All Posts (27746)
The ancient Egyptians were extremely good at using numbers to make logic. They knew Earth was a sphere and the circumference. “I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me." Hosea 13:4. The story of Horus, an ancient Egyptian God, was similar to the story of Jesus. Who knows? The point is that the spirit of Jesus lives.
In the month and year of my birth, September, 1925, physicist Werner Heisenberg, with numbers, proved that there was uncertainty in the makeup of the time-space universe. His discovery was the forerunner of quantum physics—quantum, the smallest excitation of a quantized wave or field, quantized, the discrete value rather than a continuous set of values. A discrete number would be like 27, 2+7=9, the discrete number, 9. Starting with 1 and doubling, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, reduced to discrete numbers, you get 1, 2, 4, 8, 7, 5, and beginning the sequence, 128=11, or 1, this numbers sequence continues to infinity. Discrete numbers make interesting patterns, giving us an idea of how the universe is harmoniously and symmetrically patterned. With our human sensitivities, we hear it in music; we see it in a rose; we feel it in the spirit of love. Of all of this the ancients aware, they left us myths and legends explaining the mysteries of our lives.
The discrete number for the year 1925, the year of my birth, is 8. In numerology, 8 is the symbol for power. Starting with 1, the symbol for a beginning, by the time we get to 8, power, this is associated with zeal, steadfastness and the ability to see in broad terms the ability to achieve material goals. By the way, the next number up, the number 9, the highest in earthly achievement, stands for selflessness, in the coming age, the Age of Aquarius, we become our brothers keeper. In the year of my birth, 8, our nation in a period of prosperity, up jumped the devil. A self-serving Congress, in spite of Coolidge’s dismantling of Woodrow Wilson’s progressive fraud, in preparation for the interruption of progressivism, the gradual taking of the working people’s wherewithal, Congress gave the IRS the authority to examine personal income records for tax purposes.
The discrete number 4, four, standing for stability, the symbol of law, in 1975 (which reduces to the number 4), I was in a fight with the IRS and studying the law in preparation for taking my issue to court.
On Good Friday 1975, I cut my umbilical cord with my past, on Easter Sunday arriving in Miami, Florida for the first day of my new life. My life is full of symbolism.
A report from a numerologist I got from a magazine ad says, “Sometime in the middle of your life, probably between the ages of thirty-five and fifty, you’re apt to begin thinking about how free you would like to be (The number 5 is the numerology symbol for freedom). You probably haven’t been too concerned with freedom—or the lack of freedom—before, but current circumstances may bring it to your attention. There may be a significant change in one the major stabilizing factors in your life—the end of a marriage or business . . .” At age 49, I was at the end of my marriage, my business, and in a constitutional fight with the IRS over my property rights.
There have been too many coincidences in my life to call it coincidence. From the disaster my early life became, to late life as good as life gets, when I began my new life I broke free and went to sea. I got on my path of destiny. When everything should have gone wrong, everything went right. We don’t know the power that lies within us until we get a bigger than life calling. When I studied the Constitution, in preparation for taking the IRS to court, I felt that voices of the past were speaking to me.
We are aware of a great change about to happen. America is where I was in 1975, at a jumping off place, when we Americans can either soar with eagles or fall into the abyss. Astrology, based on a universe reduced to numbers, tells us that we are at the end of the Age of Pisces, at the beginning of the Age of Aquarius. Pisceans are people who desperately want to do the right thing, but according to Astrology are weak willed. Jesus, who came at the beginning of the Age of Pisces, told his followers that before the cock crowed they would deny him three times. Listen to what Astrologer’s Handbook says about the Age of Aquarius. “Individuals born under the sign of brotherhood and fraternity have as their symbol the water-bearer, who spills out to mankind the life-force and spiritual energy.”
God geometrizes. Not only was I born Aquarius rising, but nature’s geometry made me able to understand the fundamental laws of the universe, according to Astrologer’s Handbook. Saturn is trine Pluto in my astrological chart; that is, Saturn and Pluto were in their most favorable geometric alignments when I was born. “This is one of the most profound alignments.” Numerology gives me the number 7 for my life lesson number. I’m here to develop and use my mind.
In 1975, I had a choice. I demanded my God-given rights. All of my dreams have come true. In 2010, the American people are being given a choice, the Obama-Pelosi-Reid choice or God’s choice, an independent self. Werner Heisenberg proved by the numbers that there is uncertainty as we travel from point A to point B. Will America be another of history’s lessons?
Quantum physics has advanced during my life to a point when it must admit that consciousness is fundamental to existence. We exist in a state of consciousness, limited only by us. Here’s what James Allen, author of As A Man Thinketh said a century back:
As a being of Power, Intelligence and love, and the lord of his own thoughts, man holds the key to every situation, and contains within himself that transforming and regerative agency by which may make himself what he wills.
Here is what quantum physicist Evan Harris Walker had published in 2000 in The Physics of Consciousness, under “A God for Tomorrow.” “Consciousness exists. And for the first time, we have used the instruments of scientific investigation to fit its existence into the overall tapestry of reality. . . Matter, objects—a physical domain exists that is governed by immutable laws. But these laws leave open a range of happenings (Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle) that are left to the selection of the mind. Behind this selection is the will.”
Numerology gets its information, as to your life lesson number, from your name. We read in Laura Wattenberg’s The Baby Name Wizard and at her website BabyNameWizard.com that we are “in the middle of a naming revolution." Wattenberg says, "Parents are putting a much higher premium on distinctiveness."
While Parents are putting a much higher premium of distinctiveness, Democrats would have you believe they are showing support for the middleclass by placing a much higher premium on distinctiveness. Be honest with yourself. Do Democrats have the power to do anything except that which they have the lawful right to do as individuals? Say a kindhearted neighbor saw that I had two cars and the guy next door had no car, so he takes it upon himself to see that a law is passed to take one of my cars and give to my pedestrian neighbor.
Nancy Pelosi is a multimillionaire. She acts like a queen. Why should she keep millions herself, plus a legislated sweetheart deal for our congressional aristocracy, and make laws to take from the rich and give to the poor? Nancy and her colleagues do not provide the jobs sorely lacking. Nancy and her Democrat pals are hypocrites.
Day after day, I’ve been bringing to your attention the Higher Law, the background of the Constitution. The truth the Founding Fathers found self-evident was the fact that everyone is created equal in opportunity. We all know that some of us are stronger, some more intelligent, some with inherited wealth, but most have to work hard to acquire wealth. At any rate, wealth is required to give others jobs and it is none of Congresses business. Congress is not there to create our economy. They have created a straw man. Incentive is destroyed when Democrats tax wealth excessively. By taking from the rich and giving to the poor, Democrats create dependency. Who, other than government parasites, are screaming for Democrats to hold the line. What nonsense!
Since I had been self-employed, I was not eligible for unemployment pay. I did what anybody would do. I took a job. When I was a single, entry-level worker in Miami, Florida in 1975 (out of sight, out of mind), my pay withheld for federal income tax, up the street a mile long line of snowbirds, down from the north for the winter, and receiving unemployment pay, waited in line for their food stamps. It took me three phone calls to land an entry-level job. But no, those screaming parasites demanding their doles, those who refuse to work because federal income tax was taking my pay to pay snowbird deadbeats, it is unbelievable! And not only that, the IRS had lawlessly frozen my tax refund of $5,000, leaving me on the street. None of this is known. The IRS kept my $5,000 refund because I dared to petition the tax court on the deliberate mistake those IRS thieves made.
The frauds representing you knew what the IRS did was illegal. I informed them. Senator Lawton Chiles admitted to me that he received more taxpayer complaints than all the rest of his mail put together. You better believe they know. Your representatives did nothing! All of this going on, and in the name of social justice, this worker was locked out of my apartment for nonpayment of rent. No, you knew nothing. But just listen to those Democrat sob sisters wail over the nasty old Republicans taking the unemployment benefits from the unemployed (who refuse to work) and at Christmas time. My oh my, what a terrible thing, the biggest crooks in history lying their way into control! I pity what the gullible American people are in for. You don’t believe me? It is all on record.
Having done away with the Constitution, Democrats are killing the goose that laid golden eggs, and for what purpose? The point is that Jesus’ spirit lives on and Democrats, including that nose-picking dirtbag, Senator Reid, through their immoral notion of redistribution, have become the greatest thieves the world has ever known. Thanks to the Tea Party, Republicans have seen the error of their ways. But face it, America, due to the lame ducks in Congress who never learn, and lamebrain Obama, the monstrous Democrats, in the name of social justice, continue with the biggest heist in history. With their 11 percent approval rating, calling themselves angels of mercy, those egomaniacs leave our free America on the brink of extinction. If you have heard Jesus’ message, then you know it is essential that we rid ourselves of said raving wolves in sheep’s clothing once and for all times.
My first suggestion would be to blanket freeze ALL Federal disbursements, including ALL Social Security and Public Assistance spending, at 2010 levels. No increases in per capita spending for anything unless human life is directly threatened. Then maintain that level of spending until the tax base catches up and exceeds it slightly.
Next would be a 10% force reduction in ALL Federal employment categories exclusive of Military and Law Enforcement. This could be accomplished by attrition and may take some time.
Next would be a 2% - 5% payroll reduction through salary reduction for ALL Federal employees receiving more than $75,000.00 annually.
There seems to have been some talk about increasing the retirement age. This sounds good on the face of it, but taking forty years to accomplish seems a little pointless. I would propose, instead, that the retirement age start being adjusted immediately.
Those who are currently within two years of retirement remain on schedule. 64 and above, retirement age remains stable.
Those who are currently more than two years from retirement need to wait an extra year. 62-63, retirement age becomes 66.
More than four years from retirement currently wait an additional extra year. 60-61, retirement age becomes 67.
More than six years from retirement currently wait another additional year. 58-59, retirement age becomes 68.
Eight years from retirement currently, add another year. 56-57, retirement age becomes 69.
Those who are currently ten years or more from retirement age would then become eligible for retirement at 70 years of age. 55 years of age and under, retirement age becomes 70.
Also require that ALL Federal employees contribute at least ten percent of their salary to their own retirement account and contribute significantly, at least fifty percent of the cost, to their healthcare insurance and include these as part of their total compensation package. Then limit maximum retirement disbursement to about 100% of the final annual salary earned by the retiree plus paid healthcare. Persons who are employed by the Federal Government are PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, they are supposed to work FOR the Citizens of the United States of America; their compensation should be directly dependent upon the ABILITY of the U.S. Taxpayer to support them; PUBLIC SERVANTS should not be allowed to demand more when our Nation is already so deeply in debt just because they want it.
Next would be to mandate Employment Eligibility Verification, E-Verify, for all Public AND Private sector employers. Back this up with very strict enforcement and penalties stiff enough to fund the program directly and help to defray the costs associated with unemployment and joblessness. There are about 15 Million+ U.S. Citizens who are out of work but want employment. There are also about 12-20 Million+ Undocumented Foreign Nationals living and working illegally inside the United States. What would be the effect if those Undocumented Foreign Nationals were unable to seek or find employment within the United States? At least a third of those U.S. Citizens who now want work but cannot find it should be able to find jobs. This would remove them from the rolls of tax consumers and create Taxpayers thus broadening the Tax Base. Deny all non-emergency public assistance funds to Undocumented Foreign Nationals who are within the United States illegally and then limit access to any emergency funding to the control and stabilization of the immediate life threatening circumstance only.
Please note that this is not an immigration policy, it just acknowledges that only those who are U.S. Citizens, Natural or Naturalized, Documented Foreign Nationals legally within the United States, and Legal Resident Aliens are entitled to recognized legal status within the United States of America.
Finally, we must recognize that energy is needed to do things. Limiting access to that energy simply limits productivity. The United States could become energy independent if we really wanted to. Oil, Coal, and Natural gas are the current standards, and yes they are dirty. We have the Natural Reserves here inside the United States to allow ourselves to become energy independent if we would only make use of them. Instead, we artificially limit the supply and thus create an inflated market while also retarding the ability of that market to produce. Unfettering the energy producers here inside the United States while requiring even stricter standards would probably result in more overall productivity. If I could produce twice as much product but had to spend 25% of my profits to make it non-polluting, I would still see a 50% net increase in productivity while rendering a cleaner product.
And then there is still Nuclear. If we were to concentrate on short-term containment of waste, 50 to 100 years, while allowing the advancement of the science, we could probably find better means of producing Nuclear power while improving the containment issues as well in the mean time.
Again, improving energy access could only act as a shot in the arm for our economy. Mining those resources here at home would also create an additional source of revenue as much of the land I am referring to is currently Federally administered, The U.S. Government could administer leasing out of the land for exploitation and then use the fees and royalties to offset Federal expenses and reduce the National Debt.
I have hit on only four major topics here, the cost of the Federal Government to carry out day to day operations, the cost of entitlements, the cost of supporting Undocumented Foreign Nationals who have no right to be within the United States and their impact on our domestic jobs market, and energy issues. I honestly believe that these factors have a significant impact on the continuing fiscal viability of the United States of America.
A Forty-Year Plan is next to useless, especially when it seems to only amount to about $100B per year. The United States needs swift and decisive action. Yes, we must proceed with caution, but inaction and over cautious slowness of action will be worse. The DEBT CRISIS is NOW; we do not have a luxury of time to face this crisis. So far as I can tell, the plans circulated so far barely even address a portion of the current interest on our current National Debt.
Currently, our Federal Government is behaving like a very spoiled BRAT who goes out and purchases something they know they cannot afford then demands more money in order to pay for it, regardless of whether that money is available or not.
That BRAT needs to be spanked!
Thank You
Douglas J. Howard
So much for listening to the will of the people only 23% of the people want to extend the tax cuts for the wealth. The rest of Americans are against it. These guys don't care either. They just want to pad their wallets.
Stop the John Boehner scam: Give Ron Paul monetary subcommittee chair
Pass this on far and wide...http://www.infowars.com/stop-the-john-boehner-scam-give-ron-paul-monetary-subcommittee-position/
Republicans Move to Block Ron Paul from Monetary Policy Subcommittee Chair
Please wake up from the false two-party paradigm... also search “John Boehner Scam” remember lets speak out don't worry if they are watching you, they are watching all of us so lets rout em out...
Have you seen ... Obama Deception, Police state 4 rise of fema etc...
thanks,
Bob
I don’t believe in war. It’s irrational. We all lose. If I’m forced into war, I’m in it to win, whatever it takes. If I’m forced into war, I’m not my brother’s keeper. The only rule is kill or be killed. What are we doing in Afghanistan? How has it protected us? We are spending money we don't have and sacrificing American lives.
The United States has not won a war since World War II. U.S. leadership has taken the position of world police force. The U. S. has appointed itself to make the rules. What makes others play by U.S. rules? We note that others play by their rules. We the people pay a terrible price. Under the law of all times, the individual sets the standard by which he lives. What has the United States accomplished by setting standards for the world?
America’s Constitution is based on personal responsibility and self-reliance. The United States has taken upon itself, with certain ideas of fairness in mind, to make itself, unconstitutionally, a redistribution force, as to the nation’s sweat, and more lately in the redistribution of free speech. We are being reeducated to think no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil, good and evil being in the eyes of the authorities. The same as in other nations, we Americans are consciously aware that the United States, drunk with power and promoting war, it is time to stand and be counted. Mankind's enemy is at the U.S. helm.
Jesus said we should beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing. He said we should turn the other cheek and go the extra mile, but he also said you can’t serve two masters. Is that hard to understand? A Christian accused me of being a secular humanist. A secular humanist is someone who promotes human values without specific allusion to religious doctrine, which explains both Christians and secular humanists. Jesus was not a Christian.
A Christian is someone promoting religious doctrine, using Jesus. A Muslim is someone promoting religious doctrine, using Mohammad. Muslims are in a holy war (holy war taking on different intensities) against all who don’t accept their religious doctrine; the United States in police action against “enemy combatants.” It is all a play on words. So what if I don’t accept religious doctrine or anyone dictating the rules! It does not change the fact that it is people killing other people, the definition of war, unless you happen to be a self-appointed rule maker. Rule makers are magicians. They turn dung hills into rose gardens, whatever it takes to make their noble ends everyone’s reality. Bible thumpers tell me I misinterpret the Bible. So why don’t we all get along? We are not created with hive mentality.
I’ve been giving you the latest scientific understanding of creation. Without consciousness nothing would exist. Humanity is apart from lower life forms with greater conscious awareness. If you choose to be a lower form of life, jump through authority’s hoops, it is your choice. It isn’t my choice.
What is wrong with Americans,
No one that I talk to actually has any idea what in the world is going on in our country. They talk about the Bush tax cuts for being for the rich, But they do not take the time to read or understand what the tax cuts do. They think that Arizona is a racist state for wanting to control imigration, But do they read or understand what is going on.....NO I lived in Phoenix and I can tell you they have a major problem with illegals and it is just not hispanics it is also asians they have a large illegal asian populaton. People say oh but they have been here awhile let thm stay. BullSh-T. My question is this if you are caught in a forein country without document what will happen to you. Now the biggest problem we have in this country is the media and their liberal views poisioning the minds of desent people. They are like a rancher bringing feed to the trough and watch all the people line up just like cattle. We have been conditioned for the herd mentality we let them rope us off and make us move thru a maze at the bank, movie theater. I never thought I would have to be a rat in a maze to buy popcorn. We need some honest people who are not afraid to speak not afraid to take on the fat cat politicians who only care about what they can get from special interest groups..Now are you a person with a mind capible of inteligent thought or are you cattle..Think about it.
Just remember :
Don't become a Democrat
Don't become a Republican
Just Become Pissed and lets take our Country Back
Dream Act? How about Nightmare Scenario?
It seems funny, well odd anyway, that nobody seems to recall that there was a huge, and quite controversial at the time, Immigration Reform in 1986. The Undocumented Foreign Nationals ( I REFUSE TO REFER TO THEM AS IMMIGRANTS IN ANY MANNER WHENEVER AVOIDABLE ) who were then illegally living and working inside the United States were granted amnesty if they met certain, very minimal prerequisites.
In return, there was to be a significant strengthening of our border controls and a concerted effort to prevent new Undocumented Foreign Nationals from sneaking into our Country illegally or being employable, or able to reside here comfortably if they were to do so.
Well, the Undocumented Foreign Nationals, about three or four Million of them when there were only supposed to be about two Million, got their U.S. Citizenship, but nothing much seems to have ever been done to stem the cause of the problem.
Now the claim is that there are another twelve to twenty Million Undocumented Foreign Nationals that have since managed to invade our Nation. If that is comparable to the 1986 estimate, could we actually be looking at more like
twenty to thirty Million Undocumented Foreign Nationals living and working illegally inside the United States, OR MORE?
This Dream Act is not a dream but much more like a Nightmare.
Let us insist that the Law(makers?) who want this “DREAM Act” legislation first spend the next twenty or thirty years living up to the enforcement portion of the bargain that was agreed to in 1986.
The Undocumented Foreign Nationals who were living and working illegally within the United States have already gotten their part of the comprehensive reform, Amnesty in 1986.
Now, it is time for the Citizens of The United States to be provided with the other half of the bargain, Enforcement of our Immigration Laws and expulsion of the Undocumented Foreign INVADERS.
We have an unemployment problem here in the United States. There are about 15 Million U.S. Citizens who want, but cannot find, work. What would happen if the Undocumented Foreign Nationals now living and working illegally inside the United States were to suddenly become unemployable? Would that not open up several million jobs for U.S. Citizens who want and DESERVE them?
What would that do for our economy? Several million U.S. Citizens working and paying taxes instead of living on taxpayer provided funds. Several million Undocumented Foreign Nationals no longer having access to those same taxpayer provided funds. Would that not put a major dent in the Federal Deficit? Maybe even help to reduce the National DEBT?
Quisling was only one lawmaker in the 1930's in Holland. Look what he did. How many Quislings do we now have in similar positions here in the United States?
When it comes to choice, the path of least resistance, the choice most often made can lead to dire consequences. That’s where America is now. Far more is being taken out of America’s economy than is being put in, and more on the way, with Senator Reid’s dream of amnesty, the most important thing of all at this crucial time to Senator Reid and Democrats. Clearly, we’re at a point when hard choices must be made. You will get nothing from Democrats but the same failed answers.
What are Democrats leading us to? Today’s blog comes to mind after viewing Herman Wouk’s War and Remembrance, a disc set first broadcast on TV. This is a good time to view this great dramatization of the first global war, World War II, which was brought about by the worst monster in human history, Adolph Hitler. I was there to witness what he caused, one of the ten percent of World War II veterans still alive. There is no reason to think Germany’s fate can’t be reenacted in America. How it happened is something we all need to think about long and hard. Thanks to Democrats, we are heading in Germany’s direction prior to World War II, to financial collapse. When the German people were looking for whom to blame, Hitler blamed Jews. Jews owned most of Germany’s industry. Hitler was wrong. Actually, according to economist Milton Friedman, it was none other than our Democrats that led the world to Depression and Germany’s financial collapse.
Whatever it takes, we must submit to a balanced budget. Whatever it takes, we must return to the constitutional principles that made America great; that is, personal responsibility and self-reliance, which is a do-it-yourself thing. Never depend on government. It’s the kiss of death.
Big government, the responsibility of Democrats, is making the American people dependent on government. Redistribution of the wealth is responsible for a weak economy, a weak economy responsible for more government dependency. Democrats engaged in class warfare are responsible for America being as divided as during the Civil War. The level of anger is building. When emotions are high, anything can happen.
To listen to the politicians bickering; they give us no answer at all, the American people are vulnerable to any answer, rest assured, with some to blame. That’s always part of it. Is it going to be greedy capitalists or government dependents to blame? Given the level of anger, and in War and Remembrance I saw men, women, and children being stripped naked, beaten and kicked on their way to their slaughter in vivid and ghastly detail, does it boil down to who America’s sheep are going to be? Already you are being groped, for the good of all. Next will it be stripped, kicked and beaten to your demise? While Jews were being machine gunned by the thousands, a German audience, amused at what was taking place, watched it happen. Who was to blame? Having lived and learned, do you blame Jews for fighting for their right to exist. What do Democrats and Obama want? Obama doesn’t favor Jews. He apologizes for America. I’ve yet to hear him say exactly what he wants to make America. Americans must demand their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or lose all that those who came before fought to gain.
It’s unbelievable how humans can be manipulated. Look at Democrats. How can you know that it will not be you who is stripped, kicked and beaten to your slaughter, while others watch in amusement, of course for the good of all? Yep, the end result justifies the means—and the whole process begins again. Look at what Democrats have already done to your rights, of course for the good of all. How much do Democrats care about your rights, poking around your groin for no cause? It’s an outrage! The poverty stricken begging Obama to hold the course, Democrats are slow learners. Why are so many impoverished? They depend on government and they could care less about whose money they take. They take no personal responsibility. It is simply help me through the night. Democrats have Nazi mentality. I can envision Democrats sending sheep to their slaughter. Power and control is the name of their game. The time for soft talk is over. Look at history. Democrats could care less about whose life they take. Only you can stop this vicious cycle. Watch Democrats run for the hills when you decide you are not going to take it anymore. Watch Republicans toe the mark.
Case questioning eligibility says facts don't support Obama story
Posted: November 26, 2010
11:45 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the Constitution will trump Twitter on issues of national importance, including the eligibility of a president, which could determine the very future of the American form of government.
The request is being made in a petition for writ of certiori, or a request for the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower appellate court, in a case brought on behalf of Col. Gregory S. Hollister, a retired Air Force officer.
He is among the many who have brought court challenges to Obama's tenure in the Oval Office based on doubts about whether Obama qualifies for the position under the U.S. Constitution's demand that presidents be a "natural born citizen," a qualification not imposed on many other federal officers.
Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bri...
The pleadings submitted to the court, compiled by longtime attorney John D. Hemenway, cite the incredible importance of the claims that Obama, in fact, failed to qualify for the office.
"If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law]," states the pleading.
"Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure," it continued.
"Thus, it is not hyperbole to state that the entire rule of law based on the Constitution is at issue. Moreover, it would indicate that the respondent Obama ran for the office of president knowing that his eligibility was at the very least in question," it continued.
The case made headlines at the district court level because of the ruling from District Judge James Robertson of Washington.
Judge James Robertson |
In refusing to hear evidence about whether Obama is eligible, Robertson wrote in his notice dismissing the case, "The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court."
Besides the sarcasm involved, the pleading states, the very evidence pertinent to the dispute at issues was ignored.
The pleading outlines that information, which challenges Obama's claim to eligibility and his campaign's citation of a computer-generated Certification of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii, a document also made available to those not necessarily born in the state, as proof of Obama's eligibility.
It suggests there are "sufficient allegations" that Obama was not born inside the United States, and outlines the law and regulations in force at the time of Obama's birth, in 1961.
"At the time of the birth of the respondent Obama in 1961 as alleged, Congress had … the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. Under the applicable provision of that act … for the respondent Obama to have been a naturalized citizen of the United States at birth, were he born of one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, as he has alleged throughout his political career he was, his mother would have had to have been continuously resident in the United States for a period of 10 years preceding the date of his birth and, most importantly, she would have had to have resided continuously for five years preceding his birth in the United State after she had turned 14 years old. Since she was only 18 when Obama was born, this condition was clearly not fulfilled," the arguments said.
It also raised the suggestion that there are sound arguments to the effect that a "natural born citizen" is someone born to two citizen parents, and Obama himself has documented that his father never was a citizen of the U.S.
The fact that the evidence never was reviewed and the judge based a "biased" decision on "a completely extrajudicial factor" [twittering], prevented Hollister from having the constitutional rule of law applied, the petition states. .
"A further example of this bias based on extrajudicial factors by the district court was its observation that a lawyer associated with the initiation of petitioner Hollister's case, a prominent Democrat in Pennsylvania who backed Hillary Clinton in her successful primary there against respondent Obama, though never admitted in the case, was 'probably' the 'real plaintiff' in the case and that he and another lawyer who signed filings but was also never admitted … were 'agents provocateur' whose efforts to raise the issue of the respondent Obama's constitutional eligibility in lawsuits were a crusade in which the petitioner Hollister was a dupe," the petition says.
The questions suggested by the petition are weighty:
- "Did the district court examine the complaint, as required by the decisions of this and every other federal court, to see if it alleged facts to support its claims?"
- "By refusing to consider the issue of defendant Obama not being a 'natural born citizen' as set out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, did the district court violate its obligations to consider the issues raised by the complaint?"
- "In … relying on extrajudicial criteria such as an assertion that 'the issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency' combined with an attack on petitioner … did the district court not engage in such obvious political bias and upon extrajudicial factors as to render its opinion void?"
- "Did the … bias engaged in lead to a decision which ignored the law as set out above and as a result place the respondent-defendant Obama above that law and the rule of law in this country generally and threaten the constitutional basis and very existence of our rule of law?"
- "Did the courts below not completely ignore the decisions of this court and the clear language of Rule 15 of the federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning amendments so as to compound its biased elevation of the defendant Obama above the rule of constitutional law?"
While the district judge dismissed the case because it had been "twittered," the appeals court simply adopted his reasoning, but wouldn't even allow its opinion affirming the decision to be published, the petition explains.
Hollister's concern rests with the fact that as a retired Air Force officer in the Individual Ready Reserve, it is possible that he at some point could be subject to Obama's orders.
"If Congress called up the Air Force Individual Ready Reserve the respondent Obama would have to give the order … If, as it appears, those orders would not be lawful, Col. Hollister would be bound … to question them and look to the respondent [Vice President Joe] Biden as constitutionally next in succession for lawful orders," the pleading said.
This case doesn't have the "standing" dispute that has brought failure to so many other challenges to Obama's eligibility, the pleading explains, because Robertson "found that it had jurisdiction of the case, and therefore that petitioner Hollister had standing."
Courts in other case have ruled that the plaintiffs suffered no injury themselves that was not general to the population, so they weren't allowed to sue. However, because of Robertson's handling of the case, standing here has been established, the pleading states, allowing the appeal actually to argue the merits of the case, and note how Supreme Court precedents have been contradicted in the handling of the challenge to Obama.
Officials told WND that this case is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to re-establish that its precedents are binding.
The district judge also remarked "sarcastically" that there may be as many as a "couple of dozen" people concerned about the dispute. In fact, polls done by CNN and others indicate almost 6 in 10 in American don't believe Obama's birth narrative, which would give those doubting the president a total in the range of 180 million or more.
"In fact, reliable polls have shown the number of such people to be in the tens of millions and growing," the pleading explains.
"The combination of bias and ridicule of a person like the plaintiff wanting his concerns resolved by a court as being, essentially, an 'unthinkable' notion, is an expressed denial of a citizen's right to access to the courts," the case pleading continues.
The document also explains that both Robertson and Obama have "held management positions on boards of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, and thus are acquainted with each other. There is every appearance of bias here," it said.
John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, has told WND a demand for verification of Obama's eligibility appears to be legitimate.
Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that "he does not want the public to know."
WND reported just days ago on another case, Kerchner v. Obama, that was before the Supreme Court with a request for review, on the same subject.
The case focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.
"This case is unprecedented," said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. "I believe we presented an ironclad case. We've shown standing, and we've shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There's nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari."
WND has reported on dozens of legal and other challenges to Obama's eligibility. Some suggest he was not born in Hawaii has he claims; others say his birth location makes no difference because a "natural born citizen" was understand at the time to be a child of two citizen parents, and Obama's father was subject to the British crown when Barack Obama was born.
Religion is good, religion is a sensitive topic, religion has no place in politics or contreversy. Their are about 21 different major religions so according to the "hard core beleivers" 20 of the religions are wrong. Beleive in whatever you wish, whatever makes you sleep good at night. One should not receive any special privledges for their religion nor should they be aloud to have holy wars. Most of our founding fathers were deist as I am. If you are not aware what that is, look it up. It is the only religion that makes sense. It is peaceful and If the deist community would grow the world would be a much more peaceful place.
UPDATE:
BORN IN THE USA?
Supremes punt on Obama eligibility again
Lawyer: Decision 'doesn't mean that this issue goes away'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 29, 2010
9:51 pm Eastern
By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court announced today it would not hear Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve in the Oval Office.
The case is the latest in a lengthy series of cases in which U.S courts have refused to hear any arguments about Mr. Obama's eligibility.
The court effectively killed the Kerchner case with one terse statement: "The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied."
"I don't think the court helped heal the country," said Mario Apuzzo, the New Jersey attorney who argued the case on behalf of retired Navy CDR Charles Kerchner. "We still don't know Mr. Obama's status. … The court is supposed to take cases that are important, and I can't imagine a case more important than this one."
"You need justice to resolve conflicts between people, and when justice is denied people continue to go after each other in a savage way. We did not get justice, " Apuzzo told WND. "For the court to deny our justice sets the country back terribly.
"This decision did not help Mr. Obama," Apuzzo added. "It did not bring legitimacy to his office. Mr. Obama does not have legitimacy of office by the court or by the consensus of the nation, because many people question whether he is a natural born citizen. How does our nation go forward with this kind of result?"
"This matter should have been addressed by the media and political parties early in the spring of 2008 during the primaries. It wasn't," wrote Kerchner Monday morning. "Congress should have addressed this when asked and when constitutionally it was required to. It didn't. The courts should have addressed the merits of the questions when appealed to early on. They didn't. Everyone in our system of government chose appeasement over confrontation and punted the ball to someone else."
"Now it is far worse," Kerchner continued. "The Supreme Court has chosen appeasement and inaction over action and dealing with the issue and questions openly in a court of law under the rules of evidence and law. Our constitutional republic and legal system is now compromised and broken."
Kerchner v. Obama argued that Mr. Obama is not a "natural born citizen," which article II, section 1 of the constitution requires any U.S. president to be. According to Swiss political theorist Emer de Vattel, whose writings heavily influenced the founding fathers, an American "natural born citizen" must be the child of two parents who were both American citizens. Mr. Obama's father was a British subject, a Kenyan student living temporarily in the United States.
"A person gains allegiance and loyalty and therefore attachment for a nation from either being born on the soil of the community defining that nation or from being born to parents who were also born on that same soil or who naturalized as though they were born on that soil," Apuzzo explained to CNN. "It is only by combining at birth in the child both means to inherit these two sources of citizenship that the child by nature and therefore also by law is born with only one allegiance and loyalty to and consequently attachment for only the United States."
"If they wanted to they could have taken this up," Apuzzo told WND. He surmised the court decided, "I don't want to rock the boat too much because that will make it worse, let me be nice and things will go away."
"None of this is moot. If he runs again in 2012, people will want to know" [whether Mr. Obama is a legitimate president], said Apuzzo. "The issue is not going away. … You're going to have a lot of states that are going to be on this, they will want to see that birth certificate."
Like previous cases challenging Obama's eligibility, Kerchner v. Obama foundered in lower courts on the question of "standing." Mr. Obama's attorneys have avoided addressing the merits of an eligibility case. Instead, they have repeatedly succeeded in persuading courts to dismiss cases because the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they could not prove they were directly harmed by Mr. Obama's occupation of the Oval Office.
Another case currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, Barnett v. Obama, may not be stopped by the standing problem, according to United States Justice Foundation Executive Director Gary Kreep. Kreep, author of the Western Center for Journalism amicus curiae brief cited above by the Supreme Court, represents two plaintiffs in the Barnett case.
Kreep explained that one of the plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Alan Keyes, was a presidential candidate in 2008.
"According to case law, candidates have standing to challenge the eligibility of other candidates," Kreep told WND. "The Department of Justice, which is handling Obama's defense, is not even addressing standing. They're saying it's a political question," and therefore shouldn't be decided by the courts."
Apuzzo and Kreep both suggested that Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor should have recused themselves from the Kerchner case.
"We've seen Justice Kagan recuse herself in various cases, and here's a case where she did not recuse herself, and also Justice Sotomayor, which struck me as really odd because they were appointed by President Obama," said Apuzzo.
"If he's not eligible to be president, he never was, and it could jeopardize their appointments," said Kreep. "An argument could have been made that they should have recused themselves."
"If either of them had anything to do with any of the eligibility decisions, they should have recused themselves," Kreep added. Kagan, as President Obama's Solicitor General, was "probably" involved in planning his legal strategy in earlier eligibility cases.
Apuzzo suggested Kagan's and Sotomayor's participation might have changed the outcome of the court's deliberations.
"We don't know what the vote was," Apuzzo pointed out. "If it was a dog of a case, you don't need Kagan's or Sotomayor's votes. Why did they leave this ethical cloud hanging in history? For what? For a dog of a case?"