ACTION

COLLAGE PEOPLE THINK THE DEMOCRATS ARE GREAT.  BUT WHEN THE DEMOCRATS TURN THE UNITED STATES SOCIALIST,  AND WE HAVE NO RIGHTS  ,THEY WONT THINK IS SO GREAT, WHEN THE GOVERMENT TELLS YOU WHAT TO DO OR ELSE.

Hard Talk From Geert Wilders about Europe's Islamization

Geert Wilders Under Fire | American-Rattlesnake

Come on in to the show here on Tea Party Radio Network tonight!  The new program "Founder's Quest: The Seigfreid/Toepher Hour" starts at 9 pm EST.  Same call-in number  646-200-4032.  We're focused on the Rule of Law as established by the Founding Generation as it relates to today, and how it MUST be used to right the many wrongs we see today.  None of this happened over-night, and it won't get fixed overnight, but it can be done a lot faster than many think.  Come on in---the Tea is HOT here!

WE ARE NOT A CHAT GROUP, WE ARE THE TEA PARTY TO ORGANIZE THE COUNTRY AND SAVE THE CONSTITUTION AND

OUR FREEDOMS, SO MEANY PEOPLE HAVE DIED FOR. WE DO CHAT,

BUT THAT IS NOT THE MAIN REASON, WE ARE TOGETHER NOW.

What’s disturbing about this picture?

Posted on Natural Born Citizen-By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.-Originally posted on October 10, 2011 and Reposted on January 9, 2012:

“You have got to love Obama’s enablers. They have a web site called, “A Place to Get the REALLY Right Answers About Natural Born Citizenship,” accessed at http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/a-place-to-get-the-really-right-answers-about-natural-born-citizenship/. Clearly, the title of this web site refers this web site, “Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers,” accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/, which I created in December 2008.

Before I start, I must advise you of two things: first, you will rarely find an Obama enabler who will ever admit that he or she is a lawyer (most of those who admit it have been outed by citizen researchers). The reason for that is that operating under the blanket of anonymity, they get free reign to say whatever they want without any legal or ethical accountability. And they have said some pretty bad things in the past until many of them were outed and so now they are “perfect gentlemen.” Hence, the first thing the owner of this blog tells us is that he or she is not a lawyer. Now it may be true that the owner of that blog is not a lawyer. But what about all the other enablers who feed at that blog under the cover of anonymity? So, we do need to ask ourselves whether these so-called “owners” are just straw owners who take on such tasks to provide cover for Obama’s enabler lawyers who operate in the background under the cloaking device of anonymity.

Second, before I started explaining that there is a difference between an Article II “natural born” Citizen and a Fourteenth Amendment or Statutory “born” Citizen, we hardly saw the clause “natural born” Citizen in the Obama enablers’ arguments. At that time, they were simply content with telling us that Obama was a “Citizen” of the United States or a “native-born citizen,” whether under U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Fourteenth Amendment, or any Congressional Act. Now, no matter what case or statute they are speaking about, for these enablers its all “natural born” Citizen. The only citizens they have spared from this label are citizens who are naturalized after birth. I guess they figured that the clause would lose whatever little meaning they have given to it if they pushed it that far.

Let us now examine what Obama’s enablers are peddling on this blog. They must and do attack the Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) decision on two fronts. First, they argue that the definition of a “natural-born citizen” given by the Court is dicta and therefore not binding precedent. But they are wrong. In Minor, the U.S. Supreme Court had to decide whether Virginia Minor, a woman, was a “citizen” in order to determine whether as a “citizen” she enjoyed a constitutional right to vote under the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV. So the Court reasoned that once she was shown to be a “citizen,” it did not matter that she was a woman, unless Missouri could still disqualify a woman from voting because being a “citizen” did not guarantee any person the right to vote. It does not matter whether the Court chose to say that Minor was a “natural born Citizen” or just a “citizen.” Either way, Virginia Minor would advance to the next step in the analysis which was whether as a “citizen” she had the right to vote which Missouri could not abrogate. The Court chose the “natural-born citizen” path. It thoroughly analyzed and considered what a “natural-born citizen” was and after saying that it is a child born in the country to citizen parents, found that Virginia Minor was a “natural-born citizen” and therefore also a “citizen.” After the Court told us what a “natural-born citizen” was, it then made the comment about there being doubts as to whether a child born in the country to alien parents was even a “citizen.” The Court said that it was not necessary for it to decide that question and it did not because Virginia Minor was a “natural-born citizen” which necessarily also made her a “citizen.” So the focus of the Court’s decision regarding citizenship was in defining who the “original citizens” and the “natural-born citizens” were. The Court did not and did not have to answer the question about who was a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment, which in the question that it raised involved deciding whether a child born in the jurisdiction of the United States but to alien parents was born “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” We know that this latter question concerning who was a “citizen” under these circumstances was answered by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 which also confirmed Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” and analyzed whether such a child was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.

So as we can see, Minor’s analysis and discussion about citizenship was central to the Court’s answering the question of whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen” which it answered by telling us that she was a “natural-born citizen” which automatically made her a “citizen” also. Hence, Minor’s discussion and decision on what a “natural-born citizen” is was central to the Court’s holding regarding citizenship (as I explained the other holding concerned whether voting was a privilege and immunity originally guaranteed by the constitution’s privileges and immunities clause) and not dicta.

Virginia Minor was not a naturalized citizen. Hence, the Court thoroughly discussed the definition of a “natural-born citizen” which it was compelled to do to decide whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen” and as such entitled to privileges and immunities under the Constitution one of which Mrs. Minor contended was the right to vote. The Court’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” was therefore essential to its holding that voting was not a privilege and immunity originally guaranteed by the Constitution and that Mrs. Minor, a woman, even though she was a “natural-born citizen,” did not have a constitutional right to vote. Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” is therefore binding precedent, which to this day has not been changed.

Second, Obama’s enablers attack the precedential definition of a “natural-born citizen” provided by Minor. To support their position, Obama’s enablers manipulate both the use of the word “born” and the meaning of the word “naturalized.” Regarding the word “born,” their definition of a “natural born” Citizen which is a child born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not include all the elements which should be included. When it comes to Obama, the element, which they leave out is birth to citizen parents. They arrive at their truncated definition of a “natural born Citizen” by arguing that Minor v. Happersett did say that a child born in the United States of citizen parents was a “natural born citizen.” But they insist that there exists an ambiguity in the Court’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” because the Court did not say that a person not born in the United States of citizen parents was necessarily not a “natural born Citizen.” They add that the condition of being born in the United States of citizen parents was a sufficient condition, but not a necessary one. They add that the condition is not a definition even if Minor constitutes a precedent. They then conclude that persons born in the United States of citizen parents are “natural born citizens,” but that neither birth in the United States nor birth to citizen parents is required. They conclude that as long as one is a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment or any Act of Congress, even if born in the United States to one or two alien parents or born outside the United States to one or two citizen parents, one is a “natural born citizen. The fallacy of this argument lies in denying the well-established definition of a “natural born Citizen” and arguing that it is not a definition and then putting forth their own definition which is broader than the correct definition so that they can meet the broader definition (not requiring birth to citizen parents in the case of Obama).

The question is whether Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” is ambiguous. The enablers’ argument that it is ambiguous and that it permits for other birth circumstances, which do not exist in that definition is meritless. A definition is not ambiguous merely because it does not expressly rule out every possible other factual scenario, which someone claims also fits under that definition. De Leon-Ochoa v. Att’y Gen., 622 F.3d at 353 (reviewing 8 U.S.C. § 1254a). The enablers do not tell us that not one U.S. Supreme Court case or Congressional Act in the history of our nation defines a “natural born Citizen” the way they do (i.e., as being any child born a citizen regardless of place of birth or citizenship of the parents) and that on the contrary, these sources (expect for the Naturalization Act of 1790 which is not relevant to Obama, did not support their position, and which was repealed in 1795) have always defined a “natural born Citizen” as being a child born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. Hence, there is no ambiguity in this time-honored definition. On the contrary, the Minor U.S. Supreme Court has plainly spoken with affirmative language which comprises a definition on who is an Article II “natural born” Citizen. It has clearly set out by definition who is a “natural born” Citizen. Hence, anyone who does not meet that definition is necessarily excluded from that class of citizen.

Another approach that Obama’s enablers take to attacking Minor’s definition of a “natural born” Citizen is to say that we commit the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent. This fallacy is described as:

If A, then X.

Not A.

Therefore, not X.

This reasoning is fallacious, unless A is a necessary condition, which in such case, the logic would not be fallacious. In other words, if A is merely sufficient for X to exist, the fact that A does not exists does not necessarily rule out that X can come into existence by some other factors, e.g. B or C. So if A is a bi-conditional which is expressed as “if and only if,” the logical expression presented would not be fallacious. For example, if Joe has a lot of land, then Joe is rich. Joe does not have a lot of land. Therefore, Joe is not rich. This is fallacious logic, for Joe could be rich by having a lot of gold. But if we said if Joe is breathing, then he is alive. Joe is not breathing. Then he is not alive. We do not question the correct logic of this statement. And it is correct because breathing is not only sufficient but also necessary. So what we are really saying is: “If and only if” Joe is breathing, then he is alive.

Obama enablers argue that we deny the antecedent when we say that under Minor, since Obama was not born to two U.S.-citizen parents, he cannot be a “natural born” Citizen. They add that two U.S.-parent citizenship is only a sufficient condition, and not a necessary one. But the logical error that they make in putting forth this argument is in denying that Minor gave us a binding definition of the clause “natural-born citizen” which affirmatively declared what such a citizen is. Hence, being a definition, the elements expressed are necessary conditions and not sufficient ones. Would these same Obama enablers say while reasoning under the Fourteenth Amendment that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is only a sufficient condition and that it is wrong to conclude that if someone is born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ that that person could still be a “citizen of the United States” under that amendment? No, they would not make such an argument because they know that the Fourteenth Amendment provides an affirmative and declaratory definition of citizenship each element of which is a necessary condition to earning the right to have that national character. There is no difference with Minor’s affirmative definition of a “natural born” Citizen, but they deny that Minor put forth a definition, but accept that the Fourteenth Amendment does. There simply is no consistency or logic in how these enablers treat Minor in one fashion but then treat the Fourteenth Amendment in another.

Obama’s enablers then move on to Wong Kim Ark and say that it declared Wong a “natural born” Citizen and that since Obama meets the requirements of that case, he too is a “natural born” Citizen. But straightforward reading of the Wong Kim Ark case shows that it did not do any such thing. Here is the question presented as stated by Wong Kim Ark:

“The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a ‘citizen of the United States’ by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution” (emphasis supplied).

And here is the specific holding of the case:

“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a ‘citizen of the United States.’ For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative” (emphasis supplied). Id. at 705.

We do not see anywhere in the question presented or the holding any reference to “natural born” Citizen. The Court could not have been clearer by telling us twice that it was only deciding whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States.” We clearly see that the case only concerned itself with whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment (more on the Fourteenth Amendment below). After all, Wong only needed to be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” to avoid being excluded from the United States under the Chinese Exclusion Acts which prohibited persons of the Chinese race, and especially Chinese laborers, from coming into the United States. He did not need to be an Article II “natural born” Citizen which under our Constitution and Congressional Acts is relevant only to the question of whether one is eligible to be President or Vice-President.

The lack of any reference to “natural born” Citizen in Wong Kim Ark’s question presented and holding is critical given that in the opinion itself, the Court said that “[the child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” Hence, the Court held that Wong, a person born of aliens in the United States, was a “citizen,” since he was “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.” Indeed, the Court acknowledged that one type of national character is a “citizen,” who is born in the country to “an alien,” and the other type is a “natural born citizen,” who is born in the country to “a citizen.” Under the then-prevailing notion of merger of the wife’s citizenship into that of the husband, “an alien” and “a citizen” actually meant “aliens” and “citizens,” for no other interpretation would make sense. Without such a reading, the two birth circumstances would always give the same result, for if one is born to “an alien,” parent (just one parent), then one would also be born to “a citizen” parent (the other parent). Hence, what the Court said is that a child born in the United States to an alien can be a “citizen,” but by definition not a “natural born” Citizen because a “natural born” Citizen is born to citizen parents, not to alien parents. The Court knew that Wong could not be a “natural born” Citizen because he did not have citizen parents. So, the Court analyzed, relying upon English common law, whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. By so doing, the Court did what Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) said was not necessary for it to do, i.e., decide whether being born in the jurisdiction of the United States but to alien parents satisfied the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Again, the Court said “[t]he child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” It did not say that that child born to aliens is as much a “natural-born citizen” as the natural-born child of a citizen. It said he or she was as much a “citizen.” Here, we see further proof that the Court distinguished between a “natural born” Citizen and a “citizen,” and that it found Wong to be a “citizen,” and not a “natural born” Citizen. So, the Court’s erroneous use of the old English common law applied only to how the Court defined a “Citizen” of the United States, not to how it defined an Article II “natural born” Citizen, the definition for which it cited and quoted Minor. In short, Wong Kim Ark distinguished between a “natural born” Citizen and a “Citizen” by way of definition and also in its question presented and holding.

It is also important to note that Wong Kim Ark did not revisit Minor’s American “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen,” which it said was a child born in the country to citizen parents. Clearly, the Court knew that Wong was not born to citizen parents. Hence, if it was going to declare Wong a “natural born” Citizen, it would have had to address Minor’s precedential definition. Such analysis would have necessarily included the Court examining the text of the “natural born” Citizen clause and commenting on the Founders’ and Framers’ intent for including the clause and all the historical evidence which in any way sheds light on the meaning of the clause. We can readily see from the Court’s decision that it did not engage in any such analysis. Since it was only concerned with determining whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, which is a different class of citizen than an Article II “natural born” Citizen, it was not necessary for the Court to re-examine Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” or to analyze what the original meaning of the clause was. Hence, we do not find in Wong Kim Ark any such discussion on the “natural born” Citizen clause.

Further evidence that Wong Kim Ark did not declare Wong an Article II “natural born” Citizen may be found in the case of Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009), transfer denied, 929 N.E.2d 789 (2010) (which I will discuss below). The Indiana court acknowledged that Wong Kim Ark did not declare Wong an Article II “natural born” Citizen. But then it attempts to explain that such shortfall is “irrelevant.” Needless to say, its explanation makes very little sense in the context of trying to determine what an Article II “natural born” Citizen is. Here is what the court said in Footnote 14:

“We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution’s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation’s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.”

In its attempt to explain away why Wong Kim Ark did not specifically hold that Wong was a “natural born” Citizen, Ankeny just said that there is no practical difference between a “natural born” Citizen and a naturalized citizen other than that only the former is eligible to be President. But what does that have to do with what Wong Kim Ark held? This explanation is simply not material to the question of what Wong Kim Ark actually held which Ankeny itself concedes—it “did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a ‘natural born Citizen.’” But to Ankeny, Wong Kim Ark’s choice of language is not important notwithstanding that the Founders and Framers when writing the Constitution chose their words carefully and with specific purpose of meaning and Article I and Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 treat a “natural born” Citizen and a “Citizen” of the United States as very distinct and separate classes of citizens when it comes to congressional and presidential office. So Ankeny wants it both ways. It tells us that Wong Kim Ark did not say that Wong was an Article II “natural born” Citizen but then it tells us that based on Wong Kim Ark any person who is born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a “natural born” Citizen. It thus becomes quite clear that Ankeny’s attempt to convert Wong Kim Ark’s holding into one involving a “natural born” Citizen when it really only involved a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” must fail.

Desperate as Obama’s enablers are, they then further enlist the assistance of Ankeny in their attempt to show us that Wong Kim Ark declared Wong a “natural born Citizen.” I have already shown that Ankeny itself conceded that Wong Kim Ark “did not actually pronounce the plaintiff an Article II ‘natural born Citizen.’” Apart from what Ankeny said about Wong Kim Ark’s holding, a simple reading of Ankeny shows that, while the court may have been correct in finding that the Governor of Indiana had no legal duty to investigate whether Obama was a “natural born” Citizen, it erred when it went beyond those simple independent state grounds which were sufficient to dispose of the case and reached a constitutional issue when it declared what the definition of an Article II “natural born” Citizen is. It said that Minor left open the question of what a “natural born” Citizen was when in fact it left open the question of whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was a “Citizen” of the United States. Ankeny also said that Wong Kim Ark answered the question left open by Minor and declared Wong to be a “natural born” Citizen. While Wong Kim Ark did answer the question left open by Minor, i.e., whether Wong, who was born in the United States to domiciled alien parents, was a “Citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, it did not declare Wong to be an Article II “natural born” Citizen. I have shown above how the question presented in Wong Kim Ark was whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States,” not whether he was a “natural born” Citizen, and that its holding was limited to Wong being a “citizen of the United States,” not a “natural born” Citizen. Additionally, Ankeny is only a state law case and surely does not overrule Minor which confirmed the American “common-law” definition of a “natural-born” Citizen” to be a child born in the country to citizen parents.

Again with further assistance from the state-law case of Ankeny, Obama’s enablers then look to the Fourteenth Amendment for help. They add that Ankeny also relied upon the Fourteenth Amendment to show that any person born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” regardless of the citizenship of his or her parents, is a “natural born” Citizen. But they do not explain how they go from the amendment’s text referring to a “citizen of the United States” to it saying according to them a “natural born” Citizen. They do not tell us that nowhere in the amendment will we find the words “natural born” Citizen and that nothing in its history or in its debates suggests that its framers included in the amendment “natural born” Citizen status or that they intended by the amendment to create or amend the meaning of an Article II “natural born” Citizen. On the contrary, the amendment was passed during Reconstruction to bestow initial membership in the United States upon freed slaves. This initial membership since the Founding, even confirmed in the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, has always been simply called “Citizen” of the United States. Hence, if the amendment were to be used by any other person to gain citizenship in the United States, he or she could only gain that same initial membership which we call “Citizen” of the United States. As proof of this purpose, the amendment only includes the words, “citizens” of the United States. Remember that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 also speaks of “natural born” Citizens and “Citizens” of the United States. Because the republic was new, the Framers grandfathered the initial members to be eligible to be President. This class included the Founders and Framers themselves who were born British “natural born subjects” and who were naturalized to be “Citizens” of the United States by the power of the Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution. But for births after the adoption of the Constitution, it allowed only a “natural born” Citizen to be eligible to be President. This latter class was comprised not of initial members of the United States (only “Citizens” and nothing more), but rather the children of such initial members (children of “Citizens”) or the children of later-generation members (children of “natural born” Citizens). Hence, simply being a born “Citizen” of the United States is not sufficient to be eligible to be President, for in such case, the person’s birth circumstance is missing citizen parents. Any common sense reading of the Fourteenth Amendment would show that its citizenship status is not sufficient for one to be eligible to be President. First, one must be a “natural born” Citizen and not only a “Citizen” of the United States which is the status provided by the amendment. Second, it is not sufficient to simply say that one is born a “Citizen” of the United States under the amendment and therefore a “natural born” Citizen. The Founders and Framers said “natural born,” not just “born.” In order to gain this special status of “natural born” Citizen, one must satisfy the American common law definition of a “natural born” Citizen handed down to us since the Founding and confirmed in both Minor and Wong Kim Ark. One cannot simply obtain the status of a “Citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Act, or treaty, even if that status is gained from the moment of birth, for these positive laws neither by affirmative language nor by definition bestow upon anyone the status of a “natural born” Citizen. Moreover, both Minor and Wong Kim Ark said that the Fourteenth Amendment defines neither a “Citizen” of the United States (it does not define what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means) nor a “natural born” Citizen. That would mean by referring to neither a “natural born” Citizen nor to defining one. That is why Minor relied on American “common-law” to define a “natural born” Citizen and Wong Kim Ark relied upon English “common law” to define a “Citizen” of the United States.

So has Obama’s enablers’ position improved any by relying on the Fourteenth Amendment and Ankeny, which got it like them plainly wrong? Again, the answer is a resounding “no.”

But Obama’s enablers do not stop there. They also provide lower federal court and state law cases that declared persons born in the United States to alien parents “Citizens” of the United States. First, they avoid mentioning that Minor v. Happersett in 1875 said that there were “some authorities” who said that a child born in the United States to alien parents were “citizens.” Minor rightfully said “there have been doubts” regarding whether these “authorities” were correct, given that Congress since 1790 required any child born to alien parents, regardless of the place of birth, to naturalized in the United States in order to become a “Citizen” of the United States. Second, these cases only defined a “Citizen” and not a “natural born” Citizen.

But Obama’s enablers do not end there either. They then attack Emer de Vattel, saying that nobody knew that “dead Swiss guy” who wrote “some book” on some citizenship “stuff.” Needless to say, the historical record and case law is replete with information which shows how influential Vattel was during the Founding in helping our leaders justify the American Revolution, write the Constitution, and constitute the new republic. See, for example, J.S. Reeves, The Influence of the Law of Nature Upon International Law in the United States, 3 Am.J. Int’l L. 547 et. seq. passim (1909) (Vattel exerted such a profound political influence that it is often pointed out that his theories served as the backbone for American independence); Lee A. Casey, David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Darin R. Bartram, Unlawful Belligerency and Its Implications Under International Law, http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/PubID.104/pub_detail.asp (concerning U.S. constitutional analysis, “Vattel is highly important. He was probably the international law expert most widely read among the Framers”). In fact, Vattel continued to be practically applied in our nation for well over 100 years after the birth of the republic. F.S. Ruddy, The Acceptance of Vattel, Grotian Society Papers (1972) (Vattel was mainstream political philosophy during the writing of the Constitution. The Law of Nations was significantly the most cited legal source in America jurisprudence between 1789 and 1820). But as we can see, the importance and practicality of Vattel lives on today.

Finally, and this is Obama’s enablers’ favorite ploy, they say for the Birthers to be right, all smart and consequential people in America would have to be part of some grand conspiracy. They paint the “Birthers” with the same brush and paint that they paint those who question the moon landing, the Kennedy assassination, the 9-11 attacks, and whether there is some plot to create a “One World Order.” But there is nothing conspiratorial about correctly defining an Article II “natural born” Citizen and applying that definition to Obama’s admitted birth circumstances. He has admitted and it is corroborated by documentation that he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father. Hence, he cannot be a “natural born” Citizen. There is no conspiracy in that, my friend.

And so it goes on, for this is how Obama’s enablers must make a living.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

October 10, 2011

Reposted January 9, 2012

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/”

Source:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-obamas-enablers-mislead-public-on.html

Note: The following articles and/or blog posts relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

I. OBAMA’S CITIZENSHIP AND THE PRESIDENCY: Academia shrugs: ‘Scholars conveniently abandoning Constitution, their own writings!’-Posted on American Thinker-By Cindy Simpson-On January 6, 2012:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/academia_shrugs_obamas_citizenship_and_the_presidency.html

II. Washington Post misleads on meaning of NATURAL Born Citizen!-Posted on ObamaStateBallotChallenge.com-By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.-On December 6, 2011:

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/washington-post-misleads-on-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen

III. Congressional 'scholar' shilling for Obama!-Posted on WND.com-By Jerome R. Corsi-On November 30, 2011:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=372977

IV. Congressional staff gives Constitution new meaning: ‘Researchers target 'eligibility,' say 'native born' really is 'natural born!'-Posted on WND.com-By Bob Unruh-On November 30, 2011:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=373085

V. Understanding ‘The Jack Maskell Memorandum’ (Update)!-Posted on Bob MaCarty Wrties-By Paul Hollrah, Guest Blogger-On November 25, 2010:

http://bobmccarty.com/2010/11/25/understanding-the-jack-maskell-memorandum/

VI. Minor v. Happersett Revisited!-Posted on Natural Born Citizen-By Leo Donofrio, Esq.-On January 9, 2012:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/minor-v-happersett-revisited-2/#comments

VII. The McCreery v. Somerville Funeral – Maskell And Gray To Attend – Minor v. Happersett To Preside!-Posted on Natural Born Citizen-By Leo Donofrio, Esq.-On January 7, 2012:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/the-mccreery-v-somerville-funeral-maskell-and-gray-to-attend-minor-v-happersett-to-preside/

VIII. Undisputed PROOF that Obama is ineligible for the Presidency!-Posted on Obama Ballot Challenge-By GeorgeM-On January 7, 2012:

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/natural-born-citizenship-and-history-timeline

IX. Minor v. Happersett – Proof Obama is Unlawful President!-Posted on Obama Ballot Challenge-By GeorgeM:

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/minor-v-happersett-proof-obama-is-unlawful-president

X. Obama Cannot Be A “Natural Born Citizen" Under Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)!-Posted on Natural Born Citizen-By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.-Originally posted on January 2, 2009 and Reposted on July 10, 2011:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/07/obama-cannot-be-natural-born-citizen.html

XI. Red Flags in Hawaii-Posted on The Obama File-On January 11, 2012:

http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/Butterdezillion.htm

XII. Are the “Birthers” barking up the wrong tree?-Posted on USA We The People-By clinicalthinker-On August 3, 2009:

http://usa-wethepeople.com/2009/08/are-the-birthers-barking-up-the-wrong-tree/

Note:  Americans are waking up!

Americans across the country are starting to wake up to the fact that President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of President, as substantiated by his newly released long-form Certificate of Live Birth, which shows that his father was in fact born in Kenya in 1936. At the time, Kenya was a British colony. Therefore Obama Senior was a British subject by birth (due to the fact that he was born within British-controlled territory). When President Obama was born in 1961, he acquired British nationality by descent, because his father was a British subject by birth. When Kenya gained its independence from Great Britain in 1963, President Obama became a citizen of the newly-formed nation.

Sources:

http://www.wnd.com/2011/12/375625/#f2cd597738

http://constitutionalreset.ning.com/video/atty-dr-herb-titus-obama-...

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/natural-born-citizenship-and-histor...

Additionally, Several new organizations, to include active websites, were established to educate and mobilize the American public on the significance of “natural born Citizen” and the 2012 Election, along with an initiative to assist ordinary registered voting citizens wishing to challenge President Obama’s constitutional eligibility and name placement on their state’s 2012 primary presidential ballot. The team that established and maintains this website is currently compiling election laws from all 50 states and in the near future will be providing forms, along with sample letters that registered voters can use to file a complaint. Also included is pertinent information regarding those lawsuits and/or complaints that have been filed by state, to include my own.

Sources:

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/superpac-founder-explains-mission-o...

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/obama-ballot-challenge-founder-inte...

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/retired-marine-captain-files-obama-...

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/request-that-president-obama-be-rem...

Word of Caution:  Although its great that many Americans are now beginning to wake up and are actively taking some action to have President Obama taken off the 2012 Presidential Election Ballots we need to keep in mind that those individuals with unlimited sources and/or resources, to include the deep pockets of anti-American George Soros, our own local and national elected officials and others, with the help of the MSM, who have spent years planning and successively perpetrating what I now believe could be the greatest fraud in American history are not going to go down without a fight and thus, as a result, I also believe that now more than ever we need to stick together as Americans (it's no longer Democrat or Republican) at this crucial time when our country and/or Republic needs us more than ever to see this thru. A Republic for which so many Americans have and continue to give their all to uphold and defend.

So the question is: Are you going to be part of the problem by continuing to keep your head in the sand hoping this issue goes away by itself or are you going to be part of the solution by stepping up to the plate and doing what ever it takes to uphold and defend our Republic before its too late?-You Decide.

Note:  My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

The Greatest Fraud Perpetrated in American History!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/the-greatest-fraud-perpetrated-in-american-history/

Is it important to understand the Marxist assault on the foundations of our system?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/is-it-important-to-understand-the-marxist-assault-on-the-foundations-of-our-system/

Note:  If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial.  Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake

I got together with two friends ( high ranking military officers) for a lengthy "brainstorming" session.  It wasn't something we planned, just one of those things that happen.  We began discussing all the talk about NDAA (HR1540), FEMA camps and other unsettling things in recent events.  In the next few sentences I will share the hypothesis that grew out of our exchange.  We group...ed the unconstitutional legislation of recent months with the reports of FEMA camps as all related.  The rational we came up with is this, the government is aware that welfare, food assistance and all the rest of entitlements are going to cease abruptly in the near future.  When they do, it will cause those who have lived their lives on such programs to completely implode.  Remember, every time there are riots  these are the people who lute and burn everything in sight.  Knowing this, those in leadership positions, mostly Democrats, devised the idea of removing the right to be charged of a crime  before one is arrested, along with the right to an attorney or trial.  They made it so they could be held until other solutions could be found.  This is the reason for the camps, they needed places to keep these individuals, to keep them from committing crimes and feed and shelter them.  There was much more we came up with, and as I said we were simply brainstorming, none of this is any more than theory.  I might add, and we all agreed, not a great one either.  I just wanted to get reactions to what we discussed.

A NEW SURVEY SHOWS.  MOSTLY POOR DUE TO THE DEMOCRATS.

THIS IS CALLED SOCIALISM,  EUROPE TRYED IT ,  IT DOSE NOT WORK.   SHOW THEM  IN NOVEMBER ,  VOTE REPUBLICAN  STRIGHT DOWN THE LIST, VOTE REPUBLICAN. BRING BACK A COUNTRY THAT YOU CAN BE  HAPPY WITH, AND CUT THE SPENDING THATS BANK RUPTING US,  YOU AND I AND OUR CHILDREN.

Don't miss this one tonight, folks!  Helen Tansey, director of Article 2 SuperPac will be joining us on Tea Party Radio @ 9pm EST.  This group has been influential in getting Dr. Orly Taitz, who was on our show a few weeks ago, into a courtroom in Atlanta, Ga, on the 26th of January to hear evidence on eligibility, keeping the Usurper off the ballot in Nov., document fraud & forgery, and Social Security fraud---false use of a Social Security #.

You know how to get there---www.blogtalkradio.com/teapartyorg or call in @ 646-200-4032.  Hope to see you then!

Jim Seigfreid

co-host Tea Party Radio

Right ON!!

Posted on The Obama File-On January 11, 2012:

“Red Flags in Hawaii:

People are asking how so many terrorist red flags could be overlooked by so many.  The same way these “birther” red flags were not only overlooked but ridiculed:

1.   DOH Director Fukino  illegally hid until Nov 2009 the DOH Administrative Rules showing that election officials could have received a copy of Obama’s original birth certificate without his permission. The DOH has said they can’t release any records without Obama’s permission. But HRS 338-18(a) allows state laws and DOH rules to govern the disclosure of vital records, and the current rules -Chapter 8b, 2.5(A)(1)(f) -would allow any election officer transacting the placement of Obama’s name on the ballot to receive a certified copy.

2.  The DOH has falsely said that HRS 338-18 prohibits disclosure of government processing records. There are 2 kinds of records – records of the vital events themselves, and records of the government’s handling (  http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0001.htm) of those records.

Certificates are the record of the vital events. HRS 338-18(a) says that information about the actual birth, death, marriage, and divorce events may only be released according to the provisions set by law or Department of Health rules, thus referring everyone to the DOH Administrative Rules to see how information on actual certificates may be disclosed and to whom. Far from barring “any disclosure” as claimed by the DOH, current Administrative Rules allow a non-certified abbreviated copy of a birth (Chapter 8b, 2.5B), marriage (Ch 8b, 2.8C), or death (Ch8b, 2.6C) certificate to be released to anyone who asks for it. However, a public statement of where someone was born – such as Fukino’s July 27, 2009 statement about Obama – is not allowed by the rules (Ch 8b, 2.1A).

All other records are public, except that neither direct viewing nor certified copies are allowed unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest. Non-certified copies, abstracts,  and disclosure of information from the documents are not prohibited – which, according to Hawaii’s “Sunshine Law” (UIPA) means they must be disclosed upon request, except for certain exemptions, such as for information having privacy interest that outweighs the public interest in disclosure: date of birth, gender, and address .

Since a damaging disclosure of records processing was made in September (see #3), The DOH has been denying access to these records by claiming that ANY DISCLOSURE is forbidden.

3.   Though ridiculing “birthers” publicly, the DOH has PRIVATELY confirmed Obama’s online COLB’s as forgeries – a fact the DOH has known since the beginning. Because processing information is subject to disclosure, the DOH was forced in Sept 2009 to reveal that Obama’s birth certificate has been amended  (OIP interpretation) and that Obama or his representative has paid a fee to have his certificate amended at the very time he was considering a run for the presidency. Amendments must be noted on the certificate (Ch 8b, 3.1), so the DOH has known this entire time that both the Factcheck and Fight the Smears COLB’s are forgeries, since they have no amendment noted.

When asked point-blank on Feb 22, 2010 whether the denial of access confirmed the existence of Obama’s amendment documents, the OIP refused to refute that understanding, saying (after 2 e-mails asking clarification) that they were too busy to address the question.

4.  The combination of certificate number and filing date on the Factcheck COLB is not possible. The DOH has confirmed that the certificate number is assigned by them when they file the certificate. Observed certificate numbers corroborate this as well, and so does page 232 of the CDC’s 1961 Natality Report. The Factcheck COLB says it was filed at the DOH 3 days before the Nordkye twins’ certificates but has a later number than theirs. The certificate number is the same on a COLB as it is on an original, long-form BC, so it makes no difference that the Nordykes’ are long-forms and Factcheck’s a COLB. The DOH has refused to release the certificate number for Obama even though they are required by UIPA to do so.

5.   Every government agency in Hawaii contacted thus far has explicitly denied that they have a responsibility to report known forgery and/or have refused to report suspected forgery to law enforcement.  This includes the Department Of Health, Office of Information Practices (OIP), lieutenant governor’s office, and every member of Hawaii’s House and Senate. Janice Okubo of the DOH seems to have stated that law forbids her to disclose ANYTHING about a birth certificate– even that it’s a critical, very public forgery. The Ombudsman’s Office has said they don’t investigate crimes and only report evidence they uncover themselves. See no evil…

6.  The amendment made to Obama’s birth certificate renders it insufficient evidence for legal purposes.  Minor administrative errors (such as typos) don’t remove the prima facie evidentiary value of a birth certificate, but such no-fault errors don’t result in a fee (Ch 8b 3.5C, 3.11, 3.1,  & HRS 338-17) and Obama was charged a fee – as the DOH confirmed again on March 23, 2010. Legal name changes also don’t affect the evidentiary value, but the lieutenant governor’s office has confirmed that there has been no legal name change for anyone named Obama, Dunham,  Soetoro, or Sutoro.

7.   Kapiolani Hospital received a letter signed by Obama on White House stationery and with raised seal claiming Obama was born there, even though that could only be true if Obama’s amendment contradicted the doctor’s testimony. If he had been born in a Hawaii hospital the hospital itself would have been responsible for the content on the birth certificate and the DOH responsible for any clerical typos. The only way Obama would be charged for an amendment is:

a)  if he or his representative claimed to have filled out the certificate themselves and erred, or

b)  if Obama claimed the doctor’s testimony was wrong.

8.   The DOH has broken Hawaii law to make rule changes (see July 11 addendum at bottom) that would protect Obama.  In mid-June of 2009 the DOH stated that they will no longer issue long-form birth certificates. This is in direct violation of the current rules, without following HRS 91-3 mandates for an open process for rule changes – the first of several such violations within the past year. 

9.   Fukino stated on July 27, 2009 that Obama’s records verify his birth in Hawaii, but Hawaii law forbids her to conclude that, since all the DOH has is legal hearsay. According to PHR Chapter 8b and HRS 338-17, only a judicial or administrative person or group can evaluate the accuracy of the claims when an amended document is presented as evidence. Obama has had many, many opportunities to present his birth certificate as evidence in lawsuits. He has refused – even going so far as rescinding military orders rather than risk a judge seeing his birth certificate. There is no process by which Obama would present his records to Fukino as evidence.

10. Having made the illegal statement, Fukino refused to obey UIPA which required her to release the documents on which her statement was based.

11. The DOH has deleted documents required to be stored for at least 2 years. The DOH says it no longer has the UIPA request or invoices showing Obama’s birth certificate was amended. The DOH’s own “Rules of Practice & Procedure”  (11-1-30) say that documents must be stored as long as the case can be contested –  August 2011 in this case. (Note: the invoices have met their retention period if they were created in 2006 so the HDOH would be correct to not have them any longer.)

12. Fukino averted discipline against herself by promoting the OIP director, who was replaced by the attorney who has designed the DOH’s deceptive responses. Six days after Leo Donofrio’s  blog said he would ask OIP Director Tsukiyama for disciplinary action against Fukino and Okubo for their deception, Tsukiyama resigned  from the OIP to take a promotion to a company on whose board of directors Fukino sits. He granted Cathy Takase’s request to have control of all DOH matters and asked her to replace him.

Now OIP is leaving HRS 338-18 rulings up to the DOH and refuses to clarify what kinds of responses qualify as Glomar responses. All DOH responses contain deceptions #1&2, including disobeying their own rules for non-certified abbreviated copies of birth, marriage, and death certificates.  They deny that documents exist which are required by law, such as descriptions of their forms,  procedures,  and instructions which are mandated in HRS 91, etc.. (Note: the retention period for the 1961 lists is past, so the HDOH is correct not to have them.)

13. Apparently in response to this blog post and a request for a legislative investigation of these matters, Hawaii State Senator Will Espero has introduced a bill that would allow the OIP to label people who ask too many questions as “vexatious requestors” who are then blacklisted from access to government records for 2 years. The net effect of the bill would be to overturn UIPA. They also want to fine “vexatious requestors”…

14. The DOH is falsifying the communication logs in e-mails to frame the requestor as what Cathy Takase calls ”mentally ill” - thus fit to label as a “vexatious requestor” and blacklist for 2 years.

15. The DOH claims that original records required to be retained permanently (original birth index and index of foreign births) don’t exist. Either they are lying or they have illegally destroyed permanent records.

Red flags. This information has been given to every lawmaker in Hawaii, the OIP, DOH, Ombudsman’s office, HI lieutenant governor’ and governor’s offices, Nebraska’s US attorney (who says they won’t take reports from citizens), and Hawaii’s director of the Department of Public Safety, as well as to multiple news organizations.  The FBI thrice said they don’t investigate document fraud. All refused to act. Red flags.

Hawaii AG Will Not Corroborate Fukino’s Statements:

The Post & Email is in receipt of a letter signed by Jill T. Nagamine, Deputy Attorney General of the State of Hawaii, which affirms her email early last month to our Editor-in-Chief, Mr. John Charlton, stating that her office will not or cannot corroborate any of the Department of Health’s public statements regarding the alleged facts of the birth of Barack Hussein Obama in Hawaii.

Ms. Nagamine’s March 19, 2010 formal letter was sent in response to the Hawaii Petition Campaign’s request for Hawaii officials to release Obama’s birth records and proof that he is a “natural born” citizen, as required for the office of President by Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

On July 27, 2009, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, issued a public statement which declared that Obama was “born in Hawaii” and a “natural-born American citizen.”  She did not expound on how she arrived at her conclusions.

The office of the attorney general has now contradicted, in a formal letter, the content of an email sent by Janice Okubo, Public Information Officer at the Hawaii Department of Health, in which she responded to a student researcher that the attorney general, Mark Bennett, “had reviewed and approved” Dr. Fukino’s July 27 statement.

To what lengths are Okubo and Fukino willing to go to protect Obama?  Why are they doing it, and what do they expect to gain from it?  What do they fear they will lose if they do not continue their charade?  There is no one else in Hawaii claiming that Obama was born there.  No other public official will confirm it.

Continue reading here . . .

The Summary CNN Doesn’t Want You to See:

Butterdezillion’s blog says the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) has indirectly confirmed that Obama’s Factcheck COLB is a forgery because:

1)   They have made a statutory admission that his certification of Live Birth (COLB) has been amended, which is required to be shown on a legitimate COLB, but is not shown on the Factcheck COLB, and

2) Director Okubao has said that Oahu birth certificate’s have always been given the birth certificate number by the HDOH on the “date filed.” The Factcheck COLB has a “date filed” 3 days earlier than the Nordyke twins’ but was given a number later than theirs.  This statement by Okubo rules out past explanations (hospitals numbering the birth certificate’s or being given blocks of numbers, or birth certificate’s sitting in piles at the HDOH for days before being numbered).  This means that either the “date filed”, certificate number, or both have been altered on the Factcheck COLB.  

Because Obama’s genuine birth certificate is amended, Hawaii law (HRS 338-17) says that it has no legal value unless it is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body and they rule the birth certificate to be probative.  Obama has fought lawsuits to make sure that his birth certificate could never be presented as evidence, even though it is the only way he can have any birth facts legally determined.

The 20^th Amendment of the Constitution says that if a President elect “fails to qualify” by Jan 20^th, the Vice President elect is to “act as President” until a President qualifies.

Because the required procedure to legally determine Obama’s birth facts has never happened we know that Obama could not have “qualified” by January 20^th, and anybody who certified his eligibility documentably perjured him/herself since even his age has never been legally determined and could disqualify him from eligibility for the Office of President.

The president elect becomes president automatically at noon on Jan 20^th, but there are 2 Constitutional requirements that must be met before a sitting president can “act as president” or exercise the presidential powers: he must take the oath of office and he must “qualify.”  Doing one of the 2 is not enough and in no way impacts the need to meet the other requirement.

Obama has “failed to qualify” and the only person the 20^th Amendment allows to “act as president” is Joe Biden, until a president qualifies.  All this is known simply because his birth certificate has been amended and he has never presented it as evidence so it could possibly gain legal evidentiary value.

These claims are documented here. 

For the wider angle view on why this matters, and Butterdezillions’ motivation in addressing these issues, see the next item.

About Butterdezillion:

News reports stated that in Mexico, drug lords killed a rival member and sewed his face onto a soccer ball.  The difference between Mexico and The USA is law enforcement.  In Mexico law enforcement is sold to the highest bidder.  If America ever reaches that point, guard your children because anything can happen to them and you can’t do a thing to stop it.

Obama’s eligibility is, and always has been about law enforcement, because our entire system of law enforcement of already-existing laws has utterly failed.  This has nothing to do with politics.

It doesn’t much matter whether the guy with his face sewn on the soccer ball was a democrat or republican, or whether he favored or opposed healthcare reform or any other political issue.  If there is nobody willing to enforce a law, that law doesn’t exist.  Period.  Why argue about what laws get made and by whom, if the laws we have are enforced like Mexico’s?

That is the issue here.  You can say, as did our Senators a few years ago regarding perjury and obstruction of justice, “Tee-hee.  It’s just about sex.  It doesn’t matter.”  Or in this case you can say, “The Birthers are crazy.  Move on.”

The subject of the investigation is irrelevant; the fact that law enforcement refuses to investigate is the issue.  When lawless people get control of a system and manipulate what gets enforced, you’ve become Chicago.  Or Mexico.  Today the subject not being investigated is the violation of open records laws and government cover-up of known forgery.  Those crimes have allowed a person into office who has committed extortion (threatening anyone who would report on Obama’s eligibility, as well as lawyers for car dealers), and who violated bankruptcy law to steal money from secured investors and give it to unions instead.  For a wider-angle view of Obama’s actions so far (with links) see here, here, and here.  (I gave up on keeping score after 6 months).

You can laugh at extortion & government cover-ups of forgery and perjury if you think it’s just about—tee-hee—Birthers, but I’m telling you right now: If law enforcement doesn’t matter, then welcome to Mexico.  I hope your children have a good time kicking your face when they see it sewn onto a soccer ball, because by refusing to address this you are consigning your children to that kind of world.

Butterdezillion is one of the two women that primarily caused the Hawaii legislature to pass SB 2937, the “Vexatious Requestor” bill—also known as the “Birther law”—that facilitates Hawaii’s conspiracy to cover-up the circumstances of Obama’s birth.

The bill wasn’t enacted becaue these requests were unusual and unreasonable.  It was enacted because the “vexatious requesters” were, by their inquiries, uncovering the shenanigans of members of the Hawaiian government—especially the governor, Lyin’ Linda Lingle, and members of the Department of Health.

Certificate Of Nomination Summary:

Butterdezillion explains why Pelosi and Germond signed a different Certificate of Nomination for Hawaii. 

Based on the outstanding research by blogger jbjd here, here, here, and here, Canada Free Press broke a story showing that Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travers Germond , as representatives of the Democratic National Committee, had signed one Certificate of Nomination for Obama and Biden that was sent to 49 states, and another that was sent only to Hawaii. Only the certificate sent to Hawaii included a statement that Obama and Biden were Constitutionally qualified to serve as President and Vice-President.

That certificate of nomination for Hawaii is the ONLY statement in this nation signed by somebody besides Obama which claims that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President. Contrary to arguments that Congress certified Obama’s eligibility when they certified the results of the electoral vote, neither representatives of Congress nor any Secretary of State has signed a legal document saying that Obama is eligible. This one oath by Pelosi and Germond is the only legal claim that Obama’s eligibility was verified.

And there is a huge story about how this particular certificate came to be, which the House Ethics Committee, every state Attorney General, and the public at large need to know.

First off, they need to know that the Hawaii Department of Health has confirmed that neither Pelosi nor Germond, nor any leader of either the Democratic National Committee or the Hawaii Democratic Party, has ever even asked to see Obama’s birth certificate. So Pelosi and Germond did not sign this document because they saw a certified copy from the HDOH office. And in fact, if they had seen anything from the HDOH office they would have known his Hawaii birth certificate has been amended and has no legal value.

It’s been removed from the web, but shortly after CFP published their original article about the Certificates of Nomination, somebody claiming to represent the DNC stated on a discussion board that the DNC relies on the state parties to verify Constitutional eligibility for candidates, so the oath by Pelosi and Germond would just confirm that the state democratic parties had confirmed the Constitutional eligibility of the candidates.

But this is where the argument totally falls apart, because the Hawaii Democratic Party actually ignored their protocols in 2008 in order to specifically NOT certify Obama’s eligibility as they had done for candidates in the past. IOW, if Pelosi based her decision to certify on whether the state party would confirm eligibility, then she had a duty to NOT certify Obama’s eligibility, because the democratic party of the state supposedly holding Obama’s birth certificate REFUSED TO CERTIFY Obama’s eligibility.

I requested and received from the Hawaii Dept of Elections the certificates of nomination from both the DNC and Hawaii Democratic Party (HDP). I was told their records only go as far back as 2000. In 2000 and 2004 the HDP waited until about a month after the National Convention and then signed and hand-delivered to the Hawaii Elections Office their certification that the candidates 1) were chosen by both the state and national parties and 2) were Constitutionally eligible to be President and VP. That was the HDP’s standard procedure, fulfilling both of Hawaii’s 2 requirements for placement on the ballot.

A summary of the documents:

2000 DNC Cert - standard certificate with typed eligibility language added.

2000 HDP Cert - standard certificate with eligibility language. Signed about a month after the National convention and received at Hawaii Elections Office the same day (hand-delivered).

2004 DNC Cert - standard certificate, no eligibility language.

2004 HDP Cert - standard certificate with eligibility language. Signed about a month after th e National Convention.

2008 DNC Cert - standard certificate with eligibility language.

2008 HDP Cert - standard certificate with eligibility language removed. Signed during the National Convention one day before the DNC Cert was signed. Mailed to the Hawaii Elections Office by DNC Attorney Joe Sandler together with DNC cert and transmittal letter.

In 2008 the HDP signed their certification – with the Constitutional eligibility language removed – at the National Convention, on the day BEFORE Pelosi and Germond signed the DNC certificate. They then apparently gave their HDP certificate to DNC Attorney Joseph Sandler, who then had a special certificate created and signed by Pelosi and Germond just for Hawaii (since the HDP refused to certify eligibility) and then sent both certifications, with his own letter of transmittal, to the Hawaii Elections Office.

So instead of acting independently a month after the National Convention and confirming Constitutional eligibility as in the past, the HDP acted before the Convention to take out the eligibility language from their standard certificate, signed it, and gave it to Joe Sandler before Pelosi had signed anything – signaling to the DNC that they were not going to certify eligibility. They coordinated their efforts with Joe Sandler, who sent both documents together to the HI Elections Office. Apparently Sandler, Pelosi, and Germond all knew that Hawaii’s special certification was necessary because the HDP refused to certify Obama’s eligibility.

The question that begs an answer is: Why did the Hawaii Democratic Party refuse to certify Obama’s eligibility as they had always done to successfully place presidential candidates on the ballots before?

A former DNC official allegedly said the DNC added the eligibility language to be cautious, but that doesn’t explain why the HDP took OUT their certification which had always been sufficient in the past. Being “cautious” would mean either doing it the way it had always worked before, or ADDING to what had always worked before – not trying out an experiment that had never been tried before. In 2000 the DNC added eligibility language to the cert they sent to Hawaii alone, leaving the language off their certificates for other states. They did that in ADDITION to the eligibility certification by the HDP for that election. THAT is an example of caution on the part of the DNC – adding more documentation than needed, just in case. In 2008, though, the HDP certification that had always worked was simply swapped out for a DNC certification that had never been tried before. That isn’t caution; that’s an experiment. In 2008 the HDP deliberately removed the eligibility language from their certificate, even though simply leaving it as it always had been would have made the documentation as secure and complete as possible. Why did they do that?

Sandler had been counsel for the DNC in 1996, 2000 and 2004, and the Hawaii election law hasn’t changed since 1993 so there was no reason to believe the protocols always used weren’t sufficient. And if the DNC had questions they didn’t ask anybody about them; Deputy AG Aaron Schulaner didn’t remember anybody from the HDP or DNC asking about the requirement and said it doesn’t matter which of the 2 bodies certified eligibility.

I called the HDP headquarters on Nov 13, 2009, to ask who had authorized their change in procedures for 2008 and why. The person I spoke with had choice words for the “crazy birthers” but refused to answer questions about how the HDP’s 2008 certificate was created. I specifically wanted to know what legal counsel had approved the changes to the document, when, and why. If there was a reasonable explanation for the change there should be no reason to hide any of that information.

Before finding out I was a “birther” the HDP worker had said that they don’t have a specific attorney but take each issue as it comes up, with members of the Executive Committee sometimes pitching in their legal expertise. Looking online, the only attorney I was able to find who had represented the HDP in lawsuits in the last 15 years (3 different cases, 2 of which have now been scrubbed from the web and all of which are missing from the Hawaii court site) was William H Gilardy, Jr. The attorney who represented Obama’s mother in her divorce from Lolo Soetoro. Chances are good that Gilardy has actually seen Obama’s birth certificate – not the late, amended Hawaii BC which has no legal value and couldn’t be used for any legal purposes, but the one Obama actually used for identification purposes for kindergarten and college entry, application for a social security number, selective service registration, etc. All the stuff Obama has hidden.

Brian Schatz, HDP Chairman who signed the certificate, was Obama’s campaign spokesman in Hawaii who graduated from (and later taught at) Punahou School ,where Obama graduated from high school, and spent a year in Kenya in 1992 (which overlaps Barack and Michelle’s visit to Kenya shortly before their wedding; by that time Obama had been president of Harvard Law Review and had a book deal) . He is now running for lieutenant governor and has been endorsed by Obama’s half-sister, Maya.

The HDP refusing to certify Obama’s eligibility is bad enough as it is, but for the HDP’s usual legal counsel to be the very person who has probably seen Obama’s non-Hawaii birth certificate is explosive.

All this was presumably known by Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travers Germond when they signed that special certification for Hawaii. It was almost certainly known by Joe Sandler when he had the special certificate drawn up, counseled Pelosi and Germond to sign it, and sent the letter of transmittal with both certificates to the HI Elections Office. Calls to Sandler’s law office have been unreturned.

The HDP refused to answer my questions because they ridicule “birthers”. I solemnly suggest that if nobody in law enforcement will compel answers before then, the 2011 House Ethics Committee – hopefully under Rep Darrell Issa – initiate an investigation into potential perjury by Nancy Pelosi, aided by the potential subornation of perjury by DNC Attorney Joseph Sandler.

Dear Mr. Malcolm:

This is the text of an Email sent to Andrew Malcolm of the LA Times by Butterdezillion:

Dear Mr. Malcolm,

In an editorial regarding Luke Scott you mentioned that Obama—for whatever reason—refuses to release his long-form birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH).

The HDOH has already told us enough to know why he refuses to release it.  Everything I say here is documented on my blog.  I and my colleagues have been in contact with the HDOH itself and have the statements from them and other government offices, as well as the laws, rules, legal rulings on Hawaii’s open-records laws, etc to back up everything I am about to tell you.

Through official communications the HDOH has made a statutory admission that Obama’s birth certificate (BC) was amended/altered in 2006.  As the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) form says, “ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE,” and HRS 338-17 says that the probative value of an amended/altered and/or late BC can only be determined when it is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body.

In other words, Hawaii has no legally valid BC for Obama.  Look at the announcements by Fukino and Okubo and you will see that they are very careful to never say that what they have is legally valid.  Fukino’s phrase was “on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

It also means that the State of Hawaii cannot legally say where Obama was born.  Fukino’s statement was that she had seen the VITAL RECORDS WHICH VERIFY that Obama was born in Hawaii.  “Verify” means that they swear.  Fukino has never, herself, said that Obama was born in Hawaii because the law doesn’t allow her to say that since the BC is amended.  What she says is that the vital records swear he was born in Hawaii.  Whch is legally irrelevant if those vital records are not legally valid.

The HDOH is required to release a non-certified COLB for any person to anybody who asks for it.  And once an announcement has been made regarding records ALL the records that were used for making that announcement are also required to be disclosed to anybody who asks to see them.  Fukino referenced content on Obama’s actual vital records; therefore all those records are supposed to be disclosed upon request, according to Hawaii law.

She refuses to follow either of those rules/laws.  And she illegally hid the Administrative Rules until a year after the election.  And the HDOH knows that what Obama posted online (which his lawyer requested Judge David Carter to take judicial note of in a legal proceeding) is a forgery.  They have indirectly confirmed that to the public in 3 different ways:

1)   by admitting that Obama’s genuine BC is amended, since amendments must be noted on a COLB but Obama’s amendment wasn’t noted on the FactCheck.org COLB;

2)  by confirming that the BC# was given by the HDOH on the “date filed” for all Oahu BC’s (The FactCheck.org BC# is later than the Nordyke twins’ BC#’s even though the “date filed” was 3 days earlier.  The HDOH statement eliminates previous attempts to explain the discrepancy); and

3)  by just a few days ago disclosing an image of their official seal stamped onto a piece of paper (the seal does not match the one on the FactCheck.org COLB).

Janice Okubo told me in an official communication that Hawaii law forbids her to disclose to anyone—even law enforcement—what she knows to be a forgery.  In truth, however, failing to disclose a known forgery is the federal crime of misprision of felony.  And deceiving in matters of federal jurisdiction (such as not correcting the reports saying that you have confirmed that FactCheck.org is genuine when you actually know it to be a forgery) violates the Federal General False Statement Act.

So crimes have been, and continue to be, committed by government personnel in order to hide the fact that Hawaii does not have a valid BC for Obama.

That is the reason this issue won’t go away.  This isn’t about Obama.  It’s about the rule of law.  And there are similar crimes being committed by other government agencies who are supposed to have records for Obama as well.  The Selective Service Administration actually has a forged Obama’s draft registration, as seen by the ‘08 automatic date stamp on it (rather than ‘80).  The Passport Office has submitted to a judge what is almost certainly a forged Department of State “cable” claiming that retention schedules were changed and passport applications destroyed without leaving any paper trail as required by law.  Etc.

This is a huge story that the general public is aware of but the media will not report the facts.  Just like the WikiLeaks stories, when this story finally comes out it will be no big surprise to the people, who knew all along the truth of everything that was leaked and that the government was lying to us about it all.  We just didn’t have access to the proof.

The HDOH has already given us the evidence of Obama’s documentation problem indirectly.  When the direct evidence comes out the question we all have will be brought to the surface: How was this able to happen in America?  At that point it will be more than egg on the faces of those who perpetrated and abetted this fraud on the American public and Constitution.  At that point there will be legal ramifications and those who have laughingly perpetrated this will be sitting in jail.

As the election revealed, Americans are not amused by the “fundamental change” being crammed down our throats, even if the media and politicians laughingly call us “Birthers” while they dismiss our demands for the rule of law.

I apologize for the length of this, but I’ve only scratched the surface of this story here.  I do know how this was able to happen in America, and it involves much, much more treachery than you probably care to hear about.  If/when America is out of the danger zone the whole story can come out.

For now, everything I’ve given you is straight from the horse’s mouth.  According to the HDOH itself they do not have a legally valid BC for Obama and they know the FactCheck.org COLB is a forgery, but went along with a pretense of having a normal, valid BC for Obama.  If it’s a conspiracy, it is a documented conspiracy.

If you have any questions or comments, or are interested in learning more, don’t hesitate to e-mail or call.

Hawaii’s Cover Up Continues:

Butterdezillion says that according to a recent report and an interview reported by Michael Isikoff, the Hawaii government is now claiming that not even Barack Obama himself could make a copy of his long-form birth certificate, much less get a certified copy.  What I will document here is that Hawaii law REQUIRES ALL the records the Hawaii Department of Health (HDoH) has for a person to be available for inspection and copying, and that certified copies of the entire birth certificate—including even the confidential medical portion—are required to be issued when the registrant or anybody named on the certificate specifically requests it.

For the last 2+ years the HDoH has been claiming they won’t issue certified copies of long-form birth certificates, but there is a video clip and there are certified copies of long-forms issued during that time proving that what they said publicly and what everybody in Hawaii knew was really happening were two different things.  They HAVE been issuing certified long-form birth certificates.

Enter Donald Trump, who very publicly wonders why Obama won’t just disclose his long-form.  Not only has Obama refused to disclose it, but he has spent his own, taxpayers’, and concerned citizens’ money in court cases where he has argued he shouldn’t have to disclose his long-form because it would be “embarrassing” to him.  He allowed a decorated military surgeon and veteran, Lt Col Terry Lakin, to go to jail and lose at least $3 million in savings, career wages, and retirement benefits rather than simply disclose his long-form.

Now, after 2 years of ridiculing “Birthers” and sending Lt. Col. Lakin to jail, the HDoH Director who replaced Neal Palafox (after Abercrombie, Janice Okubo, and the Attorney General’s Office did a hit-job to cover that Abercrombie asked him to resign) has decided to change the policies so they can say that Obama CAN’T disclose his long-form because he can’t even GET a copy of his long-form.

The problem for them is two-fold:

1)   This doesn’t explain why Obama wouldn’t disclose the documents when the HDoH was still issuing certified copies of long-forms, or why he won’t disclose it in COURT, where a subpoena or judge’s order overrides the routine policies of the HDoH Director.

2) The policies they are implementing right now are illegal, and actually reveal that they are so desperate to cover for Obama that they will even break laws to give him an excuse he can use to the Average Joe who reads articles like Isikoff’s.  This is the HDoH Director and the Hawaii Attorney General’s office, breaking the laws to cover for Obama in full view of everyone.

In summary: In a desperate, vain attempt to put the “Why doesn’t Obama just disclose his long form?” horse back in the stall after 2+ years of that horse galloping all over the country, the Hawaii government has decided within the past few weeks (since Trump raised the visibility of the issue) to openly break their vital records and open records laws—denying everybody else their lawful right to access their own records and get certified long-forms as required for a variety of legal purposes, all to cover for Obama’s refusal to simply show the long-form that supposedly has the same information as what he has already disclosed publicly.

Decide for yourself.  Click here to see the Hawaiian laws and rules these Democrat bureaucrats are violating to cover up this  conspiracy (begins on page 2).

On June 6, 2009, according to a now-scrubbed article in the Hawaii Star-Bulletin, the State of Hawaii, Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.  The department only issues the “Certifications of Live Birth”, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said, and, “it’s only available in electronic form.”

That’s a lie.  Here’s a long-form birth certificate issued on September 28, 2010.  And here’s one issued in March, 2011.

Back in June, 2009, The Obama File discovered an item that demonstrates that Hawaii was actively participating in the conspiracy to support Obama’s usurpation of the Office of the President of the United States.  Since 1920, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands only accepted a certified copy of the long-form “Certificate of Birth” to be accepted for eligibility for some Hawaiian state government programs.  When questions about Obama’s eligibility surfaced, Hawaii changed the rules, and scrubbed their website sometime between June 8, 2009 and June 18, 2009 in support the Obama mythology—here is the story and indisputable evidence.

In January, 2010, the HDoH launched a defense against Obama birth queries.  The Department of Health has posted a “vital records” Web page—“obama.html”—that says they aren’t answering any more questions about Barack Obama, the mysterious circumstances surrounding his birth, and/or what documentation is in their possession.

In May, 2010 the Hawaii legislature passed the “Vexatious Requester” law (SB2937/CD1), that amends the state law to allow for a state agency to refuse the release of government records under certain circumstances—like covering up for Obama.

Hawaii is run by Democrats.  They filed fraudulent nomination papers to get Obama on the ballot, and have knowingly conspired to cover up their misdeeds ever since.  THis is the greatest fraud in American history.

They have to.  They have no choice.  Can you spell “Leavenworth?”

Source:

http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/Butterdezillion.htm

Note:  Americans are waking up!

Americans across the country are starting to wake up to the fact that President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of President, as substantiated by his newly released long-form Certificate of Live Birth, which shows that his father was in fact born in Kenya in 1936. At the time, Kenya was a British colony. Therefore Obama Senior was a British subject by birth (due to the fact that he was born within British-controlled territory). When President Obama was born in 1961, he acquired British nationality by descent, because his father was a British subject by birth. When Kenya gained its independence from Great Britain in 1963, President Obama became a citizen of the newly-formed nation.

Sources:

http://www.wnd.com/2011/12/375625/#f2cd597738

http://constitutionalreset.ning.com/video/atty-dr-herb-titus-obama-not-a-natural-born-citizen

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/natural-born-citizenship-and-history-timeline

Additionally, Several new organizations, to include active websites, were established to educate and mobilize the American public on the significance of “natural born Citizen” and the 2012 Election, along with an initiative to assist ordinary registered voting citizens wishing to challenge President Obama’s constitutional eligibility and name placement on their state’s 2012 primary presidential ballot. The team that established and maintains this website is currently compiling election laws from all 50 states and in the near future will be providing forms, along with sample letters that registered voters can use to file a complaint. Also included is pertinent information regarding those lawsuits and/or complaints that have been filed by state, to include my own.

Sources:

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/superpac-founder-explains-mission-of-natural-born-citizen-pac

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/obama-ballot-challenge-founder-interviewed-by-post-email

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/retired-marine-captain-files-obama-ballot-challenge-in-new-mexico

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/request-that-president-obama-be-removed-from-the-new-mexico-2012-presidential-primary-election-ballot

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/complaint-to-remove-barack-obama-from-2012-nm-ballot

Word of Caution:  Although its great that many Americans are now beginning to wake up and are actively taking some action to have President Obama taken off the 2012 Presidential Election Ballots we need to keep in mind that those individuals with unlimited sources and/or resources, to include the deep pockets of anti-American George Soros, our own local and national elected officials and others, with the help of the MSM, who have spent years planning and successively perpetrating what I now believe could be the greatest fraud in American history are not going to go down without a fight and thus, as a result, I also believe that now more than ever we need to stick together as Americans (it's no longer Democrat or Republican) at this crucial time when our country and/or Republic needs us more than ever to see this thru. A Republic for which so many Americans have and continue to give their all to uphold and defend.

So the question is: Are you going to be part of the problem by continuing to keep your head in the sand hoping this issue goes away by itself or are you going to be part of the solution by stepping up to the plate and doing what ever it takes to uphold and defend our Republic before its too late?-You Decide.

Note:  My following blog post contains numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

The Greatest Fraud Perpetrated in American History!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/the-greatest-fraud-perpetrated-in-american-history/

Could the President’s newly released COLB be a forgery?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/could-the-president’s-newly-released-colb-be-a-forgery/

Was there a conspiracy to put Obama in the White House?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/was-there-a-conspiracy-to-put-obama-in-the-white-house-2/

Is it important to understand the Marxist assault on the foundations of our system?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/is-it-important-to-understand-the-marxist-assault-on-the-foundations-of-our-system/

Note:  If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial.  Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake

AS WELL AS ALL THE DEMOCRATS,  BUT LETS VOTE REPUBLICAN AND TRY TO START ON A NEW PATH.

BUT THERE ARE 3 OR 4 COUNTRY THAT DO NOT LIKE US,  CUBA IS ON OF THEM,  ONLY 90 MILES AWAY.

What’s disturbing about this picture?

Posted on TimesUnion.com-By BOB GARDINIER, Staff writer-On December 21, 2011:

“TROY — The City Council president, a councilman and two others were arrested Tuesday and charged with felonies for allegedly forging absentee ballots in the 2009 primary to benefit Democratic candidates.

Those arrested early Tuesday included City Council President Clement Campana, Councilman John Brown and political operatives Anthony Renna and Anthony DeFiglio.

So far seven elected or appointed officials and operatives have been charged in the two-year probe into allegations that scores of absentee ballots were forged to benefit Democratic candidates in the 2009 Working Families Party primary. Most voters targeted lived in Troy Housing Authority apartments and rarely, if ever, voted. They were allegedly targeted because they were unfamiliar with the process.

Campana appeared with his attorney, E. Stewart Jones, and was arraigned on an indictment charging him with first-degree falsifying business records and four counts of illegal voting, all felonies; and a count of conspiracy to promote or prevent election, a misdemeanor.

He could face up to seven years on the charges.

Campana appeared before visiting Supreme Court Justice George J. Pulver Jr. and pleaded not guilty and was released on his own recognizance pending further court action. Campana, who refused comment, did not seek re-election so he will be council president only until the end of the year.

“Clem has been waiting a long time for his day in court and will be found not guilty,” Jones said following the court session.

Brown, a Democratic councilman, also appeared before Pulver and decided to forgo indictment and plead guilty to a felony count of second-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument lodged against him by Special Prosecutor Trey Smith.

“I knowingly submitted a forged ballot before the election was final,” Brown told Pulver when ask to explain what he did.

Brown will be sentenced to six months in jail and five years of probation.

Brown did not seek re-election and will be off the council by year’s end.

Also entering pleas Tuesday were Democratic operatives Anthony Renna and Anthony DeFiglio.

Renna pleaded guilty to second-degree forgery and will be sentenced to community service.

“I forged a ballot on Sept. 14, 2009 in the name of voter Peter Testa,” Renna admitted to Pulver.

DeFiglio, a former Troy Housing Authority clerk, pleaded guilty to first-degree falsifying business records.

“I solicited an absentee ballot vote from Elizabeth Montalvo and had her leave some fields blank,” DeFiglio told Pulver.

“You purposely left fields blank so you could falsify the vote?” Smith asked DeFiglio.

“Yes, that’s right,” DeFiglio replied.

DeFiglio’s sentence is yet to be determined but Pulver told him it would not involve jail or prison time.

All were released on their own recognizance and none of the men commented after the court session. Sentencing dates have not been set.

Brown’s brother Dan Brown, a political operative, was also named as a target early on in the investigation and recently testified before the grand jury. Brown’s attorney, Phil Steck, has said his client received immunity from prosecution for his testimony.

Renna, a City Council aide and former city marshal, appeared Dec. 6 before the grand jury without counsel. Renna is a fixture in city Democratic campaign circles.

John Brown spent most of the day Oct. 27 in front of the special grand jury. Campana previously said he refused to testify before the grand jury.

DeFiglio, who in a statement to investigators said that absentee ballot rigging in the city was a “normal political tactic,” testified before the first grand jury on Dec. 8, 2010.

Last year, the first grand jury indicted Councilman Michael LoPorto and Democratic County Elections Commissioner Edward McDonough on numerous felony forgery charges. They face trial next month.

Smith also entered a decision Tuesday dropping 13 of the 42 counts against LoPorto because a handwriting expert concluded that former city clerk William McInerney forged the ballots and not LoPorto.

In August, McInerney pleaded guilty to a charge that he signed a voter’s signature to an absentee primary ballot in 2009. His sentencing is pending.

Councilmen Kevin McGrath and Gary Galuski have testified before the grand juries, as have several voters and board of elections workers.

McGrath cooperated and was granted immunity, but Smith said Tuesday that grand jurors failed to hear enough evidence to charge Galuski.

“I would like the public to know that if there is anyone out there who can provide information on Mr. Galuski forging any ballots to call State Police Investigator John Ogden at 279-4427,” Smith said.”

• Reach Bob Gardinier at 454-5696 or bgardinier@timesunion.com.

Source:

http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Vote-probe-arrests-include-councilmen-2414466.php#ixzz1iykckADc

Note: The following articles and/or blog posts and videos relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

I. Video: NH poll workers shown handing out ballots in dead peoples’ names!–Posted on The Daily Caller-By Alex Pappas, The Daily Caller-Updated on January 12, 2012:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/11/video-nh-poll-workers-shown-handing-out-ballots-in-dead-peoples-names/#ixzz1jFhacFHI

II. Video: South Carolina Seeks Voter Fraud Probe, Holder Says No!-Posted on ExposeObama.com-On January 12, 2012:

http://www.exposeobama.com/2012/01/12/video-south-carolina-seeks-voter-fraud-probe-holder-says-no/

III. Voter ID Prevents Election Fraud!-Posted on The Heritage Foundation-By Mike Brownfield-On January 4, 2012:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/04/morning-bell-voter-id-prevents-election-fraud/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

IV. Holder’s war on voter-ID laws is racially motivated!-Posted on The Daily Caller-By Ken Blackwell & Ken Klukowski-On December 30, 2011:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/30/holders-war-on-voter-id-laws-is-racially-motivated/#ixzz1iVpZYREb

V. ACORN leaders ramp up White House visitations: ‘Strategy developing to tilt elections to Democrats’-Posted on WND.com-On December 24, 2011:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=379041

VI. Video: Eric Holder Refuses to Investigate Obama Voter Fraud!-Posted on ExposeObama.com-By Ben Johnson, The White House Watch-On December 20, 2011:

http://www.exposeobama.com/2011/12/20/video-eric-holder-refuses-to-investigate-obama-voter-fraud/

VII. Not a Race Card!-Posted on National Review Online-By Hans A. von Spakovsky-On August 29, 2011:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/275069/not-race-card-hans-von-spakovsky?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&page=1

VIII. Without Proof: The Unpersuasive Case Against Voter Identification!-Posed on The Heritage Foundation-By Hans von Spakovsky and Alex Ingram-On August 24, 2011:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/08/without-proof-the-unpersuasive-case-against-voter-identification?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email

IX. Video: Ex-CIA Contractor Says IT'S OVER! - There Will Be No 45th President!!-Posted on YouTube.com-By ppsimmons-On July 19, 2011:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGpiA7tL1PU

X. Poll: Americans, 2-1, Fear Obama’s Reelection!-Posted on USNews.com-By Paul Bedard-On January 9, 2012:

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/01/09/poll-americans-2-1-fear-obamas-reelection

Note: I know that most of you have already seen the following information before, but bare with me for taking the liberty of sharing it with you again to make sure that we are all on the same page when it comes to knowing what we face in our next Presidential election:

The following websites reveal that George Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI) — has dispensed more than $5 billion to a multitude of organizations whose objectives are consistent with those of Soros and one of those organizations is Project Vote, which is the voter-mobilization arm of the notoriously corrupt ACORN, whose voter-registration drives and get-out-the-vote initiatives have been marred by massive levels of fraud and corruption, along President Obama’s ties to this voter fraud machine-You Decide:

Guide to the George Soros Network:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=589

Project Vote:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6966

Obama’s ties with voter fraud!-Posted on OneNewsNow.com-By Russ Jones, OneNewsNow-On December 1, 2011:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=1487470

The following websites and article and/or blog post reveal George Soros’s Secretary State Project (SOSP) and an education fund run by progressive labor leaders tasked with naturalizing new citizens and register new voters by using the 2010 Census as a redistributive mechanism, along with how he is using his money to help tip the elections to Democrats (Progressives) in all 50 states-You Decide:

George Soros’s Secretary Of State Project (SOSP)!-Posted on DiscoverTheNetworks.org:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7487

Mi Familia Vota Education Fund (MFVEF)!-Posted on DiscoverTheNetworks.org:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7538

George Soros’ Money Could Tip Elections in All 50 States!-Posted on Floyd Reports-By Michael Oberndorf-On July 1, 2011:

http://floydreports.com/george-soros-money-could-tip-elections-in-all-50-states/

The following website and article and/or blog post reveal that George Soros funds Leftist foundations, litigators and organizations that dominate Election Laws and crusaders that enable massive voter fraud while the DOJ turns a blind eye-You Decide:

George Soros Funds Leftist Foundations, Litigators and OrganizationsThatDominate Field of Election Laws!-Posted on DiscoverTheNetworks.org:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1431

The Left Owns the Election Law Industry!-Posted on FrontPage Magazine-By J. Christian Adams-On August 12, 2011:

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/12/the-left-owns-the-election-law-industry/?utm_source=FrontPage+Magazine&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=f9c5910590-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_content=Yahoo%21+Mail

I, like many of you, have little or no faith in polls due to our bad experiences during the final days of the 2008 Presidential Election, as substantiated by this NewsMax article that revealed that almost every major pollster, to include the main stream media, had egg on their faces after the election because most of them predicted a double-digit win for then Senator Obama, but only two pollsters were accurate and critics say that the inflated numbers helped Senator Obama by reducing enthusiasm and support for Senator McCain.  Also included are other articles and/or blog posts that revealed that the same thing occurred during the 2010 mid-term elections-You Decide:

2008 Presidential Election Polls:

Pollsters Inflated Senator Obama’s Lead?

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/polls_inflated_obama_lead/2008/11/05/147971.html?s=al&promo_code=7059-1

2010 Mid-Term Election Polls:

Don’t Believe the State-Run Polls!-Posted by Rush Limbaugh-On October 22, 2010:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102210/content/01125108.guest.html

About That New Poll in Alaska . . .-Posted on National Review-By Jim Geraghty-On October 28, 2010:

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/251296/about-new-poll-alaska

Note: If the above information does not make you question our electoral system, what follows are videos that expose the hacking of voting machines across our country as a means of tilting the elections, which has been ongoing for some time now-You Decide:

Video: Proof of voter fraud in the USA - from the horse's mouth!-Posted on YouTube.com-By TheTruthPusher-On April 18, 2010:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_Zz5LW4WmE

Video: Vote Fraud - Diebold Whistleblower Speaks Out!-Posted on YouTube.com-By TheRealNews-On June 9, 2010:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_rMpQKqZhM&feature=related

VOTE FRAUD: WHAT THEY AREN'T TELLING YOU!-Posted on NewsWithViews.com-By Devvy Kidd-On October 22, 2004:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd72.htm

Video: Vote Fraud - What They Aren't Telling You (Part 2 of 3)-Posted on YouTube.com-By ConstitutionStudies-On May 20, 2009:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=ZHfjwiRgKqA

Video: Vote Fraud - What They Aren't Telling You (Part 3 of 3)-Posted on YouTube.com-By Posted on YouTube.com-By ConstitutionStudies-On May 20, 2009:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWOwObyTnfo

Video: Vote Fraud Smoking Gun Banned From CNN, FOX & NBC!-Posted on YouTube.com-By YouTubReptilian-On June 10, 2008:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdzlnwWsAAU&feature=related

Video: Diebold Electronic Vote Fraud Confirmed!-Posted on YouTube.com-By DrRonPaul4President-On February 1, 2008:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=u4FPuLNjvAc&NR=1

Continue Reading More On This Disturbing Issue:

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/massive-voter-fraud-again/

Question:  After taking the time to read and/or view the above articles and/or blog posts and videos, how safe and secure do you feel about our overall electoral system or, even more important, the fate of our country?

Before you attempt to answer this question, please take the time to read the following article and/or blog post that was published over the Christmas holiday:

Faith in America!

Posted on The Heritage Foundation-By Matt Spalding-On December 26, 2011:

“The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time,” Thomas Jefferson once wrote. “The hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.” Among the American Founders, there was a profound sense that faith and freedom were deeply intertwined.

Nowadays, we are often told that religion is divisive and ought to kept away from politics for the sake of liberty. Religion somehow is opposed to liberty, and so liberty requires a diminution of religion in the public square.

The view long consistent with our historical practice, though, is that of America’s Founders, who advanced religious liberty so as to strengthen religious faith and its influence on American self-government. All had a natural right to worship God as they chose, according to the dictates of their consciences. At the same time, the Founders upheld religion and morality–to paraphrase Washington’s Farewell Address–as indispensable supports of good habits, the firmest props of the duties of citizens, and the great pillars of human happiness.

Religious liberty neither settles nor dismisses the claims of reason and revelation to teach the most important things for human beings to know. But it does create a practical solution–after thousands of years of failed attempts–at the level of politics and political morality. It established a form of government that is sanctioned by human nature and open to moral reasoning, the legitimacy of which does not depend on the truth of any particular religious denomination.

This solution is possible because the American Founders recognized general moral precepts that are understandable by human reason and no less agreeable to faith in the form of a general revelation of creation. This morality common to both natural reason and divine revelation, usually termed natural law, is the philosophical ground of the American Founding.

We can see this agreement of reason and revelation in the Declaration of Independence. The liberties recognized in it are deduced from a higher law to which all human laws are answerable and by which they are limited. This higher law can be understood by man’s practical reason–the truths of the Declaration are held to be “self-evident”–but also by the revealed word of God. There are four references to God in the document: to “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”; to all men being “created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”; to “the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions”; and to “the protection of divine Providence.” The first term suggests a deity that is knowable by human reason, but the others–God as creator, as judge, and as providence–are more biblical, and add (and were assuredly intended to add) a theological context to the document.

From the perspective of religious faith, the basic principles of the Founding, at the level of political principles, were understood to be in essential agreement with the core precepts of the Bible. That this is the case can be seen throughout the many church sermons published from the founding era.  While we have never been and should not try to become a nation defined by a particular or official religious denomination, we must never forget that, as the Supreme Court said in 1952 (and reiterated in 1963, and again in 1984), “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”

The health and strength of liberty depend on the principles, standards, and morals shared by nearly all religions.  What the “separation of church and state” does is liberate America’s religions–in respect to their moral forms and teachings–to exercise unprecedented influence over private and public opinion by shaping citizens’ mores, cultivating their virtues, and in general, providing a pure and independent source of moral reasoning and authority. This is what Alexis de Tocqueville meant when he observed that even though religion “never mixes directly in the government of society,” it nevertheless determines the “habits of the heart” and is “the first of their political institutions.”

As we gather with our families to celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah, let us remember that our greatest blessing as Americans is the freedom to pursue our eternal duties to God and of religion to pursue freely its divine mission among men on earth.

As George Washington wrote to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport in 1790, so all of us at The Heritage Foundation proclaim to our friends and fellow citizens: “May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness, upon our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in His own due time and way everlastingly happy.”

• Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., is Vice President of American Studies and Director, B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics

Source:

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/26/morning-bell-faith-in-america/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

Continue Reading:

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/05/09/faith-of-our-forefathers/

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake

What’s wrong with this picture?

Posted on The Heritage Foundation-By Lachlan Markay-On January 10, 2012:

“Last week, President Barack Obama took the latest step on his road toward an arrogant, new authoritarianism with four illegal appointments that entirely trampled on the Constitution’s requirements. More troubling still, the President chose to shred the Constitution all in the name of serving his Big Labor agenda while killing jobs in the process.

The President’s actions once again gave voice to his animating view of governing: doing so is much easier when one isn’t constrained by the Constitution and its checks and balances. “We can’t wait,” the President exclaimed after unilaterally appointing Richard Cordray as director of the newly inaugurated Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). He also appointed three officials to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), two of whom had been nominated less than a month before.

The policy implications of the President’s appointments? The CFPB will now have unmitigated authority to issue regulation upon regulation, contributing to the already-crippling red tape that is strangling business in America. And the NLRB will have the power to advance the President’s agenda to bolster unions across the country at the expense of job growth in a smarting economy.

For what, exactly, can’t the President wait? Quite simply, constitutional republicanism — the system of checks and balances integral to American government and political freedom. He grew impatient with the delays that inevitably accompany any legislative action an acted outside the Constitution’s mandated process. But the American people should ask, “Is such action really preferable to a deliberative, if slower-moving, constitutional republic?”

The President’s appointments last week, troubling as they are, are but the next steps on the road to a despotic form of governance that has come to characterize his Administration — and all of liberalism in America today — what authors Fred Siegel and Joel Kotkin termed in City Journal this week Obama’s “New Authoritarianism.” Frustrated by the unwillingness of the people’s representatives to enact his agenda wholesale, Obama has, from early in his Administration, sought to enact a series of proposals through administrative fiat, not the legislative process:

• The Democrat-controlled Senate rejected his cap-and-trade plan, so Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency classified carbon dioxide, the compound that sustains vegetative life, as a pollutant so that it could regulate it under the Clean Air Act.
• After Congress defeated his stealth-amnesty immigration proposal, the DREAM Act, the Department of Homeland Security instructed Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to “adopt enforcement parameters that bring about the same ends as the DREAM Act,” as Heritage’s Mike Brownfield explained.
• When the woefully misnamed Employee Free Choice Act–explicitly designed to bolster labor unions’ dwindling membership rolls–was defeated by Congress, the NLRB announced a rule that would implement “snap elections” for union representation, limiting employers’ abilities to make their case to workers and virtually guaranteeing a higher rate of unionization at the expense of workplace democracy.
• After an innovation-killing Internet regulation proposal failed to make it through Congress, the Federal Communications Commission announced — on Christmas Eve, no less — that it would regulate the Web anyway, despite even a federal court’s ruling that it had no authority to do so.
• In its push for national education standards, the Education Department decided to tie waivers for the No Child Left Behind law to requirements that states adopt those standards, shutting Congress out of the effort.
• Rather than push Congress to repeal federal laws against marijuana use, the Department of Justice (DOJ) simply decided it would no longer enforce those laws.
• DOJ made a similar move with respect to the Defense of Marriage Act: rather than seeking legislative recourse, DOJ announced it would stop enforcing the law.

While these efforts are all aimed at circumventing the legislative process, none was so brazen as his four illegal appointments. Last week, Obama went one step further: He violated not just the spirit of the Constitution, which vests in Congress the power to make laws, but the letter of the law as well.

The move is “a breathtaking violation of the separation of powers,” explain former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese and Heritage colleague Todd Gaziano, a former attorney in DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, in a Washington Post column. “[N]ever before has a president purported to make a ‘recess’ appointment when the Senate is demonstrably not in recess,” they note. “That is a constitutional abuse of a high order.”

Dr. Matthew Spalding, vice president of American Studies and director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics at The Heritage Foundation, explains that this “new despotism” — a government where regulations and unilateral actions replace republican governance — runs entirely counter to the Founders’ vision of America:

“The greatest political revolution since the American Founding has been the shift of power away from the institutions of constitutional government to an oligarchy of unelected experts. They rule over virtually every aspect of our daily lives, ostensibly in the name of the American people but in actuality by the claimed authority of science, policy expertise, and administrative efficiency.

If this regime becomes the undisputed norm — accepted not only among the intellectual and political elites, but also by the American people, as the defining characteristic of the modern state — it could well mark the end of our great experiment in self-government.”

President Obama’s actions are exactly the kind that the Founders feared and sought to guard against. His illegal appointments usurp power from the American people’s duly elected representatives, and the regulations they will promulgate will, undoubtedly, contribute to the unabated growth of the undemocratic administrative state.

Now that the President has crossed the threshold of constitutionality, there really is no telling where he may stop. There is a clear trend here, however, and it leads further and further from the constitutional order. With these illegal appointments, the President has taken to new heights his disdain for the separation of powers. Whether it will stop here depends on Congress — Will lawmakers of both parties reassert the legislature’s constitutional authority and take a stand against Obama’s arrogant new authoritarianism?

Source:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/10/morning-bell-obamas-arrogant-authoritarianism/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

Note: The following articles and/or blog posts and videos relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

I. Obama to Congress: I’ll decide what’s constitutional!

What’s disturbing about this picture?

Posted on The Daily Caller-By Chris Cox-Updated on January 6, 2012:

“Election season is here, and you might think President Obama would be going out of his way to show voters that he can be trusted with the powers of the presidency. But you would be wrong. Just a few days before Christmas, Obama served notice to all Americans that he will continue to abuse executive privilege by seeking new ways to vilify gun owners and further his anti-gun agenda.

Congress placed a provision in the $1 trillion omnibus spending bill for 2012 designed to bar the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from using any of its $30.7 billion taxpayer funds to “advocate or promote gun control.” However, upon signing the bill into law, President Obama issued a caveat of his own:

I have advised Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress’s consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient.

In other words: “Congress may pass laws, but I decide which of its laws are constitutional and which I can simply choose to ignore.”

Of course, the Constitution doesn’t actually give the president this power, but Obama won’t allow a little thing like the U.S. Constitution get in his way. And in the present case, Congress is right to try to prevent him from using a federal health agency, not to mention our tax dollars, as a weapon in his ongoing war against the Second Amendment. As The Washington Times reports, NIH has wasted over $5 million since 2002 producing deceptive studies aimed at furthering gun control — including one study that tried “to prove that a home without firearms was essential to a child’s safety and well-being.”

Even more importantly, Congress knows that there is no scheme too radical, or dangerous, for the Obama administration when it comes to using federal agencies to push its anti-gun agenda.

Last month, email exchanges surfaced between employees at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) that show the administration helped illegally transfer guns to violent Mexican drug cartels in order to manufacture a case for gun registration. Now gun dealers in four Southwest border states must abide by a new gun registration requirement, courtesy of BATFE, that forces them to register the sales of any law-abiding American who purchases more than one semi-automatic rifle within five business days.

Congress never passed any law like this. Rather, Obama’s BATFE orchestrated the deadly “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal to give cause for its unconstitutional gun-control edict. Given this, how hard is it to envision the Obama administration issuing a phony “health” study that maligns gun owners?

Obama may not have a majority in Congress, or the will of the people, behind his anti-gun agenda. But that isn’t stopping his administration from finding deceitful ways to evade Congress and build public support for gun bans, gun registration and other regulations designed to weaken and destroy our Second Amendment rights.”

• Chris W. Cox is the executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) and serves as the organization’s chief lobbyist.

Source:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/05/obama-to-congress-ill-decide-whats-constitutional/#ixzz1inCeZ7yV

II. Allen West: GOP Must Stop Obama’s ‘Imperial Presidency!’-Posted on NewsMax.com-By By Jim Meyers and Kathleen Walter-On January 10, 2012:

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/West-obama-imperial-presidency/2012/01/10/id/423662

III. Former AG Meese: Obama’s ‘Recess’ Appointments Are a ‘Constitutional Abuse of a High Order’!-Posted on Big Government-By Dr. Susan Berry-On January 7, 2012:

http://biggovernment.com/sberry/2012/01/07/former-ag-meese-obamas-recess-appointments-are-a-constitutional-abuse-of-a-high-order/

IV. Video: Reagan’s Attorney General on Impeaching Obama,“Close to a Constitutional Crisis!”-Posted on ExposeObama.com-By Ben Johnson, The White House Watch-On January 7, 2012:

http://www.exposeobama.com/2012/01/07/video-reagans-attorney-general-on-impeaching-obama-close-to-a-constitutional-crisis/

V. Video: Legal Analyst, Obama’s Violating the Constitution!-Posted on ExposeObama.com-On January 7, 2012:

http://www.exposeobama.com/2012/01/07/video-legal-analyst-obamas-violating-the-constitution/

VI. Video: Impeachment. If You Don’t Get it, Demand It!-Posted on ExposeObama.com-By Ben Johnson, The White House Watch-On January 7, 2012:

http://www.exposeobama.com/2012/01/07/video-impeachment-if-you-dont-get-it-demand-it/

VII. Obama Starts Constitutional Crisis: Installs New Radical Czars!-Posted on Judicial Watch Weekly Update-By Tom Fitton, President-On January 6, 2012:

http://newstracking.judicialwatch.org/l/a/74i/xi/bapi/lq/rjqi/trouble.htm#article1

VIII. Obama’s NLRB ‘Recess’ Appointees Circumvent Background Checks!-Posted on National Review Online-ByBREAKING NEWS-On January 6, 2012:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamas-nlrb-recess-appointees-circumvent-background-checks/?utm_source=Western+Journalism&utm_campaign=3069dc35a8-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email

IX. The Czar-Maker Strikes Again: ‘Richard Cordray and Obama’s continuing contempt for the Constitution!’-Posted on National Review Online-By Michelle Malkin-On January 6, 2012:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287333/czar-maker-strikes-again-michelle-malkin

X. Will Republicans Finally Impeach Over “Uncertain” Recess Appointment?-Posted on Western Journalism-By BEN JOHNSON-On January 6, 2012:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/will-republicans-finally-impeach-over-uncertain-recess-appointment-2/?utm_source=Western+Journalism&utm_campaign=3069dc35a8-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email

XI. Obama’s recess appointments are unconstitutional!-Posted on The Washington Post-By Edwin Meese III and Todd Gaziano-On  January 5, 2012:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-are-unconstitutional/2012/01/05/gIQAnWRfdP_story.html?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email

Note:  The following articles and/or blog posts and videos reveal how our American Constitution currently faces a 'progressive' threat, along with a video that gives us some background regarding our Contstitution and our Republic-You Decide:

The Elite Are Not Even Trying To Hide How Much They Hate The U.S. Constitution Anymore!-Posted on InfoWars.com-By The American Dream-On July 5, 2011:

http://www.infowars.com/the-elite-are-not-even-trying-to-hide-how-much-they-hate-the-u-s-constitution-anymore/

American Constitution faces 'progressive' threat!-Posted on WND.com-By Aaron Klein-On July 3, 2011:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=316621

Obama Versus the Constitution!-Posted on American Thinker-By James Lewis-On April 25, 2011:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/obama_versus_the_constitution.html

George Soros assault on U.S. Constitution: ‘White House officials involved in rewriting nation’s founding document’!-Posted on WND.com-By Aaron Klein-On March 27, 2011:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=280277

Video: A Republic, If You Can Keep It - The American Form of Government!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGL8CiUtXF0

Note:  My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

Progressive group maps out President Obama’s strategy for next 2 years!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/progressive-group-maps-out-president-obama’s-strategy-for-next-2-years/

The Midterm Elections and the Communist Manifesto!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/the-midterm-elections-and-the-communist-manifesto/

Progressives and Communists Are Out of the Closet Together!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/progressives-and-communists-are-out-of-the-closet-together/

Is it important to understand the Marxist assault on the foundations of our system?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/is-it-important-to-understand-the-marxist-assault-on-the-foundations-of-our-system/

Is there a Christian basis for combating the threat of global warming?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/is-there-a-christian-basis-for-combating-the-threat-of-global-warming/

Did ATF provide weapons to Mexican drug cartels that were subsequently used to kill one of our own?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/did-atf-provide-weapons-to-mexican-drug-cartels-that-were-subsequently-used-to-kill-one-of-our-own/

ICE Agents Vote ‘No Confidence’ in Leaders!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/ice-agents-vote-‘no-confidence’-in-leaders/

What Happened to Free Speech?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/what-happened-to-free-speech/

The FCC Should Not Interfere With The Internet!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/the-fcc-should-not-interfere-with-the-internet/

Does Our President Hate America?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/does-our-president-hate-america/

Is History Repeating Itself?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/is-history-repeating-itself/

Where Is America Today?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/where-is-america-today/

Were We Forewarned About What to Expect If President Obama Got Elected?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/were-we-forewarned-about-what-to-expect-if-president-obama-got-elected/

The Russian View of What Has Been Happening In America!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/the-russian-view-of-what-has-been-happening-in-america-2/

Is it time to call for Obama’s resignation!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/is-it-time-to-call-for-obamas-resignation/

Washington Times Calls for Obama’s Impeachment!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/washington-times-calls-for-obama’s-impeachment/

Note:  If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial.  Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake

Right ON!!

Posted on American Thinker-By Stella Paul-On January 9, 2012:

“Obama recently signed a mysterious new law that proclaims all American soil is a “battleground,” thereby allowing the president to indefinitely detain any American citizen without charges.  Critics fear Obama will use his fun new unconstitutional powers to make his political enemies disappear, but that may not be necessary. 

The way things are going, most patriotic Americans will soon be six feet under, felled by apoplectic strokes brought on by reading the latest outrage committed by our “Commander in Chief.”  He may not have a limit to what he’ll inflict; but our collective blood pressure may have a limit to what we can bear.

With each passing hour, the question becomes not if America can survive a second term, but whether we can survive another day.  It’s not just the $15 trillion in debt, the Muslim Brotherhood in the catbird seat, and our bleeding open border.  It’s the never-ending deliberate assaults against our safety and security laughingly committed by the cold-eyed man with the nuclear code.

Here are the top 5 reasons Obama must be removed as Commander-in-Chief. Please read them while seated.

ONE - LightSquared: If we had an actual media, you should be able to wake up an average fourth grader at 3 AM and ask, “Who’s General William Shelton?” and the fourth grader would chirpily recite: “He’s the Air Force Commander who was pressured by the White House to change his testimony about LightSquared.”

The facts are not in dispute. A four-star general has testified to Congress that he was pressured by the White House to alter his testimony to make it friendlier to a broadband company backed by a major Democratic donor. 

The problem with LightSquared’s new wireless project is that it could disrupt all military communications and GPS.  But what worth has the entire capacity of the military’s communication system against the pleadings of LightSquared’s biggest investor, Philip Falcone, who shovels cash to Obama?

TWO - Fast and Furious: No matter how many times you hear the facts they never get less sickening or bizarre.  The United States Department of Justice deliberately ran thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels, which then used them to commit at least 11 violent crimes in the US and 200 violent crimes in Mexico. A Fast and Furious gun was used to murder U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and possibly U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jaime Zapata.

ATF Agent Vince Cefalu was fired for whistleblowing about this surreal horror show. Attorney General Eric Holder perjured himself to Congress, pretending he knew nothing about it. And newly released emails confirm that the motivation for supplying weapons to Mexico’s most violent criminals was to use the ensuing chaos to enact stricter gun control laws here.

Not content to unleash murder and mayhem, the Department of Justice also went into the money-laundering racket, washing clean millions of dollars for Mexico’s drug cartels. Your tax dollars at work! And while this evil madness was raging, Obama conducted a hysterical campaign against Sarah Palin for using an image of a target on her website.

THREE - Giving Top-Secret Technology to Our Enemies:  Last week brought word that Obama is planning to share U.S. missile defense secrets with Russia, over the strenuous objections of security officials who say it could devastate the effectiveness of our entire defense system. They also fear Russia will share our secrets with China, Iran and North Korea.

Remember how Obama’s Mommy and Daddy met in Russian class? If only they could see their little boy now. 

Obama also gave a freebie of our most classified intelligence to Iran, refusing all three options to destroy a downed U.S. drone.  Instead, he let the mullahs paw their way through our most sensitive high-tech secrets. Not to worry—he did politely ask them to give it back.

FOUR - Waging War Against Libya Without Congressional Approval: Obama’s handlers dreamed up a catchy new doctrine called Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and they were itching to try it out. So Obama gave them a nice, peppy little war to conduct in Libya. Why not take out the mad transvestite, Qadaffi? Nobody likes him, anyway.

Flagrantly flouting the War Powers Resolution, Obama spent a billion dollars to wage an unconstitutional war. The grand result is Al Qaeda’s flag waving over Benghazi and 20,000 anti-aircraft missiles missing, which will probably wind up blasting towards us.

FIVE - Hollowing Out Our Military:  This week we learn that Obama is slashing the defense budget, planning to lay off 14% off our troops, reduce our nuclear arsenal, shelve key weapon systems and explicitly cripple our ability to wage ground wars. What hath Saul Alinsky wrought!

Already, Obama has strait-jacketed the military in political correctness, forbidding discussion of the nature of radical Islam and sanitizing the jihad-crazed murder of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood into “workplace violence.” But that was not enough for our Commander-in-Chief. 

Our troops are so heroic that even in straitjackets, they can win.  And if there’s one thing Obama will not tolerate it’s American victory.

From George Washington to Barack Obama - it’s been quite a ride.”

• Write Stella Paul at Stellapundit@aol.com.

Source:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/the_top_5_reasons_obama_must_be_removed_as_commander-in-chief.html#ixzz1j4ZrqpwI

Note: The following articles and/or blog posts relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

I. Obama guts military but gives raises to bureaucrats!

What’s disturbing about this picture?

Examiner Editorial posted on The Washington Examiner-On January 8, 2012:

“Hard facts ought to prevail where American security is concerned. This applies equally whether the issue at hand is the geopolitical consequences of ill-advised defense cuts or the possibility that waste and fraud in military procurement might result in the deaths of American soldiers. It is in that spirit that we view President Obama’s announcement last week at the Pentagon of his new national defense doctrine. While there will be much more to say here in the future, two points stand out for now.

First, Obama claimed that “even as our troops continue to fight in Afghanistan, the tide of war is receding.” What logically should have followed such an assertion was something about the surrender of an enemy and assurance that his defeat was so total and comprehensive that decades, if not centuries, will pass before he might again threaten the safety and security of the American people.

Obama could say nothing like that because no such surrender has been tendered, and it is clear to anybody with open eyes that the aggressors in the War on Terror are—Osama bin Laden’s death notwithstanding—planning lethal new attacks on Americans here at home and American interests around the world. It is as though FDR had said in April 1943 that the tide of World War II was receding and therefore it was time to slash American defense spending because American pilots had shot down a plane carrying Japanese Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto, chief planner behind the attack on Pearl Harbor. No matter that Japanese troops still occupied half of the Pacific and would continue to wage war against the U.S.

Second, another Obama decision became public last week: The chief executive wants to give federal civil servants a half-percent pay raise. The absurdity of this proposal is clear in light of the excellent reporting of USA Today’s Dennis Cauchon. In a series of stories in 2010 that drew emotional criticism from federal employee union leaders but no factual refutations, Cauchon used the government’s own data to show that civil servants’ compensation has far outstripped that of private-sector workers. “The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade,” Cauchon found. “Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009, while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.” If anything, Obama should freeze federal pay indefinitely so private-sector employees can catch up with the bureaucrats.

To be sure, the proposed raise is so small as to be largely symbolic, but that’s precisely the point: It carries a vital re-election year message from Obama to a key sector of his base constituency—unionized public employees. It tells them Obama will take care of them, even as he paves the way for firing half a million men and women in uniform who likely are not among his re-election supporters. The hard-eyed conclusion here must be that winning re-election is more important to Obama than assuring American security at home and abroad.”

Source:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2012/01/obama-guts-military-gives-raises-bureaucrats/2074876

II. Obama Fantasy Comes True At Pentagon!-Posted on Western Journalism-By BREAKING NEWS-On January 7, 2012:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-fantasy-comes-true-at-pentagon/?utm_source=Western+Journalism&utm_campaign=33f11b515e-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email

III. Top 10 Threats of 2012!-Posted on NewsMax.com-By Arnaud De Borchgrave-On January 6, 2012:

http://www.newsmax.com/deBorchgrave/Iran-al-Qaida-Pakistan-threats/2012/01/06/id/423323?s=al&promo_code=DE1C-1

IV. Service chiefs warn $1T cut would be ‘catastrophic!’-Posted on The Washington Times-By Rowan Scarborough, The Washington Times-On November 2, 2011:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/2/service-chiefs-warn-1t-cut-would-be-catastrophic/

V. Gutting the Military!-Posted on The Heritage Foundation-By Owen Graham and Jackson Marsteller-On October 27, 2011:

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/27/gutting-the-military/

VI. Armed Services chairman: Obama is anti-military!-Posted on The Washington Times-By Shaun Waterman, The Washington Times-On September 12, 2011:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/12/armed-services-buck-mckeon-criticizes-obama/

VII. Obama Strategy Guts U.S. Armed Services!-Posted on WND.com-On July 23, 2011:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=324925

VIII. Video: Obama’s Private Army!-Posted on YouTube.com-By lawjared-On Mar 28, 2011:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPltiIJzz-Y&feature=player_embedded

IX. The Plot to Destroy the US Military-Posted on Canada Free Press-By Daniel Greenfield-On March 21, 2011:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34646

X. Obama’s War Against the U.S. Military-Posted on Human Events-By Buzz Patterson-On September 10, 2010:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38943

XI. 1,188 U.S. Military Deaths in Afghan War Since Obama Became President!-Posted on CNSNews.com-By Edwin Mora-On January 3, 2012:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/1188-us-military-deaths-afghan-war-obama-became-president

XII. Obama Wants to Continue Secret Talks With Taliban in Europe!-Posted on NewsMax.com-By The Associated Press-On December 30, 2011:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-ObamaAfghanistan-Taliban/2011/12/30/id/422549

XIII. The Shocking List Of GITMO Detainees Obama Plans To Release In Deal With Taliban!-Posted on The Blaze-By Tiffany Gabbay-On January 9, 2012:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/the-shocking-list-of-gitmo-detainees-obama-plans-to-release-in-deal-with-taliban/

Note: The following eye opening article and/or blog post reveals a George Soros funded unincorporated association by the name of “Peace and Security Funders Group (PSFG)”, which was established in 1999 and consists of more than 50 private and public foundations that give a portion of their $27 billion in combined assets to leftist organizations that undermine the war on terror in several interrelated ways: (a) by characterizing the United States as an evil, militaristic, oppressive nation that exploits vulnerable populations all over the globe; (b) by accusing the U.S. of having provoked, through its unjust policies and actions, the terror attacks against it, and consequently casting those attacks as self-defensive measures taken in response to American transgressions; (c) by depicting America's military and legislative actions against terror as unjustified, extreme, and immoral-You Decide: 

Funding the War Against the War on Terror!-Posted on FrontPageMagazine.com-By John Perazzo–On October 6, 2006:

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=2309

Note:  The following articles and/or blog posts reveal that the president is an Alinskyite, so steeped in the ideology of the seminal community organizer that he became a top instructor in Alinskyite tactics for other up-and-coming fifth-column radicals, whose single, animating ambition is to overthrow the capitalist social order, which they claim to see as racist, corrupt, exploitative, imperialist, etc. He also frames national security as a distraction from his more important work socializing our economy and thus knows that as long as he is tepidly supportive of a military mission, even one that neither aims to achieve nor can possibly achieve victory over America’s enemies, conservatives will not only overlook the slights, but will anxiously commend him and help the New York Times take the lash to those who won’t-You Decide:

Alinsky Does Afghanistan! (Part I)-Posted on National Review Online- By Andrew C. McCarthy-On December 4, 2010:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228741/alinsky-does-afghanistan/andrew-c-mccarthy

Alinksy Does Afghanistan! (Part II)-Posted on National Review Online-By Andrew C. McCarthy-On June 23, 2011:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270378/alinksi-does-afghanistan-part-ii-andrew-c-mccarthy

Note:  My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

The Military Pays the Price for Obama’s Agenda!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/the-military-pays-the-price-for-obama’s-agenda/

Veterans and members of our Armed Forces under attack!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/05/23/veterans-and-members-of-our-armed-forces-under-attack/

Rules of Engagement Killing Marines and U.S. Soldiers!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/rules-of-engagement-killing-marines-and-u-s-soldiers/

Treason in America: Move Over ‘Hanoi Jane’!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/treason-in-america-move-over-‘hanoi-jane’/

Godfather of The Islamic Revolution!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/godfather-of-the-islamic-revolution/

Is U.S. Negotiating with the Taliban?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/is-u-s-negotiating-with-the-taliban/

Could Steps That Team Obama Has Taken Be Emboldening Terrorists?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/could-steps-that-team-obama-has-taken-be-emboldening-terrorists/

Is it time to call for Obama's resignation!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/is-it-time-to-call-for-obamas-resignation/

Note:  If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial.  Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake

A short while my oldest son was in the Army, hes dead now, believing as me D.C. lies. be proud, serve your country, stop the enamy from abroud before they come to America etc. He sent letters home also on leave telling his wife,  & rest of family how proud he was protecting his wife & kids & America. then   looking thru the scope of his M16 seeing the eyes of the enemy ordered to fire, killing. he reached a point he couldnt take it any more. as so many military men & women. now im still not over it I love my son so. Shortly after I broke down put a gun to my head I was ready. Thank God some friends & a good honest  Pastor firmly holding me asking me who would protect, my other kids & grandkids. less than a second of clarity I snapped out of it. Now onto subject D.C. Theres many places in the world we dont need to be. Theres 256+or-countries in the world were in 176+or- give me a break, many countries dont need or want us there, come home stay in military go to our borders where youre needed. How many terrorists are in this country coming over the border. a million +or- maybe over a corse of years. training camps in many locations, mosques teaching hate America. thank u D.C. for letting this happen. The enemy is here already not just overseas. Be prepared America. 1 besides the war on drugs we have 2 other wars going on now onU.S. soil. We fought them both before. First the Revolution where we gained our freedom, now its being taken away. on one side Christain conservatives w/ millions of friends & family, fighting to keep our freedoms. the other side the ones that want to take this away. D.C. dems libs progresives & obama. Im not asking white house, congress, supreme court resign now go home we dont want u or need u. We have enough Americans honest well educated & willing to do job that u wouldnt. i see u ask why didnt they step up before & run for office. Heres why u woke up a sleeping giant . u have to go now. U have lies 4 a backbone. u cry peace & blessed be the peacemaker then u stab us in the back. never will we believe one word u say youre done. dont wait until nov go now no asking no please do it, weve had enough. the third war were fighting cival suppose to be over not just north & south, freeing the slaves no D.C. wants all Americans to be slaves, guess what D.C. not going to happed youre gone. your tring w drugs to keep us stupid but theres 2 many of us thats not falling 4 the trap, go. etc etc sorry tea party I vented. God bless you & love you GOD BLESS AMERICA            

WE WILL STAY FREE,  VOTE REPUBLICAN TO DO SO.

 DRILL   DRILL DRILL FAST BEFORE WE ARE CUT OFF.

just back from conservs at fox, Beck, Limbaugh, Savage, Redstate,Twitter sharing w/ many including Tea Party. All got it together. may differ on issue solutions. Agree on obama, dems, libs, progressives have to go. they got their thoughts from karl marx, ive known this for a long time, since I read alot about sick marx. thanks to all at Tea Party, readers/ bloggers youve got it together issues & truth. founding folks, workers youve done a wonderful thing. GOD bless you all

What’s disturbing about this picture?

Posted on NewsMax.com-On January 8, 2012:

“WASHINGTON — The United States will respond if Iran tries to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz at the entrance to the Gulf, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned Sunday, saying such a move would cross a “red line.”

“We made very clear that the United States will not tolerate the blocking of the Straits of Hormuz,” Panetta told CBS television. “That’s another red line for us and that we will respond to them.”

Panetta was seconded by General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said Iran has the means to close the waterway, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil passes.

“But we would take action and reopen the Straits,” the general said on the same show, “Face the Nation.”

Their comments follow Iranian threats to close the strait if the European Union slaps an embargo on Iranian oil, the latest step in a US-led campaign to pressure Tehran to give up their nuclear program. Western powers suspects Iran is bent on gaining atomic weapons, which Tehran denies.

The rising tensions have driven oil prices soaring over 100 dollars a barrel, hitting an eight-month high earlier this week, and sent jitters throughout the oil-rich Gulf amid growing fears of a spiral into conflict.

What to do about Iran also is rising as an in US electoral politics, with most Republican candidates blasting President Barack Obama as too soft on Tehran.

Panetta said the United States does not believe Iran is actively developing a nuclear weapon, and reaffirmed Washington’s preference for diplomatic and economic pressure over military action as the way to deter Tehran.

But he bluntly warned Tehran against going from developing a nuclear capability to developing an atomic weapon.

“I think they need to know that if they take that step that they’re going to get stopped,” he said.

At another point, Panetta said, “Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that’s what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is do not develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us.”

Dempsey sidestepped questions on the difficulty of taking out Iran’s nuclear capability, but said planning was underway for a military option.

“My responsibility is to encourage the right degree of planning, to understand the risks associated with any kind of military option, in some cases to position assets, to provide those options in a timely fashion. And all those activities are going on,” he said.

Asked whether the United States could take out Iran’s nuclear capability without resorting to the use of nuclear weapons itself, Dempsey said, “I absolutely want them to believe that that’s the case.”

Panetta, meanwhile, suggested the United States would not welcome unilateral military action by Israel against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“If the Israelis made that decision, we would have to be prepared to protect our forces in that situation. And that’s what we’d be concerned about,” he said.

On the Strait of Hormuz, Dempsey said Iran could close the waterway “for a period of time.”

“We’ve invested in capabilities to ensure that if that happens, we can defeat that. And so the simple answer is yes, they can block it,” he said.

“We’ve described that as an intolerable act. And it’s not just intolerable for us, it’s intolerable to the world. But we would take action and reopen the Straits.”

Source:

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/panetta-iran-nuclear-hormuz/2012/01/08/id/423421?s=al&promo_code=DE25-1

Note: The following articles and/or blog posts and videos relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

I. Why New Sanctions Raise Danger of Iran’s Building Nuclear Weapons!-Posted on Yahoo! News-By TONY KARON | Time.com-On January 9, 2012:

http://news.yahoo.com/why-sanctions-raise-danger-iran-building-nuclear-weapons-153000768.html

II. Iran to Launch Nuclear Work in Bunker in ‘Near Future’!-Posted on NewsMax.com-On January 8, 2012:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Iran-nuclear-enrichment-bunker/2012/01/08/id/423356?s=al&promo_code=DE21-1

III. Ex CIA Director Warns Iran on ‘Inexorable’ Path to Nukes!-Posted on NewsMax.com-By Paul Scicchitano and Fred Fleitz-On January 6, 2012:

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/CIAHayden-Warns-Iran-Inexorable/2012/01/06/id/423322?s=al&promo_code=9898-1

IV. West Readies Oil Plan in Case of Iran Crisis!-Posted on NewsMax.com-On January 6, 2012:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Oil-supply-Iran-Persian/2012/01/06/id/423303?s=al&promo_code=9898-1

V. Iranian spy in U.S. military? ‘Former CIA director says possibility ‘cannot be discounted’-Posted on WND.com-On December 18, 2011:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=378949

VI. Korean News: Hundreds of North Korean Nuclear Experts Are Working in Iran!-Posted on The Gateway Pundit-By Jim Hoft-On November 13, 2011:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/11/korean-news-hundreds-of-north-korean-nuclear-experts-are-working-in-iran/

VII. Video: Obama, Iran and control of the Middle East!-Posted on YouTube.com-By TheRealNews-On December 16, 2008:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=d9ullk4ZwCQ&feature=endscreen

VIII. Video: How would a US-Iran war begin?-Posted on YouTube.com-By TheRealNews-On October 12, 2009:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLT8UjF7ZYY&feature=relmfu

IX. Video: Obama and Iran!-Posted on TheRealNews-On November 25, 2008:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FQQL7T9BzY&feature=relmfu

X. Video: Iran, US and the possibility of war!-Posted on YouTube.com-By TheRealNews-On May 24, 2008:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myGS0GCQ1eE&feature=relmfu

Note:  What follows is a special report on the Illuminati Network that provides us with concrete evidence of a “New World Order & One World Government” agenda, to include the Islamic agenda-You Decide:

Illuminati Network!-Posted on Global Watch Special Report 2010:

http://www.globalreport2010.com/globalwatchspecialreport.pdf

What follows are pertinent excerpts from the Islamic agenda as it relates to Iran:

“THE  RISE OF THE PRINCE OF PERSIA

Iran is a nation that figures prominently in the news these days. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America, President George Bush mentioned the nation of Iran in a speech and depicted it as being one of the notorious members of the now infamous “axis of evil” nations. 

Still, most people in the West know very little about Iran, and the vast majority of American’s are completely unaware of the history of the US relationship with Iran, and the fact that the region of Iran actually has had a long and significant role in world affairs.

While Persia has had ties deeply rooted in world history, the direct American-Iranian relationship only commenced in the late 1930’s. Persia joined the allied forces against Germany in 1943, and thus the World War II Mid-east theatre provided the stage that began the rather brief history of the US-Iranian relationship.

It is a relationship that has also undergone a complete about face since the 1970’s. Within the scope of this remarkable turn in geo-political affairs in the international relationship between Iran (Persia) and the United States are a host of highly significant factors relative to the prophesied signs of the times, and imminent world events in these Last Days. 

Today Iranian President Ahmadinejad has renewed an increasing intense hostility towards the state of Israel and has assumed the mantle piece as the voice of Islam with Iran now becoming the dominant Islamic power in the Middle East after the demise of Saddam Hussein and the previous Baathist Iraqi government.

EZEKIEL’S ALIGNMENT OF THE MUSLIM NATIONS

Ezekiel prophesises that Iran (Persia) will be one of the leading Muslim nations that will side in a major attempt to invade and destroy Israel at a time when Israel is unsuspecting. 

Interestingly enough during this attempted invasion Ezekiel mention that Sheba and Dedan will voice a diplomatic protest to the invasion. Sheba and Dedan are historical names which refer to the Arabian peninsula and many believe that despite its conservative Islamic rule of law that the Saudi Monarchy are dependant on the West to protect their oil interests because of the fear that the tide of Iranian fundamentalism which overthrew the Iranian Shah in 1979 could provide a threat to their own well being should the masses rise up against the special relationship that the Saudi King has with the so called “Zionist West”.

THE COMING OF THE AL MADHI

According to the Shia and Sunni versions of the Islamic eschatology the Mahdi ( يدھمMahdī, also Mehdi; “Guided One”) is the prophesied redeemer of Islam who will appear on earth before the coming of the day of Judgement. The Madhi is believed to be a future muslim world leader who will not only rule over the Islamic world, but also the non Muslim world in the establishment of an Islamic order. 

The Mahdi will be a descendant of Fatimah (one of Mohammed’s wives) and will take his name as Mohammed bin Abdullah. The hadith indicates that the Madhi will lead an Islamic alliance with black banners from Khorasan and Central Asia.  Kohrasan is known in modern day language as Iran.

According to hadith, The Mahdi will be a great military, political and spiritual leader who will unite Islam under one Caliphate and conquer many countries. He will attack and defeat Israel. The war will result in the slaughtering of the Jews and the reclaiming of Jerusalem as the capital of Islam and the location of the Madhi’s eartly rule of Sharia law. Their flags will be erected on the Temple Mount when they reach the Dome of the Rock. 

In August 2009 Iran held a multi-day conference, bringing together politicians, mullahs, students – Shiite and Sunni alike – to plot what can be done on this earthly plane to hasten the coming of the anointed one, a messianic, endtimes personage known as the Mahdi.

For the past five years, the Iranian religious and political leaders have annually gathered together for two days in the city of Qom for what is called ‘The International Conference of Mahdism Doctrine,’ sponsored by the Bright Future Institute. The purpose of the Bright Future Institute is ‘to introduce Imam Mahdi to the world’ and ‘to pave the ground for his reappearance’ and ‘help bring all of humanity to the knowledge of the true savior of mankind, Imam al-Mahdi.’

From the establishment of the Islamic Regime in 1979 to Ahmadinejad’s rise to power in August 2005, Mahdism had been a religious doctrine and a tradition that had no political manifestation. The political system operated independently of this messianic belief and of the anticipation of the return of the Mahdi. It was only with Ahmadinejad’s presidency that this religious doctrine has become a political philosophy and taken a central place in politics.

Note: The following eye-opening video exposes President Obama’s Muslim ties and his hidden agenda for America-You Decide:

Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam!-Posted on DanielPipes.org-By Daniel Pipes, FrontPageMagazine.com-On January 7, 2008:

http://www.danielpipes.org/5354/confirmed-barack-obama-practiced-islam

Obama Would Fail Security Clearance because of his many ties to extremist Islam!-Posted Philadelphia Bulletin-By Daniel Pipes-On October 21, 2008:

http://www.danielpipes.org/5983/obama-would-fail-security-clearance

Barack Obama’s Early Years as a Muslim!-Posted on DanielPipes.org-By Daniel Pipes-Updated on October 23, 2008:

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2008/08/bibliography-my-writings-on-barack-obamas

Video:  Obama Must Convert To Islam, Or Else!-Posted on YouTube.com-BylnfideI-On Dec 5, 2008:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj29Df-fy5M&feature=related

Video: The most dangerous Barack Obama video ever!!!-Posted on YouTube.com-By Truthzonetvcom-On August 25, 2009:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=4Yro63c7B7A&NR=1

Who ran cover for Obama’s Islamic background? ‘Tracing The Politics And The Money Behind Obama’s Campaign!’-Posted on Post & Email-by John Charlton-On December 12, 2009:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/12/look-who-ran-cover-for-obamas-islamic-background/

“I am a Muslim” Obama Tells Egyptian Foreign Minister!-Posted on Atlas Shrugs-On June 12, 2010:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/06/-obama-tells-egyptian-foreign-minister-i-am-a-muslim-stealth-coup-on-the-white-house.html

Why Obama is a cultural Muslim?-Posted on The Washington Times-By Jeffrey T. Kuhner-On July 8, 2010:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/8/why-obama-is-a-cultural-muslim/

1-in-4 Americans Believe Obama is a Muslim; Here’s Why-Posted on ImpeachObamaCampaign.com-By Ben-On August 19, 2010:

http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/1-in-4-americans-believe-obama-is-a-muslim-heres-why/?utm_source=Floyd+Reports&utm_campaign=fafc453d54-FR_08_19_20108_19_2010&utm_medium=email

Why Americans think president is Muslim: ‘Obama bears the lion’s share of the responsibility for any confusion’!-Posted on WND.com-On August 20, 2010:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=193749

Obama’s Grandmother Prays for Conversion to Islam-Posted on Israel National News-By Maayana Miskin-On February 26, 2011:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/140852

Obama to face Shariah court? ‘Cleric says president ‘must embrace Islam’ or be tried when Muslims take over U.S.’-Posted on WND.com-On February 27, 2011:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=268989

Obama: Consistently Anti-American!-Posted on Big Government-By Pamela Geller-On March 21, 2011:

http://biggovernment.com/pgeller/2011/03/21/obama-consistently-anti-american/

Video: ABSOLUTELY SHOCKING! What Was Predicted 3 Years Ago is NOW HERE! BHO EXPOSED!-Posted on YouTube.com-By ppsimmons-On April 1, 2011:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSAW4YTZAwY

Video: Obama’s Middle East Ties!-Posted on wmjsarah-On May 29, 2011:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rhmnBig4gc&feature=player_embedded#at=119

Video: Is Our President A Terrorist?-Posted on YouTube.com-By amy2x-On June 4, 2011:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-fmtJ5kh-50#at=2334

Obama’s ineligibility: Muslim-leftist radical in the White House!-Posted on Canada Free Press-By Lawrence Sellin-On September 15, 2011:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/40313#When:11:16:42Z

Note:  My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

The President Must Stop Voting “Present” on Iran!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/the-president-must-stop-voting-“present”-on-iran/

Godfather of The Islamic Revolution!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/godfather-of-the-islamic-revolution/

Is President Obama in on the Uprising in Egypt?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/is-president-obama-in-on-the-uprising-in-egypt/

Is Israel the next Arab Facebook Campaign?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/is-israel-the-next-arab-facebook-campaign/

Did Saudis Buy Obama 2008 Election?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/did-saudis-buy-obama-2008-election/

Why is Obama Handing out Millions of Dollars to Terrorists?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/why-is-obama-handing-out-millions-of-dollars-to-terrorists/

Is U.S. Negotiating with the Taliban?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/is-u-s-negotiating-with-the-taliban/

The Obama Administration Allows Tariq Ramadan To Travel To The U.S.!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/the-obama-administration-allows-tariq-ramadan-to-travel-to-the-u-s/

The Midterm Elections and the Communist Manifesto!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/the-midterm-elections-and-the-communist-manifesto/

President and DOJ have contributed to the racial mess in our country!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/president-and-doj-have-contributed-to-the-racial-mess-in-our-country/

Muslim Brotherhood Declares War on America-Will America Notice!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/muslim-brotherhood-declares-war-on-america-will-america-notice/

Is it important to understand the Marxist assault on the foundations of our system?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/is-it-important-to-understand-the-marxist-assault-on-the-foundations-of-our-system/

Where Is America Today?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/where-is-america-today-2/

Is it time to call for Obama’s resignation!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/is-it-time-to-call-for-obamas-resignation/

Washington Times Calls for Obama’s Impeachment!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/washington-times-calls-for-obama’s-impeachment/

Note:  If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial.  Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake