Where are those contribution figures from? They aren't accurate for me. I've had my stuff mod editied too. It's probably nothing against the poster, just that these boards are harvested for material by enemies of ALIPAC.
Printable View
Where are those contribution figures from? They aren't accurate for me. I've had my stuff mod editied too. It's probably nothing against the poster, just that these boards are harvested for material by enemies of ALIPAC.
Not in this case Betsy, I read the post before it was edited, there was NOTHING wrong with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BetsyRoss
I don't remember all the rules and their application sometimes bewilders me. Long ago I had something edited because, I was told, I had posted a link to stormfront. I not only have no memory of doing that, I would never cite them for any reason except as something to gawk at.
Still, I wouldn't question a mod, I'd let it roll off my back and drive on. (and questioning a mod is a violation, btw)
Sorry, I left off the [sarc] [/sarc] bb codes.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
I put the "mod edit" phrases in my own post as a gentle poke at the moderators for doing their job. But I totally agree with mod edits when they remove incitements to violence, social security numbers, or pictures of dead bodies. I'm not sure it was justified in this case, but this is their board, and it was their decision to make, not mine.
BetsyRoss, I didn't see the dollar amount of your financial contribution; I only saw that you had made one. Thank you for your help in keeping us online.
My regret is that I have not been able to give much more than I have managed to squeeze out for Alipac. I live in an area full of illegals and understand the urgency of the ALIPAC mission.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD9787DCO0
Hey, I'll take it. She put the controversy out where people can hear about it and investigate it on their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Liz Sidoti for the AP (is anyone keeping a list of names?)
"There is no bad publicity." Even scorn and scoffing are better than a "cone of silence" or a media blackout.
Maybe the resigning CEO of General Motors should be among the first to do some research, eh?
http://www.reuters.com/article/bigMoney ... 9020090331
Interesting commentary by a reader after this published item:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... er-sa.html
And on the general topic of fired CEO's, the list grows as noted by this further astute reader/commenter:Quote:
Obama did Gettlefinger and the unions a favor by getting rid of their biggest opposition. If the government would have let them go bankrupt and restructure (settling the legacy costs like pension plans etc..)this would have been a lot more beneficial. There is no way GM or Chrysler can be profittable with all of the legacy costs associated with the UAW. I smell a rat. Anyone remember how much the UAW and their PAC contributed to the Obama campaign? Pay to play is alive and well in Washington and that is very disturbing. Forcing a man to resign (basically holding a gun to the BOD's heads if he doesn't resign) because he can't come up with a plan that Obama like is ridiculous. NOBODY will be able to come up with a plan to return GM to profittablity, Obama just blackmailed the BOD's to get rid of this guy to appease the UAW. We shouldn't have bailed them out to begin with but that's what everyone wanted. Congratulations. The government can never run anything efficiently and everyone knows it. Why not let the market run it's course? Toyota, Honda or one of the other foreign automakers would have eventually bought the facilities and employed American workers....it's not like the jobs wouldn't eventually return. Now American taxpayers are throwing money away to keep the UAW happy because the President is bought and paid for....calling it like I see it. You keep drinking from the everlasting fountain of HOPE and CHANGE. I HOPE our President & his administration CHANGEs some of their policies or we are all in big trouble!
Posted by: fred fulsom | Mar 31, 2009 9:46:37 AM
They'll probably all just accept the soft landings of their multi-million compensation packages, rather than question the fundamental legitimacy of the CEO of the United States (a/k/a POTUS) in taking the steps to nationalize a/k/a socialize their firms via taxpayer-financed acquisitions a/k/a bailouts. :roll: But, the point remains, every individual who encounters a unique "harm" through POTUS' executive action would likely have standing, particularly if the harm is economic.Quote:
He wasn't the First CEO to Lose his Job nor will it the Last CEO Fired for Poor Business Dealings.
Have any of you SEEN the Walk away Bonus Millions these CEO's get..Hmmm
He'll be Set For LIFE and you'll bemoan his Firing as if he's going to the Unemployment Line, or some Soup Kitchen, when he'll be going to a Gated Community and 20 Million Dollars or More, for Destroying the American Auto Industry..
Please, Spare me, your Sob Stories on this OUTGOING CEO or any other [[FIRED CEO]]
1. Merrill CEO John Thain (fired after bailout and troubles surfaced)
2. Citi CEO Chuck Prince (resigned after troubles surfaced)
3. AIG CEO Robert Willumstad (fired after bailout)
4. Wachovia CEO Ken Thompson (fired after takeover/bailout)
5. Washington Mutual CEOs Kerry Killinger & Alan Fishman (fired after bailout )
6. Bear Stearns CEO James Cayne (fired after implicit bailout engineered by Govt. and JP Morgan)
7. Freddie Mac CEO Richard Syron (fired after bailout )
8. Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld (resigned after trouble surfaced)
9. Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd (fired after bailout )
10. Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozillo (resigned after trouble surfaced)
Posted by: O. | Mar 31, 2009 4:15:09 AM
WND Exclusive - BORN IN THE USA?
Citizen grand jury indicts Obama
Groups in 20 more states reviewing eligibility claims
Posted: March 31, 2009
8:35 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
President Obama has been named in dozens of civil lawsuits alleging he is not eligible to be president, with one man even filing a criminal complaint alleging the commander-in-chief is a fraud, and now a citizen grand jury in Georgia has indicted the sitting president.
The indictment delivered to state and federal prosecutors yesterday is one of the developments in the dispute over Obama's eligibility to be president under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that presidents be "natural born" citizens.
Orly Taitz, a California attorney working on several of the civil actions, also announced she has filed another Quo Warranto case in the District of Columbia, where, she told WND, the statutes acknowledge that procedure.
The Quo Warranto claim essentially calls on Obama to explain by what authority he has assumed the power of the presidency.
Georgia resident Carl Swensson, whose work is detailed on his RiseUpForAmerica.org website, told WND he got tired of the issues over Obama's eligibility, as well as his performance in office.
"I took it upon myself to find as many patriots as I could across the state, for the purpose of seating 25 for a grand jury," he said.
Over the weekend the jurors took sworn testimony from several sources, including Taitz, and then generated an indictment that later was forwarded to the U.S. attorney, the state attorney general and others in law enforcement across the state.
Swensson cites on his website as authority for the grand jury the Magna Carta, the bill of rights that formed the foundation of British common law on which U.S. law is based.
He said the members were chosen, sworn in and observed all of the rules of procedure. Swensson declined to elaborate on the specific allegations about Obama, telling WND that remains confidential at this point because of the possibility of a prosecution.
However, the website explanation of the procedure includes some intimidating language.
"If the government does not amend the error within 40 days after being shown the error, then the four members shall refer the matter to the remainder of the grand jury," it says. "The grand jury may distrain and oppress the government in every way in their power, namely, by taking the homes, lands, possessions, and any way else they can until amends shall have been made according to the sole judgment of the grand jury."
Swensson said the indictments were delivered to the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, state officials and leaders of the Georgia Senate and House.
He told WND that since the action in Georgia, he's been contacted by groups in at least 20 other states who want to pursue a similar action.
Meanwhile, Taitz told WND she has forwarded to U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor in Washington, D.C., a request for the U.S. to relate Quo Warranto "on Barack Hussein Obama, II to test his title to president."
Named as plaintiffs in the action are nine military or legislative leaders, including Allen C. James, currently on active duty in the U.S. Army in Iraq. Others include several retired military leaders as well as elected state representatives.
"Relators request that as U.S. Attorney, you institute a Quo Warranto proceeding against Obama under DC Code § 16-3502, and demand that Obama show clear title, proving, with clear and convincing evidence, that he had qualified as president elect," Taitz told Taylor.
"By each relator's constitutional oath of office, and interest above other citizens and taxpayers, relators submit that they have standing," Taitz wrote.
"In arguendo of Respondent Obama's burden of proof, motions are submitted requesting mandamus on Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle for evidence, and on Sec. State Hillary Rodham Clinton for evidence and to request evidence from Britain and the Republics of Kenya, Indonesia and Pakistan," Taitz said.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 345,000 others and sign up now!
She told WND the case was filed in the District of Columbia because the district recognizes the procedure. Taitz, who is working on her cases through the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, cites a legal right established in British common law nearly 800 years ago and recognized by the U.S. Founding Fathers to demand documentation that may prove – or disprove – Obama's eligibility to be president.
She previously submitted a similar case to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.
The legal phrase essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."
John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, said the demand is a legitimate course
of action.
"She basically is asking, 'By what authority' is Obama president," he told WND. "In other words, 'I want you to tell me by what authority. I don't really think you should hold the office.'
"She probably has some very good arguments to make," Eidsmoe said.
Rest of the story here: http://tinyurl.com/c5kvja
As an aside, I have wrestled for a couple of days over my earlier posting being modified, and, as you will note, I have capitulated on my earlier decision to just leave Alipac. I'm back conditionally, and I'm testing the waters.
My nose is still bent out of shape because my innocent and lawful comments (IMHO) were misinterpreted and struck from my post without consideration or discussion with me. To me, this smacks of unbridled censorship, and I don't approve of censorship in forums of this nature.
I also don't like the hit and run tactics of the unidentified whiner who asked the mod to strike my comments. For all I know, it could have been another Obamabot who is chartered at keeping all truth and common sense discussions pointed away from his master.
Because the original complainant remains unidentified, and because the moderator will never identify him or her, you and I will never know who it was. Makes me wish this was open court where I could face my accuser.
So, after some thought, I believe there are two reasons why these postings might be censored: 1) because they offend poor defenseless Obama, and 2) because they may be used by law enforcement against Alipac. I won't address a possible third reason (retribution on Alipac by Chicago thugs).
I reject the first reason because Obama is quite knowledgeable in his actions, both good and bad (he is a lawyer and is clearly consciously competent) and he deserves to get the heat when he screws up. Obama is not some sort of protected species, any more than our previous legitimate President Bush was, and in our old country (and maybe what's left of it today), citizens had a right to complain about Jefe's actions, especially if they are viewed as being criminal in nature.
Regarding reason number two, the First and Second Amendments are there for a reason, and if any law enforcement personnel wants to arrest me for discussing my personal interest in going out to a s-h-o-o-t-i-n-g range, let him/her have a go at it. And, in fact, to make it easy for law enforcement, contact me by pm and I'll tell you exactly how to find me.
In case no one has noticed, there is a shortage of g-u-n-s and a-m-m-o in sporting goods stores these days because there are millions of people who are really concerned about our lawless government and the degrading economic conditions in America today, and of the clear and present possibilities of a-r-m-e-d c-o-n-f-l-i-c-t in America. OMG!
Again, and in my opinion, if American citizens aren't awake enough to see the very real problems going on around them, they do themselves and their families a huge disservice by not looking and by not being prepared. But, hey, I guess that's why Darwin is here - to sort out the survivors from the non-survivors.
I think a topic like First Amendment rights for conservatives might be a good topic for somebody like Glenn Beck to discuss in the open. All of this behind the scenes censorship crap is discouraging, especially while the libs are getting away with their verbal, written, and conspiratorial crapola (Latin for B.S.).
I'm still waiting for the signs that law enforcement is going after the lawless socialists and statists - the true enemies of our free country, who advertise openly they want certain specific conservatives killed or tried for war crimes (???).
Speaking of law enforcement, I consider all Americans to be in law enforcement - not just our neighbors who wear the badges. We citizens have slacked off for too long, and now it's up to us to do what we can and help support and enforce our own nation's laws. That's what Orly Taitz is doing. She's doing our job for us. Bless her Russian soul - she's got it - she understands. She's holding lawless people accountable for their actions. That’s more than Congress can boast these days.
So, the question of the day: Do we have a functioning First Amendment or do we not? If the answer is no, maybe I'll go publish my unedited comments in Pravda as Mark McGrew does. I'm wondering if Russia has a freer press these days than does America. Anybody know?
Can't have it both ways, folks. We are either a free people or we are slaves. What's it going to be?
Your call.
Juan
Veritas vos Liberabit!
THE OBAMA MACHINE AFFIRMS FEAR OF LOSING OFFICE
By Lynn Stuter
April 1, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
As of this writing, America is 70 days into the Also Known As (AKA) “Obamaâ€
Help STOP DREAM AMNESTY!!!
http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-875238.html#875238
I agree that this is not a forum to incite violence or to have a "call to arms" There is nothing beneficial in this type of speech on a site like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
However, tip toeing around the elephant in the room is unacceptable also. While I personally have no plans to purchase a weapon at this time, it is a fact that millions of others have and/or are planning on purchasing more. There is a waiting list at a number of gun shops for ammo. I know of a shooting range where one year ago you could walk in and pay for an hour of practice. Today you need to reserve your spot ahead of time. The next open "appointment" is over a month away. The FACT that Americans are arming themselves is in no way encouraging violence, many who are buying guns for the first time, and learning how to use them safely at the ranges, hope never to have to fire them off the range. Some are looking at a NEED to hunt meat as the falling dollar will make purchasing meat impossible, others are afraid of increase in crime because of the economy and looking to defend their family and property from criminals breaking in. Simply stating that you are going shooting is not encouraging violence IMHO, but making a statement that this person is preparing for the worst. We all hope it never gets so bad we need to hunt our own food or defend our homes, but the possibility exists.
BORN IN THE USA?
Citizen grand jury indicts Obama
Groups in 20 more states reviewing eligibility claims
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 31, 2009
8:35 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Orly Taitz
President Obama has been named in dozens of civil lawsuits alleging he is not eligible to be president, with one man even filing a criminal complaint alleging the commander-in-chief is a fraud, and now a citizen grand jury in Georgia has indicted the sitting president.
The indictment delivered to state and federal prosecutors yesterday is one of the developments in the dispute over Obama's eligibility to be president under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that presidents be "natural born" citizens.
Orly Taitz, a California attorney working on several of the civil actions, also announced she has filed another Quo Warranto case in the District of Columbia, where, she told WND, the statutes acknowledge that procedure.
The Quo Warranto claim essentially calls on Obama to explain by what authority he has assumed the power of the presidency.
Georgia resident Carl Swensson, whose work is detailed on his Rise up for America website, told WND he got tired of the issues over Obama's eligibility, as well as his performance in office.
"I took it upon myself to find as many patriots as I could across the state, for the purpose of seating 25 for a grand jury," he said.
Over the weekend the jurors took sworn testimony from several sources, including Taitz, and then generated an indictment that later was forwarded to the U.S. attorney, the state attorney general and others in law enforcement across the state.
Swensson cites on his website as authority for the grand jury the Magna Carta, the bill of rights that formed the foundation of British common law on which U.S. law is based.
He said the members were chosen, sworn in and observed all of the rules of procedure. Swensson declined to elaborate on the specific allegations about Obama, telling WND that remains confidential at this point because of the possibility of a prosecution.
However, the website explanation of the procedure includes some intimidating language.
"If the government does not amend the error within 40 days after being shown the error, then the four members shall refer the matter to the remainder of the grand jury," it says. "The grand jury may distrain and oppress the government in every way in their power, namely, by taking the homes, lands, possessions, and any way else they can until amends shall have been made according to the sole judgment of the grand jury."
Swensson said the indictments were delivered to the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, state officials and leaders of the Georgia Senate and House.
He told WND that since the action in Georgia, he's been contacted by groups in at least 20 other states who want to pursue a similar action.
Meanwhile, Taitz told WND she has forwarded to U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor in Washington, D.C., a request for the U.S. to relate Quo Warranto "on Barack Hussein Obama, II to test his title to president."
Named as plaintiffs in the action are nine military or legislative leaders, including Allen C. James, currently on active duty in the U.S. Army in Iraq. Others include several retired military leaders as well as elected state representatives.
"Relators request that as U.S. Attorney, you institute a Quo Warranto proceeding against Obama under DC Code § 16-3502, and demand that Obama show clear title, proving, with clear and convincing evidence, that he had qualified as president elect," Taitz told Taylor.
"By each relator's constitutional oath of office, and interest above other citizens and taxpayers, relators submit that they have standing," Taitz wrote.
"In arguendo of Respondent Obama's burden of proof, motions are submitted requesting mandamus on Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle for evidence, and on Sec. State Hillary Rodham Clinton for evidence and to request evidence from Britain and the Republics of Kenya, Indonesia and Pakistan," Taitz said.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 345,000 others and sign up now!
She told WND the case was filed in the District of Columbia because the district recognizes the procedure. Taitz, who is working on her cases through the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, cites a legal right established in British common law nearly 800 years ago and recognized by the U.S. Founding Fathers to demand documentation that may prove – or disprove – Obama's eligibility to be president.
She previously submitted a similar case to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.
The legal phrase essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."
John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, said the demand is a legitimate course of action.
"She basically is asking, 'By what authority' is Obama president," he told WND. "In other words, 'I want you to tell me by what authority. I don't really think you should hold the office.'
President Obama
"She probably has some very good arguments to make," Eidsmoe said.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Several of the civil cases already have involved emergency appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court in which justices have declined even to hear arguments.
Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents, "he does not want the public to know."
What else could be the reason for his hiring law firms across the nation to fight any request for information as basic as his Occidental College records from the early 1980s, he asked.
According to the online Constitution.org resource: "The common law writ of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."
According to author Chester Antieau in his "The Practice of Extraordinary Remedies," Quo Warranto is one of the oldest rights in common law.
"The earliest case on record appears in the 9th year of Richard I, 1198," he wrote. "The statute of 9 Anne c. 20 in 1710 authorized a proper officer of a court, with leave of the court, to exhibit an information in the nature of quo warranto, at the 'relation' of any person desiring to prosecute the same – to be called the relator. Early American statutes were modeled after the Statute of Anne and, indeed, the statute has often been ruled to be part of the common law we inherited from England."
Antieau noted the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled, "Quo warranto is addressed to preventing a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted, rather than to correct what has already been done. ..."
Its first recognized purpose, he said, is "to determine the title of persons claiming possession of public offices and to oust them if they are found to be usurpers."
Among those who are subject to its demands, under court precedent, are chief executives in other U.S. governmental positions, including governors and sheriffs.
As WND has reported on several occasions, none of the so-called "evidence" of Obama's constitutional eligibility produced thus far is beyond reasonable doubt nor as iron-clad as simply producing an authentic birth certificate, something Americans are required to do regularly but the president still refuses to do.
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.
As Jerome Corsi, WND senior staff writer, explained, "The main reason doubts persist regarding Obama's birth certificate is this question: If an original Hawaii-doctor-generated and Hawaii-hospital-released Obama birth certificate exists, why wouldn't the senator and his campaign simply order the document released and end the controversy?
"That Obama has not ordered Hawaii officials to release the document," Corsi writes, "leaves doubts as to whether an authentic Hawaii birth certificate exists for Obama."
Obama officials repeatedly have declined comment, relenting only one time to call such allegations "garbage."
WND also has reported that Taitz' appeals have been submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Justice Department, where officials confirmed they received the paperwork.
WND reported earlier on a proposal by U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., and the criticism he's taking for suggesting that the issue be avoided in the future by having presidential candidates supply their birth certificate.
Other members of Congress have been reading from what appears to be a prepared script in response to queries about Obama's eligibility:
Among the statements from members of Congress:
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.: "Thank you for your recent e-mail. Senator Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential office. Rumors pertaining to his citizenship status have been circulating on the Internet, and this information has been debunked by Snopes.com, which investigates the truth behind Internet rumors."
Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla.: "Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party's nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama's birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of president."
Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio: "President Obama has provided several news organizations with a copy of his birth certificate, showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Hawaii became a state in 1959, and all individuals born in Hawaii after its admission are considered natural-born United States citizens. In addition, the Hawaii State Health Department recently issued a public statement verifying the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate."
U.S. Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J.: "The claim that President Obama was born outside of the United States, thus rendering him ineligible for the presidency, is part of a larger number of pernicious and factually baseless claims that were circulated about then-Senator Obama during his presidential campaign. President Obama was born in Hawaii." The response provided no documentation.
Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:
New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
Chicago lawyer Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.
In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:
In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation also has confirmed to WND a civil case brought on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, a candidate for president on California's general election ballot last year, challenging Obama's eligibility will be appealed.
WND reported earlier on the case being filed and then again when a judge dismissed it after concluding anyone can run for president on the California ballot – whether or not they are eligible under the Constitution of the United States.
Judge Michael P. Kenny said the secretary of state, who is responsible for election laws in the state, has no "duty" to demand proof of eligibility from candidates.
"The judge's ruling in the case that only Congress and only on Jan. 6 of each year following a presidential election can object as to whether the nominee is eligible to serve as president of the United States is, in our opinion, completely wrong and eviscerates the [Constitutional] requirements for serving as president in the United States Constitution," Kreep said.
"If Mr. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve as president of the United States, then no act that he takes is, arguably, valid, the laws that he signs would not be valid, the protective orders that he signs would be null and void, and every act that he takes would be subject to legal challenge, both in courts of the United States of America, and in international courts, and that, therefore, it is important for the voters to know whether he, or any candidate for president in the future, is eligible to serve in that office," the case explained.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=93481
Gun ownership by individuals is formally acknowledged to be LEGAL, and protected by the Constitution's Second Amendment, although the narrow vote of SCOTUS in District of Columbia v. Heller
http://www.guncite.com/Heller.pdf
now comes with the additional caveats that:
a) We have an Attorney General who briefed an Amicus Curie to SCOTUS arguing in favor of the opposite position from that which the Court took;
b) We have a putative President (pending proofs of eligibility as "natural born citizen" ) who supported gun control legislation while he was a state elected official, and now, having assumed the office of POTUS, is setting about undoing that which SCOTUS tried to do -- protect individual rights to ownership of weapons.
http://www.morebans.org/
And where did he start? Well, he's starting with the pilots of aircraft who might be interested in protecting not only their lives and aircraft but your lives, too, when you are passengers on a commercial craft.
http://www.morebans.org/obamadisarmspilots.html
Obama and those who are like-minded have a plan for everyone. And it is a plan to render the law-abiding citizen into the defenseless citizen, piece by piece, law by law. Many who are of this view might hold it with the "best of intentions" in the belief that banning guns will eliminate crimes. Why, then, did England's progressively greater restrictions and bans on gun ownership end up with an increase in violent crimes involving use of guns, owned illegally by criminals?
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
A counting of all the states with shooting ranges listed on this website turns up all 50 plus some U.S. territories.
http://www.wheretoshoot.org/
Most people have probably seen this testimony from the woman doctor whose parents were killed by a lunatic gunman in broad daylight at a restaurant, as she expressed regret that her personal concern about the quiltwork of local Texas laws had prompted her to stop carrying a gun in her purse.
http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=9jqtl25z2y
Her closing words bear repeating, and viewing again. She mocked a room full of Senators who appeared to believe that only hunting is a legitimate use of a weapon. She pointed out that the 2nd Amendment was not directed at hunting at all. Then, waving her arm at the Senators at an elevation above her own (symbolic of their "power" from on high, perhaps?) she noted that the Amendment really intended to protect Americans' rights and liberties against assault by the powerful and therefore, to protect average Americans "against all of you."
I'm not a hunter although my dad was and some of my siblings still are. But we all learned how to use a gun. Along with my spouse and kids, I visit a gun range at least once a year. It's a life skill to know how to safely handle and fire a weapon, one that we got from parents and passed along to our children. My own preference would be to never need to shoot at anything other than clay pigeons or a row of cans perched on a fence, and to never find the "stakes" any higher than a friendly family wager for who has to pay for lunch at Smokey Mountain Pizza.
Someone who says they go to a shooting range is someone who, it seems to me, is acknowledging their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and someone who probably would like to keep their use of weaponry limited to the sphere of practice only.
Meanwhile, from Democratic Underground ... where the topic was "fascist" Bush and the 2nd Amendment
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... _id=738842
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... _id=739052
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... _id=739288
Right to speech about perceived abuse of powerQuote:
Soap Box, Ballot Box, Jury Box, Ammo Box-- to be used in that order....as another DUer is fond of saying.
Right to vote out of office those who abuse of power
Right to fair trial of abusers of power or those prosecuted by such abusers
Right to self-defense against armed abuse of power
FreedomFirst, thanks for the Second Amendment support. Good material.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomFirst
Juan
According to some people, acknowledging this constitutional right is interpreted as inciting violence.Quote:
Someone who says they go to a shooting range is someone who, it seems to me, is acknowledging their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and someone who probably would like to keep their use of weaponry limited to the sphere of practice only.
Is anyone maintaining outside contacts with key players fighting this take-over power play?
PM for a list of email addresses of attorneys, journalists, bloggers, and other key persons involved with the Obama ineligibility cause.
I don't know how widespread this knowledge is, but it is worth noting and fighting.
ALERT! The DREAM Act amnesty is re-introduced in the House and Senate!
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Congressman Howard Berman (D-CA) have introduced their latest version of the DREAM Act (S 729 and HR 1751). In spite of the lofty rhetoric, the legislation is really a sweeping amnesty for a broad range of illegal aliens who meet certain minimal educational requirements.
In fact, the amnesty is even more expansive than last session's DREAM Act. The legalization would cover "children" up to the age of 35, a five-year bump above the previous version. Adult amnesty recipients, or minors when they turn 21, could then petition to bring in other relatives.
When 12 million American citizens are unemployed, and middle-class families are unable to seek the higher education of their choice because they lack sufficient funds, we do not want a new amnesty that increases the competition for these scarce resources.
The misconceptions about "natural born" continue ...
http://media.www.themhnews.com/media/st ... 5443.shtml
Basking in the Obama glow
By: Larisa Sunderland
Issue date: 4/2/09 Section: Entertainment
While I was home for spring break, my Brazilian grandmother was also paying a visit to my parents. Looking for something truly refreshing to do with her free time, she did what I did not: she picked up a book.
The book she chose was Barack Obama's autobiography, Dreams from My Father. She was excited to read the book for a couple of reasons. Like Obama, my grandmother was raised without her father (in Brazil) because he was from, and lived in, another country (France). Like Obama, her heritage is disparate and her family, half of whom she does not know, is foreign and far-flung. She feels connected to Obama because of her perception of their shared experiences as exterior to the dominant culture of the United States. But there are, of course, many differences between my grandmother and our president.
For one thing, my grandmother is not black. When she first came here in the 1940s, this made it difficult for people to believe that she is also Brazilian. She is, actually, Brazilian, and herein lays another difference between my grandmother and President Obama. Unlike Obama, she could never be the president; she's not a natural-born United States citizen.
She was thrilled when Obama was elected, so I was a little surprised when I hobbled out of bed one morning to find a very distraught 88-year-old lady thrusting Dreams from My Father at me. "The glow," she pronounced, slamming her book shut, "is gone. I respect Obama, I am very glad that he is our president, but the glow is gone."
My first thought was, I can't deal with her pontification (she's got a real knack for it) at 11 a.m. on a vacation morning. My second thought was, so what juicy stuff did you write to make that "glow be gone," Mr. President?
In Dreams from My Father, Obama writes about his experience of going to see a showing of Black Orpheus, the first foreign film his mother had ever seen, with his mother in 1983. Black Orpheus, a 1959 Brazilian film made by French director Marcel Camus, is a modern adaption of the Greek myth set in a black community in Rio during Carnival. Obama's mother loved Black Orpheus. My grandmother loves Black Orpheus. Our President did not love Black Orpheus-in fact, he walked out on it.
Obama writes of watching his mother's reaction to the film, "I felt as if I were being given a window into…the unreflective heart of her youth. I suddenly realized that the depiction of childlike blacks I was now seeing on the screen…was what my mother had carried with her to Hawaii all those years before." Obama accurately observes that white depiction of black culture (as "childlike" or otherwise) is inherently racist. And I believe there is a further case to be made for the implicit racism in adapting a Greek myth to black Brazilian culture. For Obama, these observations are chillingly personal. The implications of Black Orpheus being what his mother "carried with her to Hawaii," the place of his conception, are as haunting as they are complex.
For Obama, Black Orpheus represents the "exoticism" of blacks in American culture; what his mother desired to use to escape her own culture; the racist roots of his own birth; a chilling reminder that blacks were, and are, sometimes perceived as "foreigners" in America. What he forgets is that he was watching a foreign film, and so, to his American sensibility, it's logical that the portrayals appeared exotic.
My grandmother did not care to hear about any of this. She was too busy being furious that Obama had just dismissed the first Brazilian film that was popular in America; the reason, really, that Antonio Carlos Jobim and Bossa Nova became internationally admired; the movie that allowed her American friends to hear her language and to see her country; the movie that caused Americans to become, for a moment, interested in Brazil. For my grandmother, Black Orpheus was, and is, a symbol of her third world country breaking into a first world international conscience. In 1959, Black Orpheus was undoubtedly ground-breaking for these reasons.
Obama in 1983, she said, didn't understand the movie. I don't think she's entirely wrong, either. What he interpreted as a "childlike depiction of blacks" probably has more to do with the relaxed spontaneity that characterizes Brazilian culture (you can hear this in the music, too). He's critical of the white director's depiction of-and willingness to use-black culture. My grandmother's critical of Obama's American depiction of-and willingness to use-Brazilian culture.
I think that in this particular instance, both critics fail to see beyond their lenses (race, ethnicity, time-period) and rob themselves and their understanding in the process. But perhaps I only say this because it's something I can afford to do. After all, I'm a white natural-born citizen. I look and speak like the dominant culture here, and so, I don't always have to be on the defense. Consequently, it takes a lot to make me slam a book shut or walk out on a movie-and that, regrettably, sure does feel like a privilege.
Interesting article, FreedomFirst,
Brazil, unlike much of Latin America, was colonized by the Portuguese, not the Spanish. When the period of 'abandonment' by the Europeans occurred in the 1820s, the Spanish and the Portuguese both took all semblance of government with them when they picked up their marbles and returned to Europe.
In Brazil, there was remaining a large percentage of black slaves from Africa, Indians from Brazil, and some Caucasians. Portugal left all the residents free, and the result is they have guiltlessly intermarried and produced the large mulatto culture we see there today. It does seem like a very relaxed culture.
So, it seems the blacks in Brazil have a totally different view of life than the blacks in America because of the evolution from having a government to having none; from being slaves to being free and accepted. Inasmuch as the Portuguese probably didn't intend to do so, it looks like they did the black citizens of Brazil a great favor in their method of departure from the country.
That's all an interesting aside, and our American history is obviously quite different.
What I really want to say is that, inasmuch as I am not a psychologist or a psychiatrist, it would seem that Obama may have some anger issues with his parents he has never worked through and resolved.
Some issues may be connected specifically with his vacuous relationship with his absentee black father and his always trying to fill or satisfy some perceived void with his dad.
Maybe this is what keeps him from being a kind and loving guy, and what creates the angst and the anger he shows us by his actions.
I'd be interested in knowing what a real analyst would suggest as a result of observing Obama in action for the last thirty or forty years.
Obama has now been in office 73 days. Many lawsuits against Obama during the last year indicate the plaintiffs in these cases have no standing and have thus been summarily dismissed by the courts. Conventional wisdom suggests that anyone negatively affected by any of Obama's actions while being the usurper POTUS will have standing in the courts.
Obama has now violated so many of the Constitution's sections I have lost count. His rapid blitzkrieg style of ignoring and/or simply breaking the law and implementing as many socialist or fascist changes as he can, has by now created millions of citizens (IMHO) who have been injured by his actions and who must have standing in the courts. Certainly anyone who has had a tax increase imposed on them, or who have been fired by Obama, has a cause of action.
Having said all of that, at least one attorney (Leo Donofrio) does not think the current approach and the standing issue is germane, and that the legal answer to the usurper lies in quo warranto (QW) actions. He may be right.
===========
In California (which used to be the world's fifth largest economy), the subject of quo warranto is addressed as follows (see http://www.ag.ca.gov/opinions/quo_warranto.php):
"A quo warranto action is filed typically to remove a person from public office. The Attorney General must approve all quo warranto actions filed by private individuals. This protects public officers from frivolous lawsuits. (Nature of Remedy found here: http://www.ag.ca.gov/opinions/nature_of_remedy.php)
A quo warranto action may be brought against any person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises any public office or franchise.
A quo warranto action may also be brought against any corporation, either de jure or de facto, which usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises any franchise within California.
The (AG’s) Opinion Unit reviews the written pleadings filed by the parties and issues an opinion either granting or denying the application to sue. If approval is given, the lawsuit is maintained under the direction of the Attorney General."
Note: The referenced Remedy section also includes the comments:
"Although the Attorney General occasionally brings a quo warranto action on the initiative of that office, or at the direction of the Governor, usually the action is filed and prosecuted by a private party who has obtained the consent of the Attorney General, for "leave to sue in quo warranto." The private party who obtains leave to sue is termed the "relator." The action is brought in the name of the People of the State of California "on the relation of" the private party who has been granted permission to bring the action. The addition of a relator does not convert a quo warranto into a private action. The matter is always brought and prosecuted on behalf of the public. (People v. City of Huntington Beach (1954) 128 Cal.App.2d 452, 455.)
Even though permission has been granted to a private party to sue, the action does not lose its public character. The Attorney General remains in control of the action and may, for instance, dismiss it over the objection of the private party bringing it or refuse to permit appeal of an adverse ruling. (People v. Petroleum Rectifying Co. (1937) 21 Cal.App.2d 289, 291-292.)
Quo warranto is intended to prevent a continuing exercise of an authority unlawfully asserted, and is not appropriate for moot or abstract questions. Where the alleged usurpation has terminated, quo warranto will be denied. (People v. City of Whittier (1933) 133 Cal.App. 316, 324; 25 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 223 (1955).) By the same token, because quo warranto serves to end a continuous usurpation, no statute of limitations applies to the action. (People v. Bailey (1916) 30 Cal.App. 581, 584-585.)"
The sole exception to the Attorney General's exclusive control of quo warranto actions is found in section 811 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The section authorizes the legislative bodies of local governmental entities to maintain an action against those holding franchises within their jurisdiction, and Attorney General consent is not required. The section requires that the franchise be of a type authorized by the local jurisdiction. (San Ysidro Irrigation District v. Superior Court (San Diego) (1961) 56 Cal.2d 708, 716.) This section was added by the Legislature in 1937 because local government was viewed as able to respond more effectively to this type of local problem. (See Note, (1963) 15 Hastings L.J. 199, 224; (1937) 11 So.Cal.L.R. 1, 50-51.)
OK, so here we have a state whose quo warranto guidelines tell us:
1. QW litigants must seek the AG’s approval before any QW action can occur.
2. Actions against both persons and corporations is possible.
3. The AG can initiate his own QW actions or be directed to do so by the Governor.
4. No statute of limitations on QW actions exist, although the usurper must still be usurping.
5. Quo warranto actions are public actions – not private or relator actions.
6. If found guilty of usurping, the usurper is excluded from office and has to pay the legal fees associated with his QW action. Additional fines may be imposed.
Further California specific rules (CCP Sections 803-811) are found here: http://www.ag.ca.gov/opinions/section_803.php
As the chief law officer of the state, the California Attorney General provides legal opinions upon request to designated state and local public officials and government agencies on issues arising in the course of their duties. The formal legal opinions of the Attorney General have been accorded "great respect" and "great weight" by the courts. See: http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/faqs.php
===========
The California law leads me to believe that every state has similar quo warranto guidelines, and that every state can file its own quo warranto actions. That’s a good thing.
So, for example, if a voter in a state believed that an elected official got into his position illegally (I am thinking of a certain senatorial contest in Minnesota), he can file a QW application with his state’s AG to remove the offending official.
Or, perhaps, if a corporation (maybe an entity like ACORN) received a special project, or contract, or funding in a particular state, and in violation of some state requirements (e.g. an open and public bidding requirement) a private individual may apply for QW action against the offending corporation.
What I am not certain about, and this may have to do with a state’s sovereignty rights, is whether of not a federal mandate by the Secretary of the Treasury, in violation of certain state laws, can lead to a QW action against the offending Secretary of the Treasury, appointed by a usurper POTUS.
Does the federal offense against the states allow for the states to initiate QW actions against the offending federal officials if the states believe the federal officials and/or their superiors are usurpers?
Is there a chain of law that links all of the usurper’s actions together?
I think yes, but I’m not an attorney, and so this is merely my personal opinion. And I admit to being a conspiracy theorist.
On a personal note, I would like to think that our country is still based on the adherence to our laws, but I see blatant violations of our laws every day by the current administration. The states and the public are either asleep or the just don’t care anymore, and so no one raises their hand and demands an answer in the courts.
I’m not certain the Attorneys General in the various states will support voter requests for actions. I would like to think the AGs will do the right thing, but experience leads me to believe they will do the politically expedient thing instead the lawful thing.
And I’m not too sure about the courts anymore either. Lately, none of the courts have gone out of their way to demonstrate their conformance to our constitutions and our laws in matters that touch politics. What the hell is that all about?
And of course, we probably all believe the legislative branch is lawless as hell, and not representative of the people anymore.
What do we do when the roots of our culture and of our nation break down and only the informed part of the public sees the problem, and our elected officials continue to ignore the informed citizens demands for justice and lawful government?
How do we get our voices heard by a government that simply chooses not to listen to us?
I know what happened 224 years ago. And the reasons for the 'happening' were exactly the same. Is this some kind of human joke being played on us?
Juan, I think this is a needed wake up call. I think that since WWII very few have actually had to sacrifice for freedom, therefore they do not understand how easily it can be taken from us. I firmly believe as the people of our nation wake one by one, we will have a struggle that will affect two generations. Until/unless that happens, we will be lost.
Interesting comments. One of the popular shows on TV today is a series called 'Lost.' 'Lost' is the most confusing show I have ever watched ('Heroes' runs a close second) and I keep asking my kids which channel the show 'Found' is on because I'd rather watch 'Found' than 'Lost.'Quote:
Originally Posted by cayla99
Maybe being confused and lost is being bred into us by our government so that they can control us easier.
Ooops. There goes my conspiracy theory mentality kicking into my frontal lobes again.
Nuts!
The following is tied into an offer to sell their magazine, but contents of this issue may be interesting reading.
Whistleblower Magazine
April 2009 – YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE? Why dozens of lawsuits and millions of Americans want Barack Obama to prove he's constitutionally qualified to be president.
With Barack Obama in the White House, millions of Americans are watching the news night after night in sheer shock, wondering out loud what the next unprecedented expansion of government power will be. Nationalizing entire industries with gigantic taxpayer bailouts; forcing taxpayers to fund abortion; releasing Gitmo prisoners onto U.S. streets; rapidly converting free-market, capitalist America into a government-run socialist state – every day seems to bring a new unconstitutional power-grab, critics say.
But arguably Obama’s most egregious, unconstitutional “power-grabâ€
[quote="HighlanderJuan"]The following is tied into an offer to sell their magazine, but contents of this issue may be interesting reading.
Whistleblower Magazine
April 2009 – YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE? Why dozens of lawsuits and millions of Americans want Barack Obama to prove he's constitutionally qualified to be president.
With Barack Obama in the White House, millions of Americans are watching the news night after night in sheer shock, wondering out loud what the next unprecedented expansion of government power will be. Nationalizing entire industries with gigantic taxpayer bailouts; forcing taxpayers to fund abortion; releasing Gitmo prisoners onto U.S. streets; rapidly converting free-market, capitalist America into a government-run socialist state – every day seems to bring a new unconstitutional power-grab, critics say.
But arguably Obama’s most egregious, unconstitutional “power-grabâ€
World population exploding toward its maximum limit. Usurper president destroying the United States. Courts granting haywire decisions. Congress out of control. Vampires in the streets (disguised as dems).
You know, all of this political and historically significant stuff can become heavy on one's shoulders and on one's mind. One might even suggest depressing.
Whewww! Ouch!
Watch this and become happy again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8ZuKF3dxCY
A message from Bob Bray - OK State Director to all members of Oklahoma Resistance on The Patriotic Resistance!
Thanks Debi Bohannan for this ... bob
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the Presidential election:
Number of States won by:
Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by:
Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler 's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.
Supremes asked to cooperate with FBI
Attorney investigating Obama's eligibility reports cyber attacks
Posted: April 04, 2009
12:10 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Orly Taitz
Orly Taitz
A lawyer investigating the eligibility of Barack Obama to be president under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that the office be occupied only by a "natural born" citizen is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to cooperate with an FBI investigation into alleged cyber crimes connected to her work.
In a letter addressed yesterday to Chief Justice John Roberts, the associate justices, the Secret Service and others, California lawyer Orly Taitz, who is working on a number of eligibility cases through the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, wrote, "I hope that the Supreme Court will show proper cooperation in investigation of such crimes by the FBI and other agencies and I request a letter of cooperation to that extent."
Taitz is just one of many attorneys across the country whose clients are raising questions about Obama's eligibility.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
President Obama
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 345,000 others and sign up now!
Taitz is one of several lawyers who have brought emergency motions to the U.S. Supreme Court over the cases, only to have them dropped without a hearing.
While her effort was pending at the court, its references suddenly were scrubbed from the public website just two days before a conference among justices on the case was to be heard.
She filed a complaint with the FBI, which promised a review, but the investigative agency noted that in that situation, technically the Supreme Court was the "victim" of having its website hacked, and officials there would need to cooperate for the effort to move forward.
(Story continues below)
That circumstance generated Taitz' letter requesting cooperation.
"This is particularly important in light of the fact that there is a common denominator in a number of cyber crimes committed," Taitz wrote. She cited a hacking into her PayPal account where donations to her foundation allegedly could have been diverted, sabotage on her website and the creation of an "imposter site" for one of the plaintiffs in one of her cases.
"All of these cyber crimes, together with all the other crimes that are handled separately, have one common denominator – a concerted effort to put Obama in the White House and keep him there by virtue of fraud and concealment of all of his records," she wrote.
The president also has been named in an indictment turned in by a peoples' grand jury in Georgia, and one other man has sought a criminal complaint against the president.
Taitz also told WND she has forwarded to U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor in Washington, D.C., a request for the U.S. to relate Quo Warranto "on Barack Hussein Obama, II to test his title to president."
Named as plaintiffs in the action are nine military or legislative leaders, including Allen C. James, currently on active duty in the U.S. Army in Iraq. Others include several retired military leaders as well as elected state representatives.
"Relators request that as U.S. Attorney, you institute a Quo Warranto proceeding against Obama under DC Code § 16-3502, and demand that Obama show clear title, proving, with clear and convincing evidence, that he had qualified as president elect," Taitz told Taylor.
"By each relator's constitutional oath of office, and interest above other citizens and taxpayers, relators submit that they have standing," Taitz wrote.
"In arguendo of Respondent Obama's burden of proof, motions are submitted requesting mandamus on Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle for evidence, and on Sec. State Hillary Rodham Clinton for evidence and to request evidence from Britain and the Republics of Kenya, Indonesia and Pakistan," Taitz said.
"Quo Warranto" essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."
John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, said the demand is a legitimate course of action.
"She basically is asking, 'By what authority' is Obama president," he told WND. "In other words, 'I want you to tell me by what authority. I don't really think you should hold the office.'
Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents, "he does not want the public to know."
What else could be the reason for his hiring law firms across the nation to fight any request for information as basic as his Occidental College records from the early 1980s, he asked.
As Jerome Corsi, WND senior staff writer, explained, "The main reason doubts persist regarding Obama's birth certificate is this question: If an original Hawaii-doctor-generated and Hawaii-hospital-released Obama birth certificate exists, why wouldn't the senator and his campaign simply order the document released and end the controversy?
"That Obama has not ordered Hawaii officials to release the document," Corsi writes, "leaves doubts as to whether an authentic Hawaii birth certificate exists for Obama."
Obama officials repeatedly have declined comment, relenting only one time to call such allegations "garbage."
WND reported earlier on a proposal by U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., and the criticism he's taking for suggesting that the issue be avoided in the future by having presidential candidates supply their birth certificate.
Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:
* New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
* Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
* Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
* Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
* Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
* Chicago lawyer Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
* Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
* In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
* Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
* In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
* In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
* California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.
In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:
* In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
* In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
* In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
* In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
* In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93832
Canada Free Press
By JB Williams Tuesday, March 24, 2009
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9607
They watch Obamanation grow in unbridled power
Americans Largely Silent as Their Nation is Systematically Destroyed
After trillions in taxpayer debt has been foolishly poured into the bottomless black hole of leftist wealth redistribution programs, under the guise of economic “stimulusâ€
Anyone who might be in communication with her (which I am not) should alert Orly Taitz that she was "pranked" with a faked Press Release. I've never heard of this outfit called PR-USA, so I don't know if it's a legitimate point of distribution for "real" press releases put on wire services. The other headlines on it appear legitimate.
http://pr-usa.net/index.php?option=com_ ... &Itemid=96
A Google-News search for Taitz, seeking to find out what new developments there are in the 'nbc' area, caused that one to pop up first, and what does it say?
Quote:
Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq. to Brief Members of G-20 - CODE ORLY
Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq., has announced her intention to pursue President Barack Obama during his first official overseas trip.
After her phenomenal success in meetings with Justice Antonin Scalia, where he personally autographed a copy of his new book for her, and Chief Justice John Roberts, who offered her a Secret Service security escort to assist her with her suitcases filled with petitions, research and legal briefs, Dr. Taitz is now looking to argue her case, in person, before each of the members of the G-20.
Dr. Taitz, affectionately nicknamed OuR lady LibertY for her unflagging committment in pursuing the case against Barack Obama, has reached out to her network of loyal fellow bloggers, followers and friends, and used the unprecedented power of the Internet to develop her latest strategy, now revealed as CODE ORLY.
CODE ORLY members have been fully briefed on the several cases working their way through the American justice system, and are fluent in each of the native languages spoken by each of the members of the G-20. Standing in for Dr. Taitz, these members of CODE ORLY will be able to explain to their designated 'targets' exactly how they should demand proof from the man in their midst as to his eligibility to hold office.
In order to facilitate anticipated future meetings to further bolster the case, CODE ORLY volunteers will adopt OuR lady LibertY's distinct style: platinum coif, kohl-rimmed eyes, pearlescent veneers and a smart business suit.
All members of the G-20 and their associates will be given full dossiers of the cases currently being argued, including the names of the many, many people who have signed the petitions calling for the release of all irrevelant documentation.
Please direct all inquiries concerning CODE ORLY to communications liaison April Maloof in the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation at +1 949-586-8110
About the G-20 Membership
The G-20 is made up of the finance ministers and central bank governors of 19 countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and also the European Union who is represented by the rotating Council presidency and the European Central Bank. To ensure global economic fora and institutions work together, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the President of the World Bank, plus the chairs of the International Monetary and Financial Committee and Development Committee of the IMF and World Bank, also participate in G-20 meetings on an ex-officio basis. The G-20 thus brings together important industrial and emerging-market countries from all regions of the world. Together, member countries represent around 90 per cent of global gross national product, 80 per cent of world trade (including EU intra-trade) as well as two-thirds of the world's population. The G-20's economic weight and broad membership gives it a high degree of legitimacy and influence over the management of the global economy and financial system.
About the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
We are an organization of volunteers that are working to preserve our unalienable rights and our freedom guaranteed to us in our constitution.
"Every major political movement starts not in Washington but it starts with the grassroots." Duncan Lee Hunter, 2007
We are currently developing a network of leaders that would organize personal meetings of groups of citizens with governmental officials. We realized that numerous letters written by volunteers didn't reach those officials, but probably were tossed by low level employees. It is urgent for groups to form in every state and visit the US Attorney's office as well as the FBI. Coordinators have been assigned to assist in organizing these efforts. Contact US Attorney Coordinator. Please put US Attorney in the email subject line. Contact FBI Coordinator. Please put FBI in the email subject line.
Materials and Documtation Can be Downloaded here. to assist with your efforts.
Any letters from Congressmen, Senators, electors, etc. received during letter writing campaigns should be copied to our coordinator. These letters need to be on letter head. We will accept emails also as long as they have the address of where they came from. Please black out your own personal information. These letters will be submitted to SCOTUS.
Stay plugged in by visiting their blog and signing up for their mailing list.
Since April Fool's Day was this week, it's probably somebody's idea of a clever prank. :roll:
www.WND.com has some more links..!! :wink:
..can someone throw together a list of prominent links on this crisis..?!
:!: :idea:
What crises (of the many we have right now) are you thinking of?Quote:
Originally Posted by iQuestionEverything
FBI InfraGard warns of a crescendo of public concern about Obama's eligibility
by DefendUSx April 05, 2009 11:14
http://216.221.102.26/blogger/author/defendusx.aspx
Tasked by the FBI to provide "informational analysis" on conditions which could be construed as potentially harmful to civil order and national security, InfraGard, of the FBI's National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC), issued an unclassified Protective Intelligence Communication report in March 2009 regarding the "crescendo" of public concern about Obama's presidential eligibility.
Authored by Dr. Lyle J. Rapacki, Protective Intelligence Specialist and Agent, the report summarizes the substance of legal challenges to Obama on the question of his constitutional eligibility and concludes that if it "should be discovered Mr. Obama is ineligible, a constitutional crisis would ensue attempting to determine which of his executive branch orders should be valid." It goes on to warn that "if...Mr. Obama fights revealing his documentation, there is growing concern of civil unrest, or worse, being unleashed in the streets of our nation. The economic crisis coupled with this type of a constitutional crisis could prove to be a flashpoint that would test conventional law enforcement and elements of homeland security."
The stream of law suits, the most recent of which have been tendered by high ranking military officers and state legislators, to compel Obama to prove his eligibility have been unremitting and increasingly vocal. A request for "quo warranto" action, an apparent last-ditch legal remedy, was recently delivered to both the US Attorney for the District of Columbia and to the Attorney General.
Dovetailing with this unsettling assessment, and pretty much out of public view, are the following national security developments which, in their totality, could well signal acute domestic instability in the period ahead.
Upon the recommendation of the Army's Strategic Studies Institute, The Army Times reported that a somewhat euphemistically dubbed "Consequence Management Response Force (CCMRF)," currently the role of the 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team, but which, reportedly, might eventually comprise upwards of 80,000 troops, is being trained and readied to deal with what could be widespread civil disorder resulting from an "unforeseen economic collapse" or "loss of a functional political and legal order."
Symptomatic of festering civil unrest are the many "tea parties" springing up around the country, growing fears of economic disintegration and of both crippling terrorist attacks and even of perceived federal overreaching. Add to this the very real threat of a rogue nuclear EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) attack on the homeland which could instantaneously reduce the country to a paralytic pre-industrial condition, plus the unrest on our southern border, and there appears to be ample and justifiable cause for concern and appropriate contingency planning at every level of government.
From Kentucky
by DefendUSx April 05, 2009 09:51
I am addressing guests and visitors at Westpoint Kentucky machine gun show.
On Friday I spent several hours at local FBI. We visited the FBI with one of my plaintiffs Navy Commander Al Rowley and TV Host/producer Mr. William Wagener. I wanted to make sure that aside from the cyber crimes division, white color crimes, public corruption division works on the case.
Wr. Wagener has also recorded material for future shows, a documentary and tv programs that will be seen by 9 million people in Europe.
At 12 at night I flew to Chicago, at 6 am ET/ 3 am Pacific I met with a group of patriots from Chicago and at 8 am was on the next flight from Chicago to Cincinnati Ohio. (thank you Carolyn, Maryanne, Fred and Tanya).
From there volunteer Mrs Theresa Padgett drove me to the Knob Creek automatic gun show. (thank you Theresa and David Padgett).
At the show we got a booth and together with the first Citizens Grand Jury Foreman, Mr. Carl Swensson, we presented a case for fraud perpetrated by Obama upon American Citizens. Within a few hours 20 new military plaintiffs signed up for my legal actions. Over 300 have signed indictments. We currently have 25 grand Jurors indictments from KY, OH, TN, GA . We should have a number of other states soon. I have given lengthy interviews to Mr. John Richardson, reporter from Esquire magazine and Mr. David Weigel, reporter from Washington Independant Magazine.
A large number of guests of this show expressed their desire to participate in a march on Washington on 4th of July, to tell the government: we are fed up with your thievery, with this heist of trillions of dollars, with foreign national Citizen of Indonesia Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Obama usurping our White House by virtue of fraud and forgery, with corrupt sold out congressmen and senators and judges, with rigged elections, with the voting machines with Sequoia software owned by Communist Dictator from Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, with massive fraud by Acorn, with dead people voting on our voter rolls, with trampling on our liberty, on our Constitution. Many were repeating the words of Patrick Henry: "Give me liberty or give me death".
"Net Neutrality" - Government Promises to Control the Internet
by DefendUSx April 04, 2009 11:27
* Comment: I wrote a whole article how Obama and Google planned to do just this months ago - August of last year. A lot of people didn't believe me at the time.
By way of “Net Neutrality,â€
To All Committees of Safety Volunteers and Volunteer Organizers, there is a new and highly important event posted on the home page at www.CommitteesofSafety.org
On Sunday April 19, 2009, from noon until 3 PM, the Committees of Safety will be sponsoring an important event to commemorate the "Shot Heard Around the World" that took place on the Green at Lexington Massachusetts on April 19, 1775. This will be a rain or shine event.
Expected speakers include Walter Reddy, Founder of the Committees of Safety, Stewart Rhodes, Founder of Oath-Keepers, Dr. Edwin Vieira, Constitutional and Colonial Scholar and Garrett Lear, the "Patriot Pastor."
"the malice of the wicked was reinforced by the weakness of the virtuous...
the counsels of prudence and self restraint became the prime agents of mortal danger...
the middle course adopted from desires for safety and a quiet life led direct to the bulls-eye of disaster."
- Sir Winston Churchill
Don't bother searching for "Obama eligibility" with Google;Quote:
Originally Posted by iQuestionEverything
it has been cauterized, sanitized, and scrubbed, as has Wikipedia.
www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93832
WorldNetDaily attaches a list of links to the end of each eligibility article.
For those who want more detail, here is an expanded list.
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." - U.S. Constitution, Art. II, § 1
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."
The Law of Nations by Emmerich de Vattel, 1758, Book I, Chap. XIX, § 212. Citizens and natives.
attorney Dr. Orly Taitz
defendourfreedoms.us/
attorney Leo C. Donofrio (inactive at this time)
naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ and
devvy.net/pdf/mar09/leo_all_parts.html
Mama Sarah Obama saying, "Barack native of village."
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4FqVRWgrNw
blog.barofintegrity.us/2008/11/01/barack-nate-dhalani.aspx?ref=rss
We the People Foundation: full page letter in the Chicago Tribune
www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/ChicagoTribune-ObamaLtr-Nov-2008.pdf
On June 12, 2008, FighttheSmears.com first posted the Obama Certification of Live Birth. The high resolution enabled viewers to see that at least one, if not both, horizontal folds were missing, and that there was no embossed stamp of the State of Hawaii Dept. of Health. As the irregularities were pointed out to the public, the Obama Campaign corrected the errors. Subsequent Certification of Live Birth images were posted in much lower resolution, which made pointing out errors more difficult.
web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12932.htm
web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm
"Dr. Ron Polarik" www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2136816/posts
and "Techdude" atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html
have debunked the Certification of Live Birth as a forgery.
Debbie Schlussel: Obama Selective Service Registration forgery. Check out the blogroll at the right.
www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_did_n.html
U.S. Justice Foundation, attorney Gary Kreep
www.usjf.net
Devvy Kidd
www.devvy.com or www.newswithviews.com
Judicial Watch
www.judicialwatch.org
attorney Stephen Pidgeon
www.stephenpidgeon.com and
investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2009/03/obama-eligibility-challenger-stephen.html
attorney Phil Berg
obamacrimes.us
www.obamacrimes.info/interviews.html
Phil Berg interviewed by Michael Savage, Feb. 25, 2009
[ED.: I deleted two dead links to Michael Savage broadcasts on www.910knew.com.]
citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/philip-j-berg-press-release-february-24-2009-michael-savage-radio-interview-berg-vs-obama-2-cases-1-under-seal-hollister-vs-soetoro
-aka-obama-senator-obamas-lack-of-constitutional-qualifi/
Phil Berg interviewed by Michael Savage, Oct. 23, 2008
www.youtube.com/v/1f_5zMhqpmk
(deleted by YouTube for "TOS violation" and reposted at)
www.youtube.com/v/x_cvMrhRwxE
MommaEradiorebels
www.blogtalkradio.com/mommaEradioRebels
countryfirst.bravehost.com/
attorney Mario Apuzzo's Blogspot
puzo1.blogspot.com
puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/03/justice-and-american-people-not-served.html
Plains Radio
www.plainsradio.com/
Let Freedom Ring (with John and Michelle) on Apuzzo's Kerchner case
www.blogtalkradio.com/Sentinel_Radio/2009/03/13/Let-Freedom-Ring-with-John-and-Michelle-1
The Hon. James David Manning, PhD
www.atlah.org/broadcast/ndnr03-30-09.html
www.ustream.tv/channel/atlah-worldwide---the-manning-report
Edwin Vieira
www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm
M Publius Goat
www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org
Planning a trip to Washington, D.C., this spring or summer [of 2009], and want to make it count?
demandthetruth.wordpress.com/
Better to spend it there than with the anti-American government of Hawaii.
www.boycotthawaii.com/
blogs_____________________________________________ ____
Phil at the Right Side of Life
www.therightsideoflife.com/?tag=leo-donofrio
CitizenWells
citizenwells.wordpress.com/
attorney Phil Berg's Obamacrimes
obamacrimes.us/phpBB3/index.php
paralegalnm: excellent footnotes for reference
paralegalnm.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/barack-hussein-obama-a-natural-born-subject-of-great-britain/
Free Republic list of discussions on eligibility
www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?s=obama+eligibility&ok=Search&q=deep&m=all
And for the O-bots: Obama Conspiracy Theories, "an independent blog about conspiracy theories and fringe views related to Barack Obama. . . shedding light (documentation and evidence) on the claims, rumors and even lawsuits about Barack Obama and his eligibility to be president."
www.obamaconspiracy.org
The one and only Hannity.com blog on eligibility - an exhaustive resource.
forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1216821
Whenever a name of an author appears, I start up with the Googling to see how reputable he might be and if he's a part of the official organization using the report or if he's a consultant of some kind.Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
A constable up in Canada, who also happens to be a Wiccan and maybe thought that his "religion" (if it's called that) would find followers harmed by specialists in the "occult" or Satanism, did some investigation of Rapacki and here's what he turned up.
http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a ... hs&id=4800
I wouldn't give the article the time of day EXCEPT THAT the author identified himself by his real name and real job. Could it just be disinformation put out on the web to trick people into thinking Rapacki is a snake oil salesman? Sure. It's possible. But before we go calling him a "Dr." are we sure he really has a Ph.D.? The old article challenges his claim to even having a Master's degree.
It's always beneficial to have those who might seem to be "allies" given a closer look by a Devil's Advocate type. :evil:
naomiragen.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-and-harvard.html
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Obama and Harvard
Why Obama is mum about Harvard
Exclusive: Jack Cashill offers reason Barack, Michelle don't talk about editor post
Posted: September 11, 2008 1:00 am Eastern
By Jack Cashill
On the surface, at least, Barack Obama's single most impressive accomplishment has been his 1990 election to the presidency of the Harvard Law Review.
This position also provided Obama his only real executive experience as he supervised the law review's staff of 80 editors.
One has to wonder, then, why neither he nor wife Michelle emphasized this singular honor during the up-by-the-bootstraps biographical sections of their respective speeches in Denver.
In fact, neither of them so much as mentioned Obama's time at Harvard, this despite his vulnerability on the executive experience charge.
Their silence likely derives from one verifiable fact: Obama's record at Harvard was no more authentic than John Kerry's record in Vietnam.
Kerry was justifiably swift-boated because he fraudulently positioned himself as a war hero. Obama seems to have learned from Kerry.
In the age of the Internet, the less said about a dubious credential the better, and Obama's law presidency credential is dubious on any number of levels.
For starters, Obama did not do nearly well enough at his previous stop, Columbia University, to justify admission to Harvard Law.
According to the New York Sun, [Columbia] university spokesman Brian Connolly confirmed that Obama graduated in 1983 with a major in political science but without honors.
In the age of affirmative action and grade inflation, a minority in a relatively easy major like political science had to under-perform dramatically to avoid minimal honors. Obama apparently did just that.
The specifics we may never know. As the New York Times concedes, Obama "declined repeated requests to talk about his New York years, release his Columbia transcript or identify even a single fellow student, co-worker, roommate or friend from those years."
Would that Bristol Palin could get off so easily!
There are any number of possible reasons for Obama's reticence about Columbia: his grades, the courses he took, his writing samples and, of course, his associations.
At that time, for instance, both Bill Ayers and Obama fell within the orbit of left-wing Columbia superstar Edward Said. Just recently out of hiding, Ayers was attending the Bank Street College of Education, which adjoins the Columbia campus.
Five years after leaving Columbia, Obama decided on law school. His lack of resources did not deter him from thinking big. Nor did his B-minus effort at his Hawaii prep school or his equally indifferent grades at Columbia.
As Obama relates in "Dreams From My Father," he limited his choices to only three law schools – "Harvard, Yale, Stanford." (It must be nice to be Obama.) He does not mention his connections.
Harvard Law School is notoriously difficult to get into. Annually, some 7,000 applications apply for some 500 seats. Applicant LSAT scores generally chart in the 98 to 99 percentile range, and GPAs average between 3.80 and 3.95.
If Obama's LSAT scores merited admission, we would know about them. We don't. The Obama camp guards those scores, like his SAT scores, more tightly that Iran does its nuclear secrets.
We know enough about Obama's Columbia grades to know how far they fall below the Harvard norm, likely even below the affirmative action-adjusted black norm at Harvard.
As far back as 1988, however, Obama had serious pull. He would need it. As previously reported, Khalid al-Mansour, principal adviser to Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, lobbied friends like Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton to intervene at Harvard on Obama's behalf.
An orthodox Muslim, al-Mansour has not met the crackpot anti-Semitic theory he could not embrace. As for bin Talal, in October 2001, New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani sent his $10 million relief check back un-cashed after the Saudi billionaire blamed 9/11 on America.
For an insight into the Khalid al-Mansour connection, see this video. [no link provided]
These are not connections that Obama would like to see broadcast, which further explains his shyness about the Harvard experience.
There is more. Obama did not make the Harvard Law Review (HLR) the old-fashioned way, the way HLR's first black editor, Charles Houston, did 70 years prior.
To Obama's good fortune, the HLR had replaced a meritocracy in which editors were elected based on grades – the president being the student with the highest academic rank – with one in which half the editors were chosen through a writing competition.
This competition, the New York Times reported in 1990, was "meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review."
It did just that. At the end of his first year, Obama was named, along with 40 or so of his classmates, an editor of the HLR.
Unlike most editors, and likely all its presidents, Obama was not a writer. During his tenure at Harvard, he wrote only one heavily edited, unsigned note.
In this note for the third volume of the 1990 HLR, he argued against any limits on abortion, citing the government's interest in "preventing increasing numbers of children from being born in to lives of pain and despair."
Obama's timing, however, was better than his writing. In the same spring 1990 term that he would stand for the presidency of the HLR, the Harvard Law School found itself embroiled in an explosive racial brouhaha.
Black firebrand law professor Derrick Bell was demanding that the Harvard Law School appoint a black woman to the law faculty.
This protest would culminate in vigils and protests by the racially sensitive student body, in the course of which Obama would compare the increasingly absurd Bell to Rosa Parks.
Feeling the pressure, HLR editors wanted to elect their first African-American president. Obama had an advantage. Spared the legacy of slavery and segregation, and having grown up in a white household, he lacked the hard edge of many of his black colleagues.
"Obama cast himself as an eager listener," the New York Times reported, "sometimes giving warring classmates the impression that he agreed with all of them at once."
In February 1990, after an ideologically charged all-day affair, Obama's fellow editors elected him president from among 19 candidates. As it happened, Obama prevailed only after the HLR's small conservative faction threw him its support.
Curiously, once elected, Obama contributed not one signed word to the HLR or any other law journal. As Matthew Franck has pointed out in National Review Online, "A search of the HeinOnline database of law journals turns up exactly nothing credited to Obama in any law review anywhere at any time."
One more thing: The 1990 Times article about Obama's election notes that the president of the HLR usually goes on to serve as a clerk for a Supreme Court justice.
Not the Mansourian Candidate. Here, oddly, his ambition deserted him. He told the Times that he planned "to spend two or three years in private law practice and then return to Chicago to re-enter community work, either in politics or in local organizing."
In this unlikely surrender to Chicago politics, the realist sees insecurity at best and, at worst, the quid for al-Mansour's quo.
PLEASE HELP ON THESE IMPORTANT 3!!!
http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-878412.html#878412