Saturday, February 4, 2012

President Obama’s latest policy outrage makes no attempt to hide his contempt for our military



http://shark-tank.net/2012/02/04/25210/
END OF COMBAT PAY ALL OVERSEAS MILITARY  UNLESS YOUR BEING SHOT AT ? LIKE I GUESS NO ONE IS GOING TO SHOOT AT YOU... KISSES ONLY ?  WTF ?  I SUGGEST HE GO OVER THERE WITH THEM AND KEEP TRACK...TAKE A PAD !
By Javier Manjarres
President Obama’s latest policy outrage makes no attempt to hide his contempt for our military, as he is ordering that our troops serving overseas in war zones overseas are not to receive combat pay unless they are being shot at. A Marine who lives in Florida has just posted a note on Facebook which stated that he received a letter from his MyPay account that he would only be receiving his Hazard pay (Imminent Danger Pay) if he is actually in a hostile area and at risk of being shot at.
So I just got a letter from MyPay (the way we get paid in the military), saying that I will only reason Combat Pay while deployed for the days that I take fire or am in a hostile area. Now, as an Infantry Marine, I’m constantly in a combat zone…it may not always be popping off, but for them to take that away from us is bullshit. Now, the aviation tech who sits on Camp Leatherneck, sure, I can see him not getting Combat Pay, but to take it away from the grunts, the ground pounders, the front line of defense…come on, Uncle Sam. You let the Liberals win a big one here… Florida Marine Corp Soldier (We are not posting his name for obvious reasons)
According to Military.com, as of February 1, 2012, this new measure went into effect, and soldiers who are to received the additional $225/mo. combat pay ‘must’  be in immediate risk of harm. The measure is very specific in its criteria for receiving the additonal pay.
The rules for Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay have changed. Service members will now receive imminent danger pay only for days they actually spend in hazardous areas. This change went in effect on February 1, 2012.
A member of a uniformed service may be entitled to Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger pay at the rate of $225 for any month in which he/she was entitled to basic pay and in which he/she was:
  • Subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines;
  • On duty in an area in which he was in imminent danger of being exposed to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines and in which, during the period he was on duty in that area, other members of the uniformed services were subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines;
  • Killed, injured, or wounded by hostile fire, explosion of a hostile mine, or any other hostile action; or
  • On duty in a foreign area in which he was subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger on the basis of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism, or wartime conditions.
The last bullet point speaks volumes as to the sheer stupidity of this measure. The whole point of going to Afghanistan and Iraq was for combat operations- Afghanistan still is a hostile warzone, and both U.S. and NATO forces continue to suffer losses in and out of combat hot zones. Insurgent attacks have accured throughout areas that have been deemed ‘safe’, and in areas where hostilities were not forseen.

LOOKING FOR THE CARTOON ROLL...LOOK ABOVE THE PICTURE ABOVE..

CARTOON'S ON A ROLL ARE NOW ON PAGES AT TOP OF BLOG.. EACH ROLL HAS A BUNCH... ENJOY....BILL
JOIN US OR FOLLOW US BY SIGNING UP BELOW THE CLOCK
WE DO NOT SEND ANY EMAILS OR ADVERTISEMENTS.

Paul R. Hollrah: Letter : LADY JUSTICE HAS DIED ?





Paul R. Hollrah                                                                                           February 1, 2012 
150 Walnut Street
Locust Grove, OK 73242

Lady Justice Has Died

by Paul R. Hollrah


Historians might have viewed the events of Thursday, January 26, 2012 in Atlanta, Georgia, as one of the singular events of American history, along with landmark events such as Lincoln’s signing of the Emancipation Proclamation; Lee’s surrender at Appomattox; the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor; and the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision. 

On that day, a trial was held in an Atlanta courtroom that would have a longstanding impact on state-federal relations, reversing the long downward trend toward the accumulation of power at the federal level, at the expense of the states.  It was a trial in which ordinary citizens once again defended the concept that, in the United States, it is the people who rule, not the political elites. 

The Atlanta trial became an event of major national significance on January 3, 2012, when The Hon. Michael M. Malihi, Deputy Chief Judge of the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings, issued a ruling denying Barack Obama’s motion to dismiss four cases alleging that he is not eligible to serve as President of the United States. 

Since 2008, nearly 90 court cases have been filed, challenging Obama’s eligibility.  All have fallen victim to either political correctness or political chicanery; none have been successful.  However, at least one of the cases allowed to proceed in the Georgia court… David P. Welden v. Barack Obama… was different in that it was simple and straightforward.  It challenged Obama at his weakest point, his inability to qualify as a “natural born Citizen.”  Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”  

In his complaint, Welden stipulated that Obama was born in the United States, that he is an American citizen, and that he was eligible to serve in the United States Senate.  It did not mention Obama’s alleged Indonesian citizenship, his missing college records, his missing passports and visas, or his alleged stolen Social Security number. 

In his challenge, filed with Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp on November 15, 2011, Welden asserted that: “Pursuant to O.C.G.A. (Official Code of Georgia Annotated) §21-2-5, I hereby challenge the eligibility of Barack Obama to appear on the March 6 Democratic Presidential Preference Primary Ballot and/or on the November 6, 2012 general election ballot for President of the United States.”

The Georgia statute provides that, “Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

The statute provides that either the Georgia Secretary of State, or any registered elector in the state, may challenge the qualifications of any candidate, federal or state, who seeks access to the Georgia ballot.

Welden proceeded to outline five specific allegations against Obama:

  1. The official state certified birth certificate proffered by Barack Obama contains a factual inconsistency and other anomalies that calls into question the veracity of the rest of the  information contained within said document.  

Welden was correct in his assertion that the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) released by Obama on April 27, 2011 contained a “factual inconsistency.”  For example, Obama claims to have been born at the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu on August 4, 1961.  The COLB released by Obama was registered with the Hawaii Department of Health on August 8, 2011 and contains the registration number 151-61-10641.  However, the mother of the Nordyke twins, Susan and Gretchen, born at the same hospital on August 5, 1961, has produced birth certificates bearing registration numbers 151-61-10637 and 151-61-10638, respectively.  The birth certificates of the Nordyke twins were registered with the Hawaii Department of Health on August 11, 1961, three days after Obama’s COLB was registered.

  1. Barack Obama has not adequately proven that he was born a natural born citizen of the United States.  

Under long-standing Supreme Court precedent [Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)] the term “natural born Citizen” is defined as follows: …(A)ll 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...”

The precedent established under Minor v. Happersett has not been altered or superseded in the 137 years since it was handed down.  It is established law and it applies to Barack Obama just as it does to every other citizen.

  1. Barack Obama’s alleged father, Barack Obama, Sr., was never a citizen of the United States and, at the time of his son’s birth, was not a permanent resident of the United States.  Consequently, Barack Obama was born to only one parent who was a U.S. citizen or U.S. permanent resident.

In1866, John A. Bingham, chief framer of the 14th Amendment, wrote as follows: “Every human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty (emphasis added) is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

In order for Barack Obama to qualify as a “natural born Citizen,” it is necessary that both parents must have been U.S. citizens, either native born or naturalized, at the time of his birth. 

  1. By his own admission, and under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Barack Obama was born a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and from 1963 until at least 1984 was a citizen of the Republic of Kenya.

Barack Obama was born with dual US-British citizenship by descent from his Kenyan father and his American mother.  Part 2, Section 5(1) of the British Nationality Act of 1948 reads, in part, as follows: “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act (Barack Obama, Jr.) shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father (Obama, Sr.) is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”

Obama lost his dual US-British citizenship on December 12, 1963, the day on which Kenya won its independence from Great Britain.  However, Chapter VI, Section 87[3] of the 1963 Kenyan Constitution provided as follows: “(1)  Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Sr,)… shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December 1963…  (2)  Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Jr.)… shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.”

Obama held dual US-Kenyan citizenship from December 12, 1963 until August 4, 1984, his 23rd birthday.  However, he became a Kenyan “citizen by birth” on August 4, 2010, the day on which Kenya adopted a revised constitution.  Chapter 3, Section 14 of the 2010 constitution provides as follows: A person is a citizen by birth if on the day of the person’s birth, whether or not the person is born in Kenya, either the mother or father of the person is a citizen (of Kenya).” 

  1. Due to his dual citizenship with the United Kingdom and with Kenya, Barack Obama was born with dual allegiances to foreign nations other than the United States of America.

The official U.S. government policy regarding dual citizenship is found in publications of the Consular Affairs Division of the U.S. Department of State, as follows:
“The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time.   Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.  Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice…
 “The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it… because of the problems it may cause.  Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law…  However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country.  They are required to obey the laws of both countries (emphasis added)… 
It is incomprehensible that any person who holds, or has held, allegiance to any foreign sovereignty should be allowed to serve as President or Vice President of the United States.  It is precisely why the Founding Fathers limited access to the U.S. presidency to those who
are “natural born” citizens of the United States. 
In the days leading up to the trial, Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, tried every conceivable tactic to derail the proceedings.  In a January 25, 2011 letter to Secretary of State Brian Kemp, Jablonski demanded that the hearing request be withdrawn.  He said, “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.”
Although previous presidents have been subjects of subpoenas, none have ever responded as if they were immune to the orders of the courts.  For the first time ever, an American president has snubbed a court order, denying the authority of the courts.
In a packed courtroom in Atlanta on the morning of January 26, and in a nationwide closed-circuit TV audience, viewers waited patiently for the 9:00 o’clock hour to arrive.    Then, promptly at 9:00 AM, a bailiff announced from the bench that Judge Malihi wished to see all of the attorneys in his chambers.  And as the attorneys rose from their chairs and filed out of the room, an audible gasp arose across the nation as viewers immediately assumed that, once again, the courts had been corrupted and Obama had escaped justice.
It was later learned that the reason for Judge Malihi’s desire to meet with the attorneys was to inform them that, in the absence of the defendant, Barack Obama, and/or his attorney, he was prepared to issue a default judgment on their behalf.  However, the attorneys refused to take yes for an answer.  Instead, they insisted that, in the interest of justice, they be allowed to place all of their relevant evidence on the record, in open court.  The judge acceded to their request and the trial was allowed to proceed.  At approximately 9:25 AM, the attorneys filed back into the courtroom and took their places.  Moments later the judge appeared and the trial was allowed to begin. 
As witnesses were called and sworn, the plaintiffs’ attorneys laid out a carefully crafted case, providing irrefutable evidence leading to only one conclusion: that Barack Hussein Obama does not meet the “natural born Citizen” standard of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
What was at stake in the Georgia court was far more than Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States.  Equally as important, in the minds of those who believe in our federal system and the rule of law, was the continued viability of our system of justice and the question of whether or not one man, Barack Obama, would be allowed to hold himself above the law.
In the end, Judge Malihi was unable to withstand whatever political correctness previous judges have found so irresistible.  The very same judge who was prepared to issue a default judgment on behalf of those who challenged Obama’s eligibility has proven that he too has feet of clay.  The law is clear and the evidence is irrefutable, yet Judge Malihi becomes just another in a long list of jurists who have soiled their robes.  Yes, January 26, 2012 was a red-letter day in American history.  It was the day on which justice died a painful death in an Atlanta courtroom.  The hearts of patriots are broken.  An immediate appeal is in order.

CAMPAIGN MEAN'S " SHUT UP "


By GEORGE F. WILL
Last Updated:11:27 PM, February 3, 2012
Posted:10:37 PM, February 3, 2012
Fountain Hills, Ariz.
Dina Galassini doesn’t seem to pose a threat to Arizona’s civic integrity. But the government of this desert community thinks you can’t be too careful. And state law empowers local governments to be vigilant against the lurking danger that political speech might occur before the speakers notify the government and comply with all the speech rules.
Last October, Galassini — like many Ron Paul supporters, she is easily annoyed by government — became annoyed about the city’s plan to augment its spending with a $29.6 million bond issue, to be voted on by mail by Nov. 8. On Oct. 6, she sent e-mails to 23 friends and acquaintances, urging them to write letters to newspapers and join her in two protests against the bond measure.
On Oct. 12, before she could organize the demonstrations, she received a stern letter from the town clerk: “I would strongly encourage you to cease any campaign-related activities until the requirements of the law have been met.”
State law — this is the state of John McCain, apostle of political purification through the regulation of political speech — says that anytime two or more people work together to influence a vote on a ballot measure, they instantly become a “political committee.” This transformation triggers various requirements — registering with the government, filing forms, establishing a bank account for the “committee” even if it has raised no money and doesn’t intend to. This must be done before members of this fictitious “committee” may speak.
Galassini wrote to ask the clerk if she could e-mail the 23 persons telling them the demonstrations were canceled — she got no response — and told the clerk, “This is all so confusing to me.”
Confusion and inconvenience — Galassini could have made an appointment for tutoring by the clerk’s office concerning permissible speech — are probably intended consequences of laws designed to burden political speech that could inconvenience government. Galassini gave up trying to influence the vote.
The Supreme Court, in its splendid 2010 Citizens United decision, said laws requiring licenses or other official permission to speak “function as the equivalent of prior restraint by giving the [government] power analogous to licensing laws implemented in 16th- and 17th-century England, laws and governmental practices of the sort that the First Amendment was drawn to prohibit.”
Paul Avelar of the Institute for Justice, the nation’s only libertarian public-interest law firm, which is helping Galassini contest the constitutionality of Arizona’s law, says such niggling nuisances are proliferating nationwide.
A Florida law requires disclosure, including the name and address of the contributor, of any contribution, no matter how small to a political committee. A Washington state law is notably protective of the political class: There must be litigation before a campaign to recall a public official can start, and lawyers are essentially forbidden from volunteering their help with that litigation.
In Mississippi, anyone can put up his or her own Web page about a ballot issue, but the Web page designer must disclose the time he or she took to do it. Anyone who spends more than $200 on political speech — say, a small ad in a local newspaper — is required to give the government monthly reports about his or her political activity.
Such pettifogging laws reflect, aside from the joy governments derive from bossing people around, the current rage for regulating political speech lest . . . what? Campaign regulations usually focus on money, supposedly to prevent quid pro quo corruption or the appearance thereofpertaining to candidates. But many laws cover activities involving ballot measures, which suggests that for reformers, limiting political speech is itself the goal. Hence their obsession with political money, most of which funds the dissemination of speech.
Nationally, political hygienists are regretting their inadvertent creations, this year’s super PACs, entities run by supporters of presidential candidates, but forbidden to “coordinate” with the candidates.
Super PACs are spending money that the reformers, by imposing low limits on contributions to candidates and parties, have diverted away from campaigns that otherwise could be held directly accountable for, and judged in terms of, the speech they finance. We hear, yet again, the reformers’ cry: “There is too much money in politics.” This year, the presidential campaigns combined may spend almost $2 billion, which is almost as much as Americans will, in a few weeks, spend on Easter candy.


Read more:http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/campaign_reform_means_shut_up_BlibKnkWSaIdQYGy7fg2TL#ixzz1lPhjjBIl

American Minute with Bill Federer Feb. 4 -

American Minute with Bill Federer
Feb. 4 -
Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his challenge 
British Journalist Malcolm Muggeridge explained how Hitler's universal healthcare plan eventually led to the Holocaust:

"We have been accorded, for those that have eyes to see, an object lesson in what the quest for 'quality of life' without reference to 'sanctity of life' can involve...The origins of the Holocaust lay, not in Nazi terrorism...but in pre-Nazi Weimar Germany's acceptance of euthanasia and mercy-killing as humane and estimable."

Dietrich Bonhoeffer rebuked German Christians who stood silent while Hitler intimidated church leaders to accept the socialist, anti-life agenda of the National Socialist Workers Party (NAZI).

The New York Times reported Oct. 10, 1933:

"Nazi Plan to Kill Incurables to End Pain; German Religious Groups Oppose Move...The Ministry of Justice...explaining the Nazi aims regarding the German penal code, today announced its intentions to authorize physicians to end the sufferings of the incurable patient...in the interest of true humanity.

The Catholic newspaper Germania hastened to observe: 'The Catholic faith binds the conscience of its followers not to accept this method.'...In Lutheran circles, too, life is regarded as something that God alone can take...

Euthanasia...has become a widely discussed word in the Reich...No life still valuable to the State will be wantonly destroyed."

Bonhoeffer warned Germans not to slip into the cult of Führer (leader) worship, as he could turn out to be a Verführer (mis-leader, seducer).

Jimmy Carter, in his book Sources of Strength, 1997, wrote:

"Rev. Niebuhr urged Dietrich Bonhoeffer to remain in America for his own safety. Bonhoeffer refused. He felt he had to be among the other Christians persecuted in Germany.

So he returned home, and...in resistance to Hitler...preached publicly against Nazism, racism, and anti-Semitism...Bonhoeffer was finally arrested and imprisoned.

Born FEBRUARY 4, 1906, he died April 9, 1945, just a few days before the allied armies liberated Germany. He was executed on orders of Heinrich Himmler. He died a disciple and a martyr."

Jimmy Carter concluded:

"The same Holy Spirit...that gave Bonhoeffer the strength to stand up against Nazi tyranny is available to us today."

As a young man, Bonhoeffer was deeply effected by the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem, New York, where he taught Sunday School and formed a life-long love for African-American spirituals.

Bonhoeffer challenged believers:

"To endure the cross is not tragedy; it is the suffering which is the fruit of an exclusive allegiance to Jesus Christ"

In his most widely read book, The Cost of Discipleship, Bonhoeffer wrote:

"Cheap grace is the mortal enemy of our church. Our struggle today is for costly grace."

On February 16, 2002, Dr. James Dobson told the National Religious Broadcasters:

"Those of you who feel that the church has no responsibility in the cultural area...

What if it were 1943 and you were in Nazi Germany and you knew what Hitler was doing to the Jews...Would you say, 'We're not political-that's somebody else's problem'?"

Dobson concluded:

"I thank God Dietrich Bonhoeffer did not give that answer, and he was arrested by the Nazis and hanged in 1945, naked and alone because he said, 'This is not right.'"
News from AmeriSearch

SUPER BOWL AD'S 2012

SNOW FALL'S ON ROME FOR FIRST TIME IN 26 YEARS ?



Colosseum closes and drivers abandon cars as snow falls on Rome for the first time in 26 YEARS


  • Italian capital grinds to halt as severe weather halts traffic

  • Locals shiver in tiled homes thanks to city's heating restrictions

  • -36C temperatures across eastern Europe send death toll to 176

  • Military on alert in the UK as temperatures drop and snowfall is predicted

  • Over 11,000 villagers in Serbia trapped by snowdrifts and blizzards

  • Death toll in Ukraine now 122, with 38 people killed by cold last night
Last updated at 2:24 PM on 4th February 2012

The Colosseum and other ancient tourist sights closed to tourists as Rome saw snow for the first time in 26 years. 
Traffic in the Italian capital ground to a halt as buses struggled to climb icy hills and authorities accustomed to a warm climate fought to cope.
Visitors were stopped from entering the Roman Forum and Palatine Hill, the former home of Rome's ancient emperors, over fears they could slip on ice.
Winter wonder: The famous tourist attraction is out of bounds after the city's first snow shower in 26 years
Winter wonder: The famous tourist attraction is out of bounds after the city's first snow shower in 26 years
White winter: Rome's ancient Forum lies under a blanket of snow as gates were barred to tourists
White winter: Rome's ancient Forum lies under a blanket of snow as gates were barred to tourists


Winter sports: A man skies at Rome's Circus Maximus today after heavy snowfall
Winter sports: A man skies at Rome's Circus Maximus today after heavy snowfall

The news came as as the big freeze took hold of Europe, taking the continent's death toll to more than 176.
The last substantial snowfalls in Rome were in 1985 and 1986, though there have been other cases of lighter snow since then, including in 2010. 
 

More...

Judge says Obama can be on Georgia ballot Rejects plaintiffs demand to strike name from 2012 election





An administrative law judge in Georgia today ruled that Barack Obama’s name can be on the state’s 2012 presidential election ballot because he was born in Hawaii, is “native born” and thus also is “natural born” as required by the Constitution.
He cited a little-known determination by an Indiana judge.
“The Indiana court determined that a person qualifies as a natural born citizen if he was born in the United States because he became a United States citizen at birth,” wrote Michael Malihi, an administrative law judge in Atlanta.
“For the purposes of this analysis, this court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.”
Malihi’s decision came without any evidence being presented by Obama or his lawyer after they refused to participate in the required hearing under a state law that mandates all candidates qualify for the office they seek.
The law also allows any voter to raise a challenge, and several did. A hearing was held on their evidence on Jan. 26.
Malihi essentially tossed all of the information the plaintiffs and their attorneys presented.
“The court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs’ allegations,” he said.
He was miffed at Obama but decided the case on the merits, as requested by the plaintiffs.
“Neither defendant nor his counsel, Michael Jablonski, appeared or answered. Ordinarily, the court would enter a default order against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding. … Nonetheless, despite the defendant’s failure to appear, plaintiffs asked this court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. … By deciding this matter on the merits, the court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of defendant’s attorney, Mr. Jablonski,” he said.
The judge ignored plaintiffs’ urging that a request for a contempt citation be issued against Obama for refusing to appear as subpoenaed.
The decision can be reviewed by Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who earlier warned Obama and his attorney that to snub the Georgia court system would be at Obama’s “peril.”
Mark Hatfield, one of the attorneys who, along with Van Irion, focused on the issue of the definition of “natural born citizen,” said the judge ignored the issue of burden of proof.
“If Obama has the burden of proof, and failed to show up, clearly he didn’t carry the burden,” he told WND. “The judge here completely ignores that.”
He also noted it was highly unusual for a judge to reach into another state’s repository of court rulings to support his decision when the U.S. Supreme Court itself has made a determination.
He said he’s hoping the Georgia secretary of state will evaluate the issue carefully, but he’s prepared to take the dispute to the appeals level.
Another attorney, Orly Taitz, represented several plaintiffs and brought in  allegations of fake Social Security numbers and alternative names.
She said Malihi “makes absolutely no sense.”
Under Georgia law, she said, it is up to a candidate to prove his eligibility.
“[Obama] proved nothing. He didn’t show up. He didn’t provide evidence,” she said.
The decision follows a hearing last week on concerns raised by citizens of Georgia under a state law that allows voters to challenge the eligibility of candidates on the state’s ballot. It is the states that run elections in the U.S., and national elections are just a compilation of the results of the 50 state elections.
The 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 raising concerns include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Orly 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.
Irion, representing David P. Weldon, had urged the court not to overlook the fact that Obama had been subpoenaed for last week’s hearing. Obama’s attorney, he pointed out, acknowledged the subpoena by asking that it be quashed. But when the judge refused his request, but told a state elections official he would not participate.
“Plaintiff Weldon moves this court to refer an order for contempt to the Superior Court for confirmation that defendant Obama is in contempt of court,” the motion says. “Grounds for this motion are that defendant Obama willfully defied this court’s order to appear and testify during this court’s hearing of January 26.”
The motion explains that when Malihi refused to quash the subpoena, Obama and his attorney, Jablonski, “requested that the Secretary of State [Brian Kemp] halt the proceedings. … The letter ended with a statement that the defendant and his attorney would suspend all further participation in the proceedings of this court pending response.”
But after Kemp confirmed later that day that the hearing would continue and said that failing to participate “would be at the defendant’s peril,” Obama and his lawyer still refused to attend.
The letter from Obama’s lawyer to the state official, “coupled with the defendant’s willful refusal to comply with an order of this court, represent a direct threat to the rule of law,” the motion says. “The … actions represent a direct threat to the entire judicial branch and the separation of powers.”
Willfully ignoring a court subpoena is “unprecedented,” Irion argued. “While past presidents have litigated against subpoenas, in every case those presidents acknowledged and respected the authority of the judicial branch. … In the instant case the defendant did not appeal to a higher court, and instead instructed the Secretary of State that he would not participate. … When the Secretary of State refused to act in an unlawful manner the defendant ignored the Secretary of State, violated an order of this court, and apparently instructed his attorney to act in a manner that violates the professional rules of conduct of this state.”
Obama’s action, he said, “amounts to no less than a declaration of total dictatorial authority. Such declaration cannot go without response from this court. Failure to respond to the defendant’s contumacious conduct would amount to an admission that this court and the judicial branch as a whole do not have the authority granted to them under articles III and IV of the Constitution.”
The controversy over Obama’s eligibility dates to before his election in 2008. Some contend he was not born in Hawaii and that the birth documentation the White House released in April is a forgery.
Others say it doesn’t matter where he was born, as his father never was a U.S. citizen.
The Constitution requires presidents to be “natural-born citizens,” and experts say that the Founders regarded it as the offspring of two U.S. citizens.
Jablonski had asked Malihi to quash the subpoena, requested by Taitz. When the judge refused, Jablonski wrote to Kemp.
The attorney told Kemp that “serious problems” had developed in the hearings “pending before the Office of State Administration Hearings.”
Jablonski said, “At issue in these hearings are challenges that allege that President Obama is not eligible to hold or run for re-election to his office, on the now wholly discredited theory that he does not meet the citizenship requirements.”
He said the judge had “exercised no control” over the proceeding.
“It threatens to degenerate into a pure forum for political posturing to the detriment of the reputation of the state and your office. Rather than bring this matter to a rapid conclusion, the ALJ has insisted on agreeing to a day of hearings, and on the full participation of the president in his capacity as a candidate,” Jablonski wrote.
Kemp said the hearing, however, was in line with Georgia law, and he would be reviewing Malihi’s recommendations in the case.
He also had a warning about the cost of not showing up for a court hearing.
“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.”
Top constitutional expert Herb Titus contends that a “natural-born citizen” is born of parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of the birth. The argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor vs. Happersett in 1875. The case includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen.”
That case 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.”
An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.
“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “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.”

White House Insider: Obama Complains – I Wanna Be Cool Again


White House Insider: Obama Complains – I Wanna Be Cool Again
Ulsterman on February 3, 2012
A quick email from a longtime Washington DC political insider reveals President Obama’s “complete focus” in preparing for days to sing a few words and then use that moment to wage an all-out PR campaign to recapture the “essence of cool” he so enjoyed during the 2008 campaign.
Hope the morning finds you well. Busy-busy-busy on my end. Will give you a more thorough update in the coming days. Not sure if this information is worth publishing but figured you would get a kick out of it either way. It’s a glimpse into the president’s current state of mind. At the very least shows his priorities which are pretty much on his own image as it has always been. Story told to me on two different occasions within a couple days of each other so likely true for the most part.
Regarding that little singing bit the president did recently. The Al Green thing. If you haven’t seen the clips of that then look it up. Easy to find. It’s been spread wide and far. And that was the plan. That moment was rehearsed to death. As in over and over and over again. Apparently the president has been complaining for some time that he’s no longer cool. He was actually in on a meeting with some of the Plouffe gang and told them more than once he wanted to be cool again. “Like in ’08. We were the sh-t back in 08″. Those are the president’s words. He is obsessed with getting back to being cool like in ’08. It’s become something of a theme apparently in-house among the younger staff. They have started to greet one another with “Are we cool again?” as a joke.
So anyway, back to that singing thing the president did. Told he practiced that little line for days. Seems likely that Obama spent more time on trying to sound good on that bit than he has on dealing with anything else facing the country. They brought in a voice coach. He was playing the song over and over again. It was a complete focus. Pretty damn sad.
Now if you watch the video of it you can see that he colored his hair again. Got the stage makeup up on. And you see how he pauses and gets very serious as he prepares to sing that one little line. That’s the give-away. That’s what he does every time he is trying to look spontaneous during a moment that he has actually practiced over and over for. He is very insecure. Talked with you about that many times before. So he pauses, you see himself getting ready for the moment and then he does the bit.
Now he pulled it off. Sounded fine. I wonder though if America would be so impressed if they knew how many hours the fu–ing President of the United States spent practicing for those few seconds of song.
That’s not the end of it though. By the time that singing thing took place, the campaign had in place about a dozen people working 24/7 to spread the video on the Internet. These same people used all the fake accounts already in place to then comment how great it was. How cool the president was. Pull up some of those videos. Read the comments. Notice how many times the word cool is used. Its repeated so often because those comments are coming more often than not from the same group of campaign operatives and they were told to make the president look “cool”. A few others in the campaign then sent it off to the media to make sure they would place it prominently in the news cycle for the next 48 hours. And there were about 40 or 50 people in the crowd who had been instructed to “cheer loudly” the singing. And you can see how grateful the president is at the audience’s reaction. The guy needs that approval so damn much. The whole thing from beginning to end was a highly orchestrated effort. Not one second of it was spontaneous.
The poor bastard wants to be cool again. Hours and hours spent preparing to sing a few words. Many more hours spent by the campaign spreading the video of that moment. Don’t know if this is worth much of your time, but I found it both sad and funny that this is what this country’s president is obsessed with. Trying to be cool. Good God.
It still boggles my damn mind that me and others gotta be working this hard to defeat him. Guess it goes to show how far wrong things have gone in the country.
One last thing. A heads up. Our friend Mr. DOJ has got some interesting announcements coming his way soon. Don’t be discouraged. The sh-t is moving slow but it’s moving. Things are going better than the outside view would appear. I know it’s a broken record to you, but we got him. Good meeting in -deleted- and then on the road again early next week. Will be in touch after that.
UPDATE: It appears Barack Obama’s desire to return to 2008 with his most recent singing gesture is provided some VIDEO PROOF of him doing a very similar thing on the campaign trail three years ago! (Is everything recycled with this president?)
First – it is clear then-candidate Obama’s singing voice was not quite so…adequate as it was more recently, which would once again confirm the insights shared by Insider. Second – Obama even repeats the “wasn’t gonna do it” line in 2012 as was spoken here in 2008.
Rather sad…

NEW BS BLS REPORT SHOWS OBAMA COST US $20 TRILLION


http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2012/02/04/new_bs_bls_report_shows_obama_costs_us_20_trillion/page/full/ 
Hey folks, good news!
Another 1.2 million people dropped out the workforce, which means that Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) economists can say that unemployment has moved down to 8.3 percent without that messy job-creation thing getting in the way.
That’s been such a bummer for Obama. But now he doesn’t have to worry about his programs actually doing anything, since the invention of the new government BLS math BS to replace the old government BLS math BS makes job creation obsolete. That's just perfect for the Democrats.  
Last month when I wrote about the BS the BLS now uses to make unemployment go down, I did the math myself. This time around, I’m letting the folks from ZeroHedge and our contributor Mike Shedlock, do the math for me.
ZeroHedge says that if you add back in the 5 million people who have permanently dropped out the labor force, as reflected in the historical average workforce participations rates, the “implied” unemployment rate is 11.5 percent and rising, not falling. 
Workforce participation rates - see chart to right- imply an 11.5 percent unemployment rate, while the "official" BLS rate says unemployment is going down. Typical liberal math.       
“It also means that the spread between the reported and implied unemployment rate just soared to a fresh 30 year high of 3.2%,” ZH say. “And that is how with a calculator and just one minute of math, one strips away countless hours of BLS propaganda.”
Last month ZeroHedge reported that the spread between the reported and implied unemployment rate was at 2.9 percent, then “the widest divergence to reported data since the early 1980s. And because we know this will be the next question, extending this lunacy, America will officially have no unemployed, when the Labor Force Participation rate hits 58.5%, which should be just before the presidential election.”
Indeed, that’s how the story gets worse from here.
ZeroHedge used the historical workforce participation rates to estimate the workforce, but as our own Mike Shedlock  points out, participation rates have declined again “taking out a 1984 low.”
Instead of the historic rate of 65.8 percent participation in the workforce, we are now at 63.7 percent. That means that we are literally years away from replacing jobs that we’ve lost since Obama became president. So many have lost heart looking for work that it’s going to be some time before they become candidates for employment again. 
One of the few Wall Street economists who sees this is Lindsey Piegza, of FTN Financial in New York.
“It was a better-than-expected report, the strongest report that we've seen in quite some time,” Piegza told Reuters. “The big question is -- here's the thing: the reason we're seeing the unemployment rate drop is because more and more people are dropping out of the labor force. I know the market wants to rally on this number but remember we need a minimum of 250,000 just to cover demographic change. So we're almost at the place where we need to be to reabsorb the nine million people who lost their jobs during the Great Recession. This pushes the bar even higher for payrolls for the rest of this year. Given that the bar is so low we have to take this in the context that it's still not good enough."
As Piegza and others have pointed out, the 243,000 jobs that were reported aren’t enough to keep up with the number of people joining the labor force, yet alone, those who have lost their jobs.
“People should take it with a grain of salt,” Scott Brown, an economist with Raymond James and Associates of Saint Petersburg, FL, also told Reuters “since they are January figures and subject to revisions. We also had some unusually mild weather.”  
In the end what it means is that wages in the US have been permanently reduced by $208 billion per year and counting so far. That’s about 1.5 percent of GDP just in wages, not counting anything that is actually produced by those workers. When you figure in total output subtracted from GDP from missing workers, the number is closer to 2.1 percent of GDP that’s permanently missing from our economy. That’s about $320 billion.
Even the most optimistic projections for Obama’s millionaires’ tax doesn’t come close to raising that amount.    
Over the long-term those little variations of 2 percent more or less in GDP growth make a huge difference in our economy.  Over a ten-year period an economy that grows by 2 percent versus an economy that grows by 4 percent is the difference between having a GDP of $18.5 trillion versus a GDP of $22.5 trillion by year ten.
In total over ten years, it means that the economy will miss about $20 trillion worth of GDP in those ten years, and between $3.4-$4 trillion in tax revenues unless we start to follow pro-growth policies that lead to job creation for someone other than major Obama donors.
See? And here I ended up doing some math anyway. 
That’s just another reason to deny Obama four more years.
Now I have 20 trillion reasons plus one. And so do you.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...