States, in order to demonstrate to his similar-thinking friends his "independence" and "repugnance" of the "establishment" level of the same United States. And, momma was right there, the whole time while Obama grew up, "explaining" away the "shortcuts" that they needed to take, just to get around and survive sometimes... teaching him, by example, to do the same thing as "needed"... Probably helping little Barry fill out student loan paperwork, too, as he prepared to enter his first college or university, right?? Is Obama hiding something in his various records? Oh, that's a given, easily. Nationality/citizenship is surely not the only thing being concealed. He very likely has taken all sorts of federal financial benefits, student and/or small business loans, congressional perks, and/or now presidential stuff, that he wouldn't even otherwise be regularly qualified for, in the first place, let alone the impostor citizen status to complicate things even that much further. Sure, he is also a Constitutional scholar himself, also taught to remember that there was the opportunity of better weath and life in America, that country he was likely daily taught to otherwise despise, but he was surely taught, and taught often, to "bend the rules" on nationality/citizenship paperwork as needed... Want confirmation? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham and there Obama's quote about his mother, who was: "the dominant figure in my formative years... The values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics." Oh, yeah, I am confident he is hiding more than just mere citizenship issues... And, by the way, from recent story developments, it could actually be that little Barry's mother was NOT married to his father, at all. Could it actually be that, maybe, just maybe, Ms. Dunham was *also not* a bona fide citizen of the United States, either???
6) - Mr. Berg, Dr. Taitz, and Mr. Apuzzo, especially, but along with all other plaintiffs/counsel, would do well to consider the ramifications - and power - of the first two paragraphs, paragraph (a)(1) and paragraph (a)(2), here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28...1----000-.html
7) - Sooo, what?? You get Obama thrown out of office... NOW what? What THEN? WHO becomes the next President? The answer, again, is very simple: Per the original Constitution, Mr. John McCain IS the *temporary* President, and Mr. Ralph Nader IS the *temporary* Vice-President, while a proper Re-Election is done promptly, say within 120 to 180 days of new campaigning time period allowed from date of judicial ruling, using ***distinct*** voting/balloting for the offices of President and Vice-President, and *only* those all same 2008 Prez and VP candidates run again, if they so choose to do again, but the mandatory result of the true Constitutional law and design is that you almost certainly end up with one (1) White House Executive from EACH/BOTH of the top two political parties, i.e., most likely either McCain as Prez with Hillary as Vice-Prez, or the reverse, Hillary as Prez with McCain as Vice-Prez, because of simple mathematics and the Constitutional selection process involved, i.e., the top two political strengths/parties each get one of the top two Executive positions, President and Vice-President. That's pre-12th Amendment, like it *should be* still done. But, even after the 12th Amendment (1804-1805, enacted-ratified), the campaign law hasn't been followed correctly since the 1870s, and the "newer" opportunity of "running for" Vice-President is **supposed** to be ran for independently from the balloting/voting process of the candidates for President. So, in the current state of things, the Re-Election of 2008, done under present (don't strike down the) 12th Amendment rule, we must end up with ONE of the Presidential candidates, and ONE of the Vice-Presidential candidates, but NOT necessarily, and NOT even probably or likely, being of the *same* party. In other words, under the current law in place for 200+ years, and that was suddenly ceased to be followed during the 1870s, we should have had 2008 results like: Obama/Palin, Hillary/Palin, McCain/Biden, Baldwin/Palin, Nader/Biden, or etc. - any Prez candidate that wins Prez + any Vice-Prez candidate that wins the SEPARATELY DONE race for the Vice-Presidency... Or, again, what's even easier.. simply go back to pre-12th Amendment, like it should best be done anyway (strike the 12th Amend. down), and you have no race for VP, at all, itself, but the two top Prez candidates become 1st (Prez) and 2nd (Vice-Prez) in number of votes obtained. Simple. Balanced. Elegant. It's *supposed* to always be a Joint Administration (politically) in the White House, anyway. And, that law and design and intent always was followed, too, until the 1870s... when the new mega-wealth "barons" and "tycoons" entered onto the American scene through vast new enterprises in railroads, steel, telegraphs, newspapers, etc., and began to *really* take over, in bending and stretching the political process to suit their own desires. Those damn Banksters... greed, the oldest sin of all..
But then, the Word of God - twice - clearly reminds the inescapable truth:
"You cannot serve both God and Mammon."
And, it also clearly reminds: "My people perish for lack of knowledge."
Points proven for God's Word, as always being solid truth and wisdom, once again...
CALL TO ACTION:
Especially to Mr. Apuzzo and Dr. Taitz, in respective timeline order: Regardless of filing appeal to your Circuit, you should certainly -- certainly (is everybody watching them??) -- incorporate some of the above, and file your immediate motions for reconsideration, based on newly discovered authority, etc. Mr. Apuzzo has until this coming Wednesday, November 4th to file any motion for alteration of judgment (Dismissal entered 10/21/09, ten (10) "business" days, per FRCP Rule 6(a)(2)), to file motion under FRCP Rule 59), while Dr. Taitz has the same ten business days allotted since Judge Carter's ruling was entered, and she can also slap that traitor Judge Land back with a Rule 60(b) motion, because - omg!! - even *thinking* about any *sanctions* during a *political question* case violates everything known to man... hint, hint... let alone the fact that Judge Land was outLANDish and wrong, in the first place. The above statutes under U.S. Code prove it.
To all "Obama eligibility" Plaintiffs/Counsel: Please now implement the above clear mandates of federal statutory law, and thereby take away all further notions of "discretion", "doctrine", or any other interference or delay. Command your victory. There is absolutely NO legally plausible **excuse** for Obama violating his statutory duties to make his "Presidential records" made ALL and immediately public domain. Period. End of story. Sooo, bye-bye, Mr. Obama, 'et al.'
To all "NObama" - "End The Fed" - "Go Sarah" - "Hillary" - and other supporters: Please forward out widely to all available forums/groups/etc., at least the basic "hammers" above, especially the legal mandate of Obama's "Presidential records" being made full public items for inspection/review. It is actually YOUR tireless communications/distribution work that actually gets the hooks baited, fish caught, cleaned, cooked and eaten tonight for supper. Thank you.
Yeah, that's right. I have chosen to live near poverty for years now, fighting part-time or more for restoration of America.
If you like my help, I could sure use donations, left side PayPal on http://unitedcivilrights.org, to upgrade to full-time restoration work. That would help a whole lot to get this all done, and America back on a good Constitutional course.
That way, instead of having to spend large chunks of my time working on people's individual due process and other cases out there, I could focus on nothing but restoring America's Constitutional Heritage through various legal HAMMERS actually implemented, sooner...............................
Thanks!
Sincerest Regards,
------------------------------------------
Mr. Torm Howse
Co-Founder, National Board Director, Instructor,
United Civil Rights Councils of America
http://unitedcivilrights.org
Co-Founder, National Board Director, Trustee,
Parental Alienation Awareness Organization - US
http://paao-us.com
Founder, Owner, President,
The FIDO Network
http://fidonetwork.com
General Contact:
P.O. Box 68665
Indianapolis, Indiana 46268
(317) 286-2538 office (888 ) 738-4643 fax
indianacrc@earthlink.net
Increase Your FAITH!
http://www.unitedcivilrights.org/uscode-v-obama.html
Last edited by MinutemanCDC_SC; 02-15-2013 at 04:30 PM.
One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.
Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.
The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!
-
02-16-2013, 03:06 AM #9Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
- Posts
- 3,208
I don't recall Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama, Jan. 29, 2012, being documented here, or even mentioned. Sibley was a write-in candidate for President of the U.S. in 2012.
EX REL SIBLEY v OBAMA (USDC D.C.) - First Amended Certified Petition for Writs Quo Warranto... Etc.One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.
Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.
The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!
-
02-18-2013, 03:23 AM #10Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
- Posts
- 3,208
Advisory: DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING:
if you have suicidal or homicidal tendencies;
if you tend to act out antisocially under stress or lash out when provoked;
if you ever have problems keeping anger under control;
if you have only one remaining felony before your third strike;
if you are operating hazardous machinery or driving a vehicle;
if you ever drive too fast or aggressively under pressure;
if your plate is full and you can't handle even one more problem right now;
if you ever abuse family members, co-workers, or service workers;
if you have had more than one drink within the past two hours;
if you have a personal or family history of stroke or heart attack;
if you have stomach ulcers, acid reflux, nausea, or similar digestive tract problems;
if you are involved in a project that requires focus and clear thinking;
if you are making life decisions that might be twisted by a dark outlook, cynicism, or pessimism; or
if you are talking with your spouse at this moment.
If ANY of the above applies to you, do not proceed beyond this point.
Close this browser window NOW, or go to another web page.
STOP - - - STOP - - - STOP - - - STOP - - -
Originally Posted by Atty. Orly Taitz
Last edited by MinutemanCDC_SC; 02-23-2013 at 05:33 AM.
One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.
Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.
The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!
Reply With Quote
Tags for this Thread
arpaio,
article ii,
barack hussein obama,
barry soebarkah,
barry soetoro,
barry soto,
barry soto obama,
birth certificate,
birther,
birther articles,
birther info,
constitution,
dual citizen,
fake news,
happersett,
hawaii,
hoax,
hussein obama,
ineligibility,
internet fake news,
kenya,
natural born citizen,
obama,
taitz,
trashing,
trump,
vattel,
wong kim ark
Fugitive illegal migrant trucker accused of killing 2 in...
09-18-2026, 11:29 PM in illegal immigration News Stories & Reports