Monday, January 30, 2012


State of Denial in Coming War Catastrophe by Greg Hunter

30 January 2012 No Comment
By Greg Hunter’s 
The world economy is in the tank, and the Federal Reserve’s decision to extend its zero interest rate policy to, at least, the end of 2014 proves it.  What will happen if the fragile world economy also has to deal with a war with Iran?  That should have been the big headline coming out of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, but what was reported was concern over slow or no growth in the world.  All the signs are that the West is careening towards war with Iran, and there is not a peep about it from world leaders.  Are they in a state of denial in a coming war catastrophe?  I say yes.
One of the first shots fired by the EU was in the form of increased sanctions to boycott Iranian oil in about five months.  The second shot looks like it will be fired by the Iranians who won’t wait for sanctions to kick in and will move to cut off oil exports of around 600,000 barrels a day to the Eurozone.  (Click here for more on this story.)  The Iranians have not yet cut off the oil.   MSNBC reported yesterday, “The Islamic Republic declared itself optimistic about a visit by U.N. nuclear experts that began on Sunday but also warned the inspectors to be “professional” or see Tehran reducing cooperation with the world body on atomic matters.  The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspection delegation will seek to advance efforts to resolve a row about nuclear work which Iran says is for making electricity but the West suspects is aimed at seeking a nuclear weapon.”  (Click here to read the latest CNBC story.)
The immediate cut off of oil to the EU would be a disaster, and the Iranians do not have to close the Strait of Hormuz to do it.  This would cause major pain to a European economy teetering on the brink of collapse.  How well do you think the Eurozone would perform with a spike in energy prices?  Talk about no growth, how about a giant contraction and an implosion of some of the biggest banks on both sides of the Atlantic.  This is not all out war, mind you, just an immediate cut of Iranian oil to Europe.  
Some say this is all just a high stakes game of poker with both sides saber rattling and jockeying for position., global intelligence experts, said in a report last week, “It is in this context that the possibility of negotiations has arisen. The Iranians have claimed that the letter the U.S. administration sent to Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that defined Iran’s threats to Strait of Hormuz as a red line contained a second paragraph offering direct talks with Iran. After hesitation, the United States denied the offer of talks, but it did not deny it had sent a message to the Iranian leadership.”  (Click here to read the complete report.)  
I think this view is extremely optimistic and on the edge of wishful thinking in light of the comments made by the Israeli Defense Minister a few days ago.  The UK Telegraph reported, “Reviving Western concerns that his government is still contemplating unilateral military action against Iran, Ehud Barak gave one of the clearest signs yet that Israel’s support for new US and EU sanctions remains strictly limited.  “We are determined to prevent Iran from turning nuclear,” he told the World Economic Forum in Davos. “And even the American president and opinion leaders have said that no option should be removed from the table.  It seems to us to be urgent, because the Iranians are deliberately drifting into what we call an immunity zone where practically no surgical operation could block them.”  (Click here to read the complete UK Telegraph story.)  This doesn’t sound like a peace plan to me., a leading intelligence website, reported the possible time table for war in a post yesterday.  The analysis says actions by the U.S. Navy on deploying a special commando ship in the Persian Gulf point to a conflict that is just a few months away.  The report said, “The target date for deploying the commando platform in the Persian Gulf in four or five months indicates Washington is preparing for military clashes to blow up with Iran in the late spring or early summer.” (Click here for the complete report.)  Then again, what if the Iranians feel war is going to happen no matter what and don’t wait for the U.S. to be fully set.  What if the Israelis take charge and strike first?  If the U.S. lost an aircraft carrier or two, would the conflict turn nuclear?  These are all real world questions with catastrophic implications for the fragile Western economy that is cocked full of insolvent banks that use phony accounting to stay afloat.  If real war breaks out, the charade will be over—pronto.   
I am not advocating war–just pointing out that war is coming unless something is done to avert it.  If war does come, it will be bloody on both sides.  The Iranians surely possess sophisticated supersonic Chinese and Russian missiles that are capable of sinking an aircraft carrier.  The Iranians, also, probably have Russian torpedoes that travel at speeds of at least 200 miles per hour—underwater!   Check out this example of a Russian torpedo that can sink vessels above and below the water.   
Does the U.S. have countermeasures to Chinese and Russian missiles and torpedoes?   Yes, but no countermeasure is 100% effective.  It would be naïve to think the U.S. could come out of this conflict without a loss of vessels and lives.  The U.S would win the war, but the world economy would collapse in a matter of days if the saber rattling turned into full metal-to-metal contact.  An imploding global economy would happen in Internet time and would make the Great Depression look like a party.

Sunday, January 29, 2012




Saturday, January 28, 2012





WE MUST WIN  THIS WAR                                       A TEAM'S 
THIS IS A PROGRAM TEST FOR WFZR                                                             MURDOCK





DS about the BS in the US from BS (BERRY).... DWIGHT SCHULTZ




OBAMA ELIGIBILITY COURT CASEBLOW BY BLOWBy Craig Andresen on January 26, 2012 at 9:25 am

Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.
The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.
Promptly at 9am EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.
The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.
With the small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could be seen fanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return of the attorneys and the appearance of the judge.
Obama himself, who had been subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowhere near Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia.
Over the last several weeks, Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had attempted several tactics to keep this case from moving forward. He first tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was irrelevant to Obama. After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not, under the law, determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later, that Obama was simply too busy with the duties of office to appear.
After all these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia Court, Jablonski, in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to he heard and neither he nor his client would participate.
Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, fired back a letter hours later telling Jablonski he was free to abandon the case and not participate but that he would do so at his and his clients peril.
Game on.
5 minutes.
10 minutes.
15 minutes with the attorneys in the judge’s chambers.
20 minutes.
It appears Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, all go to the plaintiff table 24 minutes after meeting in the judge’s chambers.
Has Obama’s attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? Is he directly ignoring the court’s subpoena? Is he placing Obama above the law? It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear in court, would we or our attorney be allowed such action or, non action?
Certainly not.
Court is called to order.
Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence.
Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence
Pages 214 and 215 from Obama’s book, "Dreams from My Father" entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his father’s history is mentioned. It states that his father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.
Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.
June 27th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama’s father’s status shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through the Freedom of Information Act.
Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between "citizen" and "Natural Born Citizen" using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.
It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.
The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken accordingly.
Carl Swinson takes the stand.
Testimony is presented that the SOS has agreed to hear this case, laws applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will be on the ballot and the challenge to it by Swinson.
2nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimony regarding documents of challenge to Obama’s appearance on the Georgia ballot and his candidacy.
Court records of Obama’s mother and father entered into evidence.
Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.
RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.
DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.
Jablonski letter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their desire that these proceedings not take place and that they would not participate.
Dreams From My Father entered.
Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in.
Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into evidence. This disc contains information regarding the status of Obama’s father received through the Freedom of Information Act.
This information states clearly that Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen.
At this point, the judge takes a recess.
The judge returns.
David Farrar takes the stand.
Evidence showing Obama’s book of records listing his nationality as Indoneasan. Deemed not relevant by the judge.
Orly Taitz calls 2nd witness. Mr. Strump.
Enters into evidence a portion of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama’s mother for her passport listing Obama’s last name something other than Obama.
State Licensed PI takes the stand.
She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1977. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1977, shows that Obama was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.
Same SS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.
Next witness takes the stand.
This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original document.
Linda Jordan takes the stand.
Document entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.
Next witness.
Mr. Gogt.
Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 years.
Mr. Gogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by "unsharp mask" in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showing this, is considered to be a fraud.
States this is a product of layering.
Mr. Gogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show such layering.
Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obama’s documents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped by layered into the document by computer.
Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration officer specializing in immigration fraud.
Ran Obama’s SS number through database and found that the number was issued to Obama in 1977 in the state of Connecticut . Obama never resided in that state. At the time of issue, Obama was living in Hawaii.
Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.
Mr. Sampson also states that portion of documents regarding Mr. Sotoroe, who adopted Obama have been redacted which is highly unusual with regards to immigration records.
Suggests all records from Social Security, Immigration, Hawaii birth records be made available to see if there are criminal charges to be filed or not. Without them, nothing can be ruled out.
Mr. Sampson indicates if Obama is shown not to be a citizen, he should be arrested and deported and until all records are released nobody can know for sure if he is or is not a U.S. Citizen.Taitz shows records for Barry Sotoro aka Barack Obama, showing he resides in Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time.
Taitz takes the stand herself.
Testifies that records indicate Obama records have been altered and he is hiding his identity and citizenship.
Taitz leave the stand to make her closing arguments.
Taitz states that Obama should be found, because of the evidence presented, ineligible to serve as President.
And with that, the judge closes the hearing.
What can we take away from this?
It’s interesting.
Now, all of this has finally been entered OFFICIALLY into court records.
One huge question is now more than ever before, unanswered.
Without his attorney present, Obama’s identity, his Social Security number, his citizenship status, and his past are all OFFICIALLY in question.
One thing to which there seems no doubt. He does NOT qualify, under the definition of Natural Born Citizen" provided by SCOTUS opinions, to be eligible to serve as President.
What will the judge decide? That is yet to be known, but it seems nearly impossible to believe, without counter testimony or evidence, because Obama and his attorney chose not to participate, that Obama will be allowed on the Georgia ballot.
It also opens the door for such cases pending or to be brought in other states as well.
Obama is in it deep and the DNC has some…a LOT…of explaining to do unless they start looking for a new candidate for 2012.

Drs Phillip & Charlotte Allen

Friday, January 27, 2012


Psalm 109:8
My wife and I were in slow-moving traffic the other day and
we were stopped behind a car that had an unusual Obama
bumper sticker on it.
It read: "Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8".

When we got home my wife got out the Bible and opened it
up to the scripture. She started laughing & laughing. Then she
read it to me. I couldn't believe what it said. I had a good
laugh, too.

Psalm 109:8 ~
"Let his days be few and brief;
and let others step forward to replace him."

At last -- I can honestly voice a Biblical prayer for our
president! Look it up -- it is word for word! Let us all bow our
heads and pray. Brothers and Sisters, can I get an

Told you This Might Happen, Keep Watching ? Georgia Act 4

By Dave Tombers
One of the attorneys who fought a court case over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court says he fears that even if the U.S. Supreme Court declared Obama unqualified, he’d simply ignore the ruling and continue issuing orders.
But those who observed a court hearing today in Atlanta say it could be the beginning of the end for the Obama campaign, because of the doubt that could surge like a tidal wave across the nation.
The comments came today from Leo Donofrio, who led the pack in filing lawsuits over Obama’s 2008 election and his subsequent occupancy of the White House.
He was commenting on today’s hearing before a Georgia administrative law judge on complaints raised by several state residents that Obama is not eligible to run for the office in 2012. That hearing went on after Obama and his lawyer decided to snub the court system and refuse to participate.
Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”
A decision from the judge, Michael Malihi, is expected soon.
The Georgia residents delivered sworn testimony to a court that, among other things, Obama is forever disqualified from having his name on the 2012 presidential ballot in the state because his father never was a U.S. citizen. Because the Constitution’s requirement presidents be a “natural born citizen,” which is the offspring of two citizen parents, he is prevented from qualifying, they say.
The historic hearing was the first time that a court has accepted arguments on the merits of the controversy over Obama’s status. His critics say he never met the constitutional requirements to occupy the Oval Office, and the states and Congress failed in their obligations to make sure only a qualified president is inaugurated, while his supporters say he won the 2008 election and therefore was “vetted” by America.
In Georgia, the law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.
Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.
Donofrio’s case – like all the others that have reached the Supreme Court – simply was refused recognition.
“That President Obama’s attorneys didn’t show respect for the court, the citizens, the secretary of state, and the statutes of Georgia reveals the true character of the administration as being completely and utterly against state’s rights,” Donofrio said. “The federal government is growing out of control with every administration and this action today is a loud announcement that this administration is going to do what it likes, and you can imagine that their response to this judiciary would be exactly the same if this had been the U.S. Supreme Court.”
He said if Georgia does decide to keep Obama off its state election ballots, he won’t appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, “because if he were to lose there, his entire administration would be void, including his appointments to the Supreme Court.”
“If Obama were to appeal in Georgia, only this election is in play, and only as to Georgia’s ballots, but if he loses in Georgia, appealing to the SCOTUS brings in his entire eligibility, and the legitimacy of his current administration,” Donofrio warned.
“My personal belief is that if the U.S. Supreme Court held that he was ineligible, he might simply ignore the ruling, and test the will of the nation, just as he is testing the will of the state of Georgia,” he said.
The White House today was absolutely silent about the issue. The Georgia case is far different from the lawsuits over the 2008 election, in which judges virtually unanimously ruled that they could not make a decision that would remove a sitting president, no matter the circumstances.
This hearing was about concerns being raised, as allowed by Georgia state law, that Obama is not eligible for the office of president and therefore should not be allowed on the 2012 election ballot.
“If the judge’s recommendation – and I’ve been told that it’s going to be to disqualify Mr. Obama as a candidate – is followed by the secretary of state, Mr. Obama has got a real problem,” said Gary Kreep, of the United States Justice Foundation.
His organization pursued several of the lawsuits over Obama’s occupancy of the Oval Office to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the justices simply decided they wouldn’t be bothered with such issues as the constitutional eligibility of a president.
“He’s thumbed his nose at the court. He’s thumbed his nose at the secretary of state in Georgia. He’s thumbed his nose at the people and said, ‘I’m above it all. I’m above the law,’” Kreep said.
Kreep’s cases have outlined out there is precedent in the U.S. for the removal of a sitting chief executive because of an issue over ineligibility.
Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had warned Secretary of State Brian Kemp yesterday that he needed to simply call off the hearing, and he and Obama would not participate.
Not only did Obama not participate, there also was no comment.
On a day when Obama was campaigning in Arizona and Colorado, he released formal statements about the retirement of Congressman Brad Miller, and the retirement of Gov. Bev Perdue.
But WND calls to the White House brought only the instructions to e-mail a question to the media affairs department. WND did but got no response. WND also contacted Obama’s campaign headquarters, to receive instructions to email a question. WND did again, but again got no response.
Jablonski, the Atlanta attorney representing Obama, also declined to return WND messages left at his office today.
Mario Apuzzo, who also shepherded a case to the Supremes, said Obama, by not showing, “actually failed to meet his burden of proof, to show that he is eligible and should be placed on the ballot.”
“For him to just ignore due process here is really telling a lot,” he said, noting, “This decision will have a ripple effect.”
“He’s not above the law. That’s a very important thing here. He’s a private person running for office, so he had no business not showing up. So the court can enter the judgment, and then the secretary of state does what he wants with it. And this will have a ripple effect for other secretaries of state, for other states, for the public. Also for any case that could be pending in the Supreme Court, where the issue of Mr. Obama’s eligibility is implicated,” he said.
“It’s a really important milestone that has been reached.”
Apuzzo warned that an administrative law judge certainly wields authority in such cases.
“We had a legitimate hearing in a legitimate court where this private person, Barack Obama, was asked to come there and satisfy the basic Georgia election law ballot procedure, and he doesn’t show up. Nor does he send an attorney. We don’t see this on television yet, but I can’t imagine this not being major news. It boggles the mind that a sitting president who is running for re-election doesn’t show up at a state’s legitimately constituted proceeding to make sure that he is indeed eligible to be on the ballot,” he said.
Charles Kerchner, on whose behalf one of those cases went to the Supremes, said, “Obama thinks he is a king and thus not subject to the election laws of Georgia and the United States Constitution. He will soon learn otherwise.”
He continued, “As the Georgia secretary of state said in warning Obama and his attorney if they did not show.up for the court hearing today … if they do that, they will do so at their own peril.”
Kreep, who has fought battles in both state and federal courts over the issue, said a ruling that would remove Obama’s name from the Georgia ballot would be a “tremendous victory for … America.”
“If the judge issues a default and rules that Barack Obama will not be on the Georgia ballot, and if the secretary of state upholds that, then Mr. Obama, having told the court to essentially stick it in their ear, he wasn’t going to participate, wasn’t going to recognize their power – he’s going to have a tough time convincing some other court to overturn the ruling, because he waived his right to object to it by not appearing,” he explained.
“That’s a big deal to judges. A judge may or may not agree with another judge’s ruling, but when one party waives their ability to object, judges are very reluctant to get involved, because the party has basically said, ‘We don’t care what you do, we’re not going to abide by it.’ Judges don’t like that. They don’t like to be blown off,” he said.
He said the election outcome also could be decided because of not being on a ballot in even one state. And he said there’s more to come.
“I can tell you from my own personal knowledge that there are challenges going on in other states. Van Irion has one in Arizona and one in Tennessee. We have one in Illinois that is has gone under the radar. We’re going to be filing similar challenges around the country. We’ll be filing one within a week and another right around the end of the month,” he said.

Thursday, January 26, 2012



By Jerome R. Corsi
Georgia citizens today delivered sworn testimony to a court that Barack Obama is slam-dunk disqualified from having his name on the 2012 presidential ballot in the state, because his father never was a U.S. citizen, which prevents him from qualifying as a “natural-born citizen” as the U.S. Constitution requires for a president.
The historic hearing was the first time that a court has accepted arguments on the merits of the controversy over Obama’s status. His critics say he never met the constitutional requirements to occupy the Oval Office, and the states and Congress failed in their obligations to make sure only a qualified president is inaugurated. His supporters, meanwhile, argue he won the 2008 election and therefore was “vetted” by America.
Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”
The hearing was before Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.
Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by California attorney Orly Taitz, who has handled numerous cases concerning Obama’s eligibility; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.
Several of the attorneys introduced passages from Obama’s own writings that Barack Obama Sr. was his father. They then introduced evidence that the man never was a U.S. citizen, that he was a citizen of Kenya at the time of junior’s birth and was therefore a subject of the United Kingdom.
His father’s citizenship, they said, precludes him from serving as president, since the Founders required that officer to be a “natural-born citizen,” not just a “citizen.”
The term is not defined in the Constitution, but evidence introduced included a passage from a 1975 Supreme Court opinion that states:”The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Weldon explained in his presentation that the 14th Amendment granting citizenship did not redefine Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which includes the requirement for a president to be a “natural-born citizen.”
The attorney argued also that another later court case referenced citizenship in the dicta, not the central holding in the case, and thus was not controlling.
Many of Irion’s arguments were echoed by Hatfield, a strategy that at least one constitutional expert, Herb Titus, said was sound.
Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding dean of the College of Law and Government in Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va. Prior to his academic career, he served as a trial attorney and a special assistant United States attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., and Kansas City, Mo.
He told WND the fact that Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen should be sufficient.
“That is much stronger than the question of where he was born,” he said. “That alone is evidence. … They don’t need anything additional.”
Taitz argued multiple prongs of the case: that the birth certificate released by the White House is a forgery; that he probably has had several citizenships, such as when he was listed in Indonesia as an Indonesian citizen; and that he’s been known under the names Obama, Soetoro and Soebarkah.
She also had a private investigator, Susan Daniels, testify that it appears Obama is using a fraudulent Social Security number.
Documents and imaging expert Doug Vogt asserted the birth documentation released by the White House was a creation of a software program and not a scan of any original document. That would mean Obama’s documentation, despite what the White House released in April, is still under wraps.
Obama and his attorney boycotted the proceedings, issuing a letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp that the judge was letting attorneys “run amok.” The statement came after Malihi refused to quash a subpoena for Obama’s testimony and his records, which effectively was ignored by the White House.
The judge is expected to review the evidence and make a recommendation to the state whether there is reason to be concerned about Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot.
He apparently will have no defense evidence, but Kemp had warned Obama about that.
Kemp said late last night in a response to a demand from Obama’s attorney that he simply order the hearing stopped.
“Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

WND reported earlier on the stunning decision from Malihi, who refused to quash the subpoena even after Obama outlined his defense strategy for such state-level challenges, which have erupted in half a dozen or more states already.
“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argued. “The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant.”
But the judge thought otherwise.
“Defendant argues that ‘if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as president of the United States’ to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend,” he wrote in his order.
“Defendant’s motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority,” the judge continued.
“Specifically, defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony … [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced,’” the judge said.
Jablonski also had argued that the state should mind its own business.
“The sovereignty of the state of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. … Since the sovereignty of the state does not extend beyond its territorial limits, an administrative subpoena has no effect,” the filing argued.
The image released by the White House in April:

Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House
Titus said, “‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning. Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”
If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.
“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”

Cartoons Jan 25

Professor Terry Lovell on NO SHOW IN GEORGIA ?

NO SHOW on Georgia Court Appearence of Obama and his Lawyer with Birth Certificate ?

The question is this: Is Michael Jablonski THIS stupid?

Rumors have it that Obama Defense Attorney Michael Jablonski is putting his license to practice law in Georgia in jeopardy over his handling of President Obama's defense in the ballot challenge to his eligibility under Georgia law.
PV Provides The Legal Oath Attorneys Must Swear To To Practice Law in Georgia:

" I,_________________,  swear that I will truly and honestly, justly and uprightly conduct myself as a member of this learned profession and in accordance with the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct,  as an attorney and counselor and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Georgia. So help me God.”


What is Jablonski doing that could be in violation of his oath?  Two things, actually:

1) His advice to his Client, President Obama, is that Obama can ignore Administrative Law Judge Malihi's order to appear in court today (January 26th) with proof of his being a natural-born citizen.

2) If Jablonski himself fails to appear in the court as the legal counsel for Obama, he could be held in contempt of court, as well as be found in violation of his Oath to "...honestly, justly and uprightly conduct myself as a member of this learned profession and in accordance with the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct."
In a letter Jablonski sent to Secretary of State Brian Kemp on 1/25/2012, Jablonski closes his typical "baffle-them-with-bullshit-threats" letter with the following statement:

 "We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26."

PV Sez: By the way, Folks...keep in mind that the Georgia law being used here to challenge Obama's qualifications was written by Georgia Democrats long before 2003.  So, this law that is being used for this case is their law that their Democrat legislators wrote and passed a long, long time ago.

SO, perhaps the legal community of Georgia should speak-up a little here and answer the question as to whether it is in accordance with the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct for a practicing attorney to ignore a judge's order to appear in a Georgia court?

Secretary of State Brian Kemp answered Jablonski's letter with this letter issued a few hours after Jablonski delivered his letter to the SoS: Click Here.

PV finds it quite interesting how Kemp closed his letter to Jablonski: "Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril."

In short, the "peril" Kemp refers to here is the "peril" of a) ignoring a judge's order, and b) failing to provide some documentation to the Administrative Law Court from Obama.

Contrary to what the yahoo-administrator over on a pseudo-Republican-run Georgia blog thinks, this case is being processed according to the Rule of Law, not the "Rule of Politics."

If Blogger Charlie Harper had his way, the judge should become an "activist judge" and ignore the color of Georgia law.  According to Harper's line of reasoning, judges should first examine whether a case may become an "embarrassment" to the state before proceeding with the legal issues of any case.

Too bad Mr. Harper's brain has simply melted into a morass of complete stupidity of late.

What is The Political Vine?

The Political Vine was established on July 24, 2000 and is based in Georgia. We have gone though many incarnations, first as only an e-mail newsletter, then a Website, and now a Blog with an e-mail sent out to a list of about 5000 people.
All material is produced by Georgia Republican activists whose agenda is to deliver facts, information, humor, opinion and rumors in a satirical/sarcastic environment.
If you are receiving this issue of the Vine via a FWD from one of your friends, you should sign-up for your very own via the link below. Simply Click and when the form pops-up, enter your email address and hit the "JOIN" button.  You will receive a confirm-request email that you will need to respond to in order to get on the list.

First Video from Burns and Poe. FUN VIDEO

Find more videos like this on BigDawg Music Mafia

Judge Andrew Napolitano Natural rights Patriot Act - SHOWN IN 3 PARTS.



by Sharon Rondeau

First page of incident report involving Bari Shabazz in Hawaii in 1982 which was amended to "nolle prosequi" in 2003, 21 years after his alleged death
(Nov. 9, 2011) — In a posting dated November 7, 2011, Atty. Mario Apuzzo reported that the criminal record of a Bari Shabazz, who apparently failed to appear in court following a car accident in Hawaii in 1982, was changed 21 years later to indicate that the charge of driving without a valid license would not be prosecuted and that the judgment had been “satisfied.”
Shabazz’s death is reported to have been recorded in the Social Security Administration’s database as having occurred in August 1994.  Why would a prosecutor in Hawaii ask a judge to expunge a criminal record of someone who had been deceased for more than two decades?  How could its validity have been contested so many years after the event which it chronicled?
It appears another change was made in 2005 to the record indicating that there was no money owed to the court in the form of fines or fees.
What motivation would a prosecutor have to raise the issue 21 years after the fact?  How could a judge have even prosecuted a deceased man?
But was Shabazz dead, or simply renamed?  Is Bari Shabazz’s middle initial “M”?
The Terrible Truth blog contends that Bari M. Shabazz is the original identity of Barack Hussein Obama II, that he is a fugitive from justice, and that he was born in New York City on October 28, 1959.  Author Martha Trowbridge states that Shabazz’s father was Malcolm X, the black civil rights leader who had initially preached that white men were “blue-eyed devils.”
If Shabazz became Obama, was the Hawaii bench warrant nullified in 2003 because Obama planned to run for the U.S. Senate from the state of Illinois in 2004?  Was Obama fearful that someone could unravel a secret past?
And was the additional altering of the record in 2005 made in preparation for Obama’s run for the White House rumored as early as 2006?  Were the alterations made just in case someone perceived a connection between Shabazz and Obama?
Is there a connection?
Are there connections among Barack Obama Sr., Malcolm X, Nikita Kruschev and Fidel Castro?
Malik” is the name of the eldest son of Barack Obama Sr. as well as Bari Shabazz’s middle name.  Malik Obama was Barack Hussein Obama’s best man at his wedding.  Malik has stated that Obama was also best man at his wedding, but does not say which one, as Malik is a polygamist.
Malcolm X had been known as “Detroit Red” during his youth.  Did the clothing worn by the Obama family on Election Night 2008 signify a connection to that nickname?  Malcolm admitted to using various identities, including “Shabazz.”
Malcolm X visited Elijah Muhammad, founder of the Nation of Islam, in Chicago after his release from prison in 1952, and Muhammad became Malcolm’s mentor.  Today, Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam and rejuvenator of the Fruit of Islam, the security wing of the NOI, lives in Obama’s Chicago neighborhood. There is a connection among Farrakhan, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and Obama.  Farrakhan and Wright had traveled to visit the recently-assassinated Muomaar Qaddafi of Libya in 1984.  Following Qaddafi’s death, early indications were that the rebels could instituteSharia law as the foundation of an interim government.
Why did Obama choose that neighborhood to raise his young family?
Malcolm X’s family has accused Louis Farrakhan of plotting the assassination of their father, and one of the daughters was arrested in 1995 for allegedly plotting to kill Farrakhan.  Is Farrakhan “just a guy in the neighborhood” for Obama?
Percy Sutton was “a family friend” and attorney to Malcolm X, and he recommended that Harvard Law School accept Obama as a student because he was “brilliant.”
It is reported that Barack Obama Sr.’s education at the University of Hawaii was funded partly by the Laubach Literacy Institute.  A supporter of the Institute was Elizabeth Mooney Kirk, who is described as a “friend” of Malcolm X.
Kenyan politician Tom Mboya was acquainted with Barack Obama Sr., and Elizabeth Mooney Kirk knew both men.
One writer states that Barack Obama Sr.’s paternity of Obama “is probably false.”
Could this be why Obama has never released his school records, medical records, or any verifiable documentation about himself?  Does it explain why the two images he has released as “birth certificates” were immediately labeled forgeries?  Would it explain why Obama’s social security number was issued from a state in which he never resided, worked or attended school?
How did Obama accomplish election to public office without at least a certified copy of his original birth certificate?  How was he deemed to be eligible for the offices he sought and free of a criminal past?
Sheriff Joe Arpaio pledged to investigate Obama’s background and recently stated that he has information which would be a “shock” to the American people.  Will that shock come from the revelation of identity theft, election fraud, and a criminal past on the part of the putative president who had touted the message of “hope and change” so loudly during the 2008 presidential campaign?
Is there really no such person as Barack Hussein Obama II?  Were members of the Kenyan Parliamentlying when they asserted that Obama was born in their country rather than the United States?  Were the African newspapers incorrect when they stated that Obama had been born in Kenya?
What about the document which Lucas Smith stated he obtained from the Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya which bears the name “Barack Hussein Obama II?”  Copies of the document, along with personalized letters, were mailed during the summer of 2010 to every member of the 111th Congress, yet they all state that Obama was born in Hawaii.  What proof exists that he was?  The hospital which Obama has identified as “the place of my birth” refuses to discuss it.
How can a person without a past become the President of the United States and command its military forces?
© 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...