BOMBSHELL: Supreme Court Employees Caught Withholding Legal Documents related to Obama's Elidgability

The fraud committed on the American people is unbelievable.  Read this story.

High Treason?  You decide.

The following was picked up from 'Red Flag News'.

I'm re-posting it word-for word.  

Update Orly Taitz Noonan Case: 1:25pm EST 02/19/2013 No Decision As Of Yet ~ 5 Of 9 Justices With No Signature For With-Held Pleadings Continues!



ONE MAN ~ MARTIN LUTHER KING

Law offices of orly taitz

29839 santa margarita ste 100

Rancho santa margarita ca 92688

ph. 949-683-5411 fax 949-766-7603

orly.taitz@gmail.com

orlytaitzesq.com

02.16.2013

Via Federal Express

Attn. Congressman Bob Goodlatte

Chairman of the Committee on Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives

WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE

2309 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-5431
Fax: (202) 225-9681


SCOTUS

PETITION FOR AN IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

EVIDENCE OF EMPLOYEES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HIDING FROM JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT PLEADINGS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS AND ATTORNEYS, REMOVING CASES FROM THE ELECTRONIC DOCKET, EVIDENCE OF BOGUS CONFERENCES OF JUSTICES BEING REPORTED TO THE PUBLIC, WHEN NO CUCH CONFERENCES TOOK PLACES AND THE JUSTICES BEING CLUELESS ABOUT THE VERY EXISTENCES OF HE CASE, EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL COMPLICITY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND TREASON IN THE MOST SERIOUS CASES DEALING WITH NATIONAL SECURITY.

Noonan et al v Bowen Supplemental Brief to SCOTUS with exhibits

Noonan Suplemental brief draft
Affidavit of Jeffrey Stephan Coffman
Affidavit Al Hendershot
Taitz v Astrue 12.08.2012 letter to SCOTUS


Contact Congressman Goodlatte


Contact Senator Johanns
02.16.2013.

Dear Mr. Goodlatte,

On 12.11. 2013   Attorney Dr. Orly Taitz, ES filed an application for stay on behalf of plaintiffs in Noonan et al v Bowen et al 12 A 606.

On 12.26.2012 Attorney for Plaintiffs resubmitted her application to the Chief Justice John Roberts, who referred the case to the conference of all 9 Justices to be conducted on February 15, 2013. Taitz followed Rule 22 of the Supreme Court that stated “Renewed application is made by a letter to the clerk, designating the Justice to whom the application is to be directed, and accompanied by copies of the original application…” these copies were supposed to be forwarded to 9 individual justices, library of Congress and National Archives.

Clerk for Stays Redmond Barnes sent back to Taitz 5 copies, whereby 5 justices never got the application, so clearly they could not discuss the case during the conference, as they never saw a word of the pleadings or evidence. Taitz submits herein the Exhibit 1, photograph of the original box in which 5 copies were sent back,  as well as the photograph of the stamp. Taitz preserved the box and the documents as evidence.

Moreover, on 02.12.2013 Taitz traveled to Washington DC and submitted to the clerks’ office a supplemental briefwith information crucial to the U.S. National Security to be reviewed by the justices prior to the February 15 conference. Taitz talked to clerks Sevgi Tekeli and James Baldin.  She was told to give the pleadings to the guard at the entrance, as the Supreme Court has mandatory screening for anthrax, but the pleadings will be docketed the same day and forwarded to Justices.

The clerks’ office never docketed the Supplemental Brief (Exhibit 2 Supplemental Brief with the date stamp of the Supreme Court) and sent it back, so none of the Justices read the Supplemental Brief as well.

Taitz provides the Judiciary Committee with the application (Exhibit 3) and the Supplementary Brief (Exhibit 2).

Case at hand was scheduled to be heard on February 15, 2013 in a conference of all the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

This case came from the Supreme Court of California and was brought by Presidential Candidates: Edward Noonan, Thomas Gregory MacLeran and Keith Judd  against the Secretary of the State of California, seeking to stay the certification of the votes for the candidate for the U.S. President Barack Obama due to the fact that the aforementioned candidate committed fraud when he provided his declaration of the candidate and when the Democratic party submitted the certificate of the nomination  due to the fact that Barack Obama is not eligible for the position, as he is not a Natural born U.S. citizen, as required by the U.S. Constitution Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

The declaration of the candidate and the certification of the nomination were based on fraud, on Obama’s use of forged IDs, , stolen Connecticut social Security number xxx-xx-4425, use of a name that was not legally his use of Indonesian citizenship and based on aiding and abetting by corrupt governmental officials. Most notable example of criminal aiding and abetting was signing by the chair of the Democratic Party of Hawaii Brian Schatz a falsified OCON (Official Certificate Of Nomination of a candidate) where the usual wording “eligible according to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution” were removed in order to accommodate ineligible Obama.

Plaintiffs provided the Supreme Court of California and the Supreme Court of the United States with over 100 pages of official records, sworn affidavits of senior law enforcement officials and  experts showing that Barack Obama is:

A citizen of Indonesia, as listed in his school registration #203 from Franciscan Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia. As  a citizen of Indonesia Obama was never eligible and never legitimate for the U.S. Presidency.
 Obama is using last name not legally his. Plaintiffs provided this court with the passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham,  deceased mother   of Barack Obama, showing that he is listed under the last name Soebarkah in her passport. He was removed from her passport in August of 1969 pursuant to the request and sworn statement of Ms. Dunham and signed by the U.S. consul in Jakarta Indonesia. As the requirement for removal as listed in the passport,  is obtaining a foreign allegiance, it is believed that Barack Obama Soebarkah was removed from his mother’s passport  when he obtained his Indonesian passport. Barack Obama cannot serve as a U.S. President as the legal entity Barack Obama does not exist. The only legal entity based on the only verifiable record is Barack Obama Soebarkah.
Obama does not have a valid U.S. birth certificate. Plaintiff provided affidavits  from Sheriff of Maricopa County Arizona Joseph Arpaio, Investigator Zullo, experts Felicito Papa, Douglas Vogt, Paul Irey, showing that the image posted by Obama on Whitehouse.gov is a computer generated forgery. When there is a question of authenticity of a document, the only way to authenticate, is to conduct expert evaluation of the original document.  Registrar of the State of Hawaii and Director of Health and Deputy Attorney General of Hawaii in charge of the Health Department were obstructing justice and absolutely refused to comply with any subpoenas and produce the original 1961 birth certificate and as such there was never any authentication of the alleged birth certificate. After 4 years of obstruction of Justice, it is clear that the Hawaiian officials have nothing to show and genuine 1961 birth certificate for Barack Obama simply does not exist.
Obama does not have a valid Selective Service certificate. Based on the affidavit of Sheriff Arpaio and investigator Zullo, alleged copy of Obama’s Selective Service Certificate, is  COMPUTER GENERATED FORGERY. In this   supplemental brief Plaintiffs are providing additional evidence, a sworn affidavit from the Chief investigator of the Special Investigations Unit of the US Coast Guard (ret) and  former special agent of the DHS Jeffrey Stephan Coffman who attested under the penalty of perjury that Obama’s alleged Selective Service registration is a forgery.

Plaintiffs submitted with their TRO and complaint the Affidavits of Sheriff Arpaio and Investigator Zullo and as a supplement an affidavit of the Chief Investigator of the Special investigations of the US Coast Guard Jeffrey Stephan Coffman. Based on those affidavits Obama’s alleged application for the selective service is a forgery. According to  5 USC § 3328.every man born after 1959 has to register with the Selective Service and cannot work in the executive branch if he did not register with the selective service.

(a)An individual—

(1)who was born after December 31, 1959, and is or was required to register under section 3 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 App. U.S.C. 453); and

(2)who is not so registered or knowingly and willfully did not so register before the requirement terminated or became inapplicable to the individual,

shall be ineligible for appointment to a position in an executive agency.

As Obama claims to be born in 1961 (without a valid birth certificate we don’t even know when he was born) he had a duty to register with the Selective Service. A forgery does not represent a registration, as such Obama is not eligible to be working in the executive branch of the U.S. government. He is not eligible to be a President in the White House or a janitor in the White House and it is a duty of this court to exercise its’ jurisdiction to rule Obama not constitutionally eligible.

4.     Obama’s 2009 tax returns posted by Obama himself on line showed him using a CT Social Security number xxx-xx-4425, which failed both E-verify and SSNVS. Affidavit of investigator Albert Hendershot provided herein as an exhibit showed it being issued to Harrison (Harry ) J. Bounel, born in 1890 in Russia, immigrant to the United States, presumed to be deceased, whose death was either not reported to the SSA or deleted from the computer system by a treasonous and criminally complicit employee of the SSA.
Due to Obama’s use of a stolen SSN he is not eligible to work anywhere in the United States, not in the Federal Branch, not in any other branch, not in the private sector, not even to pick tomatoes or clean toilets. Based on his use of a stolen SSN the only thing Obama is eligible to is at least 18 month prison term and deportation. For that reason alone the Supreme Court of California erred in denying the application. This court has to either grant the application or remand it back to the Supreme Court of California for reconsideration.
 315 MILLION U.S. CITIZENS DEMAND TO KNOW, WHO IS COMMITTING TREASON AND AIDING AND ABETTING THE USURPATION OF THE U.S. PRESIDENCY: IS IT DONE BY 9 JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OR BY THE STAFF ATTORNEYS AND CLERKS OF THE COURT WHO HAVE HIDDEN THE PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE FROM THE JUSTICES

Justices Antonin Scalia in his book “Making your case” p77 described a process of triage in the Supreme Court, he wrote: “Another factor distinctive to petitions for certiorari is that judges don’t like to spend a lot of time deciding what to decide. Indeed in most courts they won’t even read the brief in support of your petition, but will rely on summaries (or on the selection of particular briefs) by law clerks. And law clerks don’t like to spend much time on this job either.”

Unfortunately, the clerks do more than summaries. Taitz, counsel for the plaintiffs submits as Exhibit 3 a recent correspondence with the Supreme Court in regards to case Taitz v Astrue USCA District of Columbia Circuit no 11-5304, where Taitz caught the employees of the Supreme Court actively obstructing justice and tampering with the documents submitted to the Supreme Court.

Taitz provided the court with Federal Express receipts showing packages received by the Supreme Court and signed for by the employees of the Supreme Court, but never docketed and hidden from the Justices of the Supreme Court by the employees. These employees of the court were not appointed by the President, were not confirmed by the Senate, they never took an Oath of Allegiance and nobody knows where their allegiance lies.

This is only one of a number of suspicious activities in the Supreme Court of the

United States. Previously a case Lightfoot v Bowen A-084524 by the same attorney Taitz  was deleted from the docket of the Supreme Court on inauguration day January 21, 2008, ostensibly to give an impression that there are no more challenges to Obama’s legitimacy. Only after the enormous pressure from the public,  media, State Representatives and sworn affidavits from attorneys the case was reentered in the public docket.

Clerk in charge for STAYs Danny Bickle repeatedly made incorrect statements claiming that all files were deleted due to some type of computer malfunction, which was not the case. Later, in March of 2009 during a meeting with attorneys and book signing in Los Angeles Taitz was able to discuss the case with Justice Scalia, who was absolutely clueless that the case even existed, even though according to the docket he was a part of the conference of justices who denied that case dealing with the legitimacy of the U.S. President and he voted to deny that case.

One can believe that a judge would forget a case about some trivial dispute, but not a case dealing with the U.S. Presidency he supposedly discussed in conference only a month and a half earlier. It is clear that the case Lightfoot v Bowen was decided by the clerks, the names of the justices were printed on the order when the justices had no clue the case even existed. In a case at hand dealing with the usurpation of the U.S. Presidency this is HIGH TREASON, for which guilty parties should be getting a life in prison or death penalty and the nation is entitled to know who these people are.

In a different case Rhodes v MacDonald 10A56 (entered by the Supreme Court as

Taitz v MacDonald) a docket entry showing Justice Clarence Thomas denying an

application for STAY was made retroactively on a weekend when Justice Thomas was thousands of miles away giving a seminar in Utah. When Taitz demanded to see an actual signature by Justice Thomas on the order to deny stay or on the cover page of the application, she was referred to Eric Fossum, the same

employee, who signed the denial letter in the Taitz v Astrue case, who admitted to her on the phone that there is no signature of Justice Thomas either on the order or on the cover page of the petition. As such, there is no proof justice Thomas ever saw the petition or ever read a word written in the petition. When citizens went to the Supreme Court and requested copies of the pleadings in aforementioned cases, they were told that there are no such documents available.

Noonan v Bowen is a case which provides an undeniable evidence of usurpation of the U.S. Presidency by a criminal, a citizen of Indonesia who claims that his name is Barack Obama, who is using all forged IDs and a stolen Social Security number and a last name not legally his. Allowing this usurpation to go on is an act of HIGH TREASON.

The nation has a right to know who is committing high treason: 9 justices of the Supreme Court of clerks, who hide the pleadings and sworn affidavits from justices. For that reason plaintiffs respectfully demand signatures of the justices on the order or on the front page of the application. If there are no actual signatures of the justices the plaintiffs and the nation as a whole will know that the justices never saw a word of pleadings an the case was “ruled upon” by court employees with unknown allegiance.

Plaintiffs also demand to know the names of the court employees who summarized the case, provided it to the justices and compiled the list of approved or denied applications. Plaintiffs, U.S. Congress, law enforcement and World Community at large deserve to know who committed HIGH TREASON, who should be tried for high treason, who should be getting a penalty which is customary in such cases, which is a life in prison or death penalty.

Conclusion:

Plaintiffs and their attorney are demanding an immediate investigation of both the actions of the employees of the Supreme Court of the United States in hiding pleadings and exhibits from the Justices and Barack Obama’s use of forged IDs and a stolen Social Security 042-68-4425.

Not addressing this case represents high treason against the United States of America and people of the United States of America

Respectfully submitted

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ

Exhibit 1







Exhibit 2

Noonan supplemental brief with the SCOTUS stamp 02.12.2013

Dr. Orly Taitz


PROTEST MARCH UPON OBAMA

Related articles

Orly Taitz ~ U.S. Supreme Court Grants Expedited Decision On Obama Fraud For Tuesday February 19, 2013 (politicalvelcraft.org)
MEDIA BLACKOUT: OBAMA’S SUPREME COURT HEARING ABOUT FORGED ID’S Was Friday – Decision On Tuesday!!! (secretsofthefed.com)
Supreme Court To Hear Obama ID Forgery Case | THE JEENYUS CORNER (jeenyuscorner.com)
Obama Eligibility Case Requested To Move To Oral Arguments At US Supreme Court (freedomoutpost.com)
Re: * BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court is hearing Obama Eligibility Case Feb 15 (forum.prisonplanet.com)
Chief Justice Roberts has scheduled a conference hearing on Obama eligibility case brought by Orly Taitz (servehiminthewaiting.wordpress.com)
The Decision of the Supreme Court to Hear the Obama Case Will be Released on Tuesday (thelibertybeacon.com)
Share this:


60

inShare
20


Share on Tumblr
Digg
Print
Email
Like this:
TAGS: ANN DUNHAM, BARACK OBAMA, JOHN ROBERTS, OBAMA, ORLY TAITZ, SUPREME COURT, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

BY VOLUBRJOTR IN BARACK OBAMA, CONSTITUTION, CORRUPT, CRIME, CRIMINAL, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICAL, POLITICS, SUBVERSION, TREASON O

OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT

From the conservablogger inbox:   VERY QUIETLY OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT AP - WASHINGTON D.C. In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has Released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College ... Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as President article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president.. Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president. Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. Attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter... LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS, THE MEDIA WON'T! Subject: RE: Issue of Passport? While I've little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ? So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later? And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration? The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one. Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20? A : Yes, by his own admission. Q: What passport did he travel under? A: There are only three possibilities. 1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport, 2) He traveled with a British passport, or 3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport. Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981? A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981. Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport. If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims.. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967. Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008. Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better. If you Don't care that Your President is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete this, and then lower your American Flag to half-staff, because the U.S. Constitution is already on life-support, and won't survive much longer. If you do care then Forward this to as many patriotic Americans as you can.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conservablogger: Post Oct. 16 Debate Reaction

I sat here, eyes glued to the monitor watching and  listening to President Obama lie his ass off. 

As the night went on I wondered where these questions came from.  Whose ideas were these questions? 

None of the questions forced Obama to acknowledge his failures.  This said, Obama didn't offer any new ideas fixing the state of the union.  I didn't expect him to.  

 I think he would have been better suited to run against himself; admitting his shortcomings and offering some new ideas.

The problem with this is that he has to separate himself from Mit Romney and please his base.

Mit Romney busted out Obama on Obama's own Chinese investments, and Cayman Island accounts to which Obama surely didn't want to discuss.  Obama seemed to know where Romney was going when he went back to the topic of Chinese investment issue that Obama brought up.  So what happen?   Obama tried like hell to shut down  Romney's remarks on this issue.  The moderator stepped in to bail out Obama, but not before we discovered Obama has his own Chinese and Cayman Island accounts.

I wanted to hear more of Obama's explanation of the Benghazi explanation, but once they started in discussing it, the moderator again bailed out Obama.

That said, I still think Romney did a great job of hanging the record of the last four years around Obama's head for all to see.

Romney repeated several times, "23 million out of work, 47 million on food stamps, 1 in 6 in poverty", and he stressed that we don't have to settle for this.  His sincerity  was much more believable than Obama's.

Romney's responses at times sounded as if he really understands why America is declining. 

I am bias against Obama.  I think he's offering us a progressive disease.  He has infected our government with a hatred and an ideology that is causing our nation, our republic, to be ill.  

If he were honest while he campaigned 4 years ago, what would he have said?

"When I'm President, I won't know what my Justice Department is doing, I won't know what my State Department is doing, I'm going to shut down the space shuttle program, I won't know what my Secret Service is doing, I'm going to Ram Healthcare down your throats (even if you don't want ti), I'm going to wage war against the Constitution with department regulations, I'm going to shut down the Coal industry, double the price of gasoline and regulate the hell out of small businesses.  

I'm going to co-opt the media, I'm going to file suit against states that attempt to deal with illegal immigration, I'm going to remove the border patrol from major portions of our Northern and Southern borders attributing the changes to environmental concerns, and I'm going to remove the bullets form border patrol's guns.

Not only that, I'm going to sign a bill into law that gives me the power to detain American citizens without charge and without due process.  I have big plans for America's fundamental transformation.  Just you wait.

If he were honest, he'd say things like this.  

The more I think about tonight's debate, the better I feel about it.  I think Romney exposed Obama again for the terrible leader he is.

What do you think?

PETITION URGING CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION OF OBAMA ELIGABILITY

***Share with your favorite social media - Linking icons are below this post.

PETITION DEMANDING THAT CONGRESS OPEN AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF BARACK OBAMA’S CONSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT, IN LIGHT OF THE FIRST OFFICIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PROBE INTO THE MATTER DISCOVERING “PROBABLE CAUSE” THAT BOTH OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND SELECTIVE SERVICE REGISTRATION FORM ARE FORGERIES.

To: All members of the U.S. Congress:

• Whereas, the first official U.S. law enforcement investigation into Barack Obama’s legal eligibility for the presidency, led by Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio and involving a six-month investigation by three professional criminal investigators and two attorneys, established “probable cause” that the document released with great fanfare by the White House April 27, 2011, as Obama’s “long-form birth certificate” is a forgery;

• Whereas, specifically, these investigators, after interviewing dozens of witnesses, examining hundreds of documents, and taking numerous sworn statements from witnesses around the world, including multiple document experts, concluded that said “birth certificate” did not originate in a paper format, but was created – that is, forged – as an electronic file on a computer;

• Whereas, the Arpaio-led law-enforcement investigation cited numerous experts demonstrating that an additional fraud was allegedly committed in the forgery of Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration card;

• Whereas, the investigation also found that, according to a sworn affidavit by the longtime mailman for the parents of ex-Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, Ayers’ mother enthusiastically claimed she had helped pay for the Harvard Law School education of “foreign student” Barack Obama;

• Whereas, Arpaio’s lead investigator Michael Zullo explained at a March 1 press conference that the 1961 Hawaiian newspaper “announcements” of Barack Obama’s birth confirm nothing, since the investigators “can prove beyond a doubt” that these newspapers also announced arrivals of foreign babies as well as native-born; and that the investigators even possess “documented evidence of two adopted individuals who were breathing three years prior” to their supposed Hawaii “birth” and subsequent newspaper “birth announcements”;

• Whereas, the investigation determined that immigration files in the National Archives recording overseas arrivals into Hawaii are missing from one particular week – the week of Obama’s birthday, August 4, 1961;

• Whereas, , lead investigator Mike Zullo also said his team believes the Hawaii Department of Health has engaged in a systematic effort to hide from public inspection any original 1961 birth records for Obama it may have in its possession;

• Whereas, investigators have advised Sheriff Arpaio they believe at least two crimes of fraud were committed: 1) The White House allegedly created a forgery it claimed was an officially produced governmental birth record; and 2) the White House allegedly presented to the residents of Maricopa County, Ariz. – and to the entire American public – a forgery represented as “proof positive” of President Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate;

• Whereas, Sheriff Arpaio said March 1: “The president can put all this to rest quite easily. All he has to do is demand the Hawaii Department of Health release to the American public and to a panel of certified court-authorized forensic examiners all original 1961 paper, microfilm and computer birth records the Hawaii Department of Health has in its possession”;

• Whereas, Arpaio concluded: “Absent the authentication of Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other proof he was born anywhere within the United States”;

• Whereas, despite a virtual media blackout on the issue, repeated national polls show that almost half of registered U.S. voters remain unconvinced that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is authentic:

We, the undersigned, demand that the 112th Congress immediately undertake a full and impartial investigation into the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as president of the United States. Despite the fact that anyone expressing concern over this issue is ridiculed as a “conspiracist” and even a “racist” by the major news media, every scientific survey shows that around half of American voters simply do not believe Barack Obama is telling the truth about his past – and specifically they remain unconvinced he is even legally qualified to occupy the presidency. Not to finally resolve this monumental and unprecedented constitutional issue would be intolerable, and would constitute the most extreme disrespect and contempt for the U.S. Constitution which every Congress member has sworn a solemn oath to defend.

SIGN THE PETITION <-- LINK

Ideology Driving Obama's Decisions

I suggest reading the book, "The Roots of Obama's Rage" by Dineshi D’Souza who does a great job presenting evidence of the following points.


You can get a free copy of the book if you accept a "risk free" offer at THIS site.
---------------------------


Obama views America as the world’s worst rogue nation — and actually welcomes foreign policy defeats and limitations on American power




His experiences with his father filled him with hatred — a calm, ideological hatred derived from the debris of the anti-colonial wars and their impact on his family and especially his father




As Obama enacts crippling financial reforms, he is not working to restore the economy — but is trying to punish the capitalists he sees as a neocolonial force within American society




In setting artificial withdrawal dates in Afghanistan, Obama is more concerned with reining in what he regards as America the Oppressor than he is with actually winning the war on terror




Behind cap and trade: why, for Obama, high oil prices aren’t the problem; America’s level of consumption is the problem — and America’s energy “addiction” is presumed to be a new form of neocolonial exploitation




Obama unceremoniously returned the Churchill bust in the Oval Office — a gift from Tony Blair after the 9/11 attacks — to Great Britain, and other examples of his contempt for our “colonialist” allies




Obama’s conference on Iran and North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs ended not with anything being done about Iran and North Korea — but with reductions in the American and Russian stockpiles




The ominous implications of Obama’s twenty years in the Afrocentric church of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright — including the fact that Obama was first attracted to this racist church by a sign outside that said: FREE AFRICA




The shocking core belief that explains Obama’s friendship with the radical activist/terrorist Bill Ayers

BREAKING NEWS - Uncovered New Obama Video from 2007

I didn't realize Barak Obama was a Southern Baptist preacher. Just listen to how he changed his speaking style to 'fit', pandering to, his audience. In circles he isn't used to running in (anymore) folks would say Barak Obama is "putting on a front", and "perpetrating a fraud". In a video obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama tells an audience of black ministers, including the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, that the U.S. government shortchanged Hurricane Katrina victims because of racism. “The people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!” Obama shouts in the video, which was shot in June of 2007 at Hampton University in Virginia. By contrast, survivors of Sept. 11 and , Wright a sum of money to shut up about Obama.Hurricane Andrew received generous amounts of aid, Obama explains. The reason? Unlike residents of majority-black New Orleans, the federal government considers those victims “part of the American family.”


It's amazing how Obama heaped praises on his former Pastor Wright, only to throw him under the bus for political expediency.

I seem to recall a recording of a guy claiming he was told to offer Obama's pastor, wright too keep quiet until after the 2008 election.  

Here is a portion of the story from  the Blaze: <---LINK

The New York Post on Sunday published a conversation between Wright and Klein, the latest tidbit to come from the book. In it, Wright said once his fiery sermons surfaced during the 2008 campaign, he received an email asking him not to preach until after November:

“Who sent the e-mail?” I asked Wright.
“It was from one of Barack’s closest friends.”
“He offered you money?”
“Not directly,” Wright said. “He sent the offer to one of the members of the church, who sent it to me.”
“How much money did he offer you?”
“One hundred and fifty thousand dollars,” Wright said.
Wright said he was also visited by then-Senator Obama himself, who wanted to meet in secret.

“And one of the first things Barack said was, ‘I really wish you wouldn’t do any more public speaking until after the November election.’ He knew I had some speaking engagements lined up, and he said, ‘I wish you wouldn’t speak. It’s gonna hurt the campaign if you do that.’



 Click here to read more from  The Daily Caller article: <--LINK

The Blaze asks LA Times about the Obama/Khalidi tape

The release of the hidden camera Mitt Romney video this week is reminding some conservative bloggers of a talked-about story four years ago, and they’re now asking if and when another potentially explosive videotape will see the light of day.
Thanks to The Blaze for bringing this up.

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit writes:

Say, where’s that Obama/Khalidi tape? Why won’t the L.A.Times release it? Oh, who am I kidding? They won’t release it because it would make Obama look terrible. What other reason can there be?
The Daily Caller writes:

Speaking of secret tapes, remember Rashid Khalidi? The LA Times hopes you don’t.

Daily Pundit writes:

* So sure, I want to hear the “misssing” two minutes of the incomplete video. But you know what I’d really like to see? The video of Obama praising Rashid Khalidi to the skies currently being suppressed by the hack propagandists at the Los Angeles Times.

And the pro-Israel blogger Elder of Ziyon writes:

* By the way, since Romney’s leaked remarks are so newsworthy, when are we ever going to see the videotape of Obama’s 2003 remarks at the dinner honoring Rashid Khalidi? Why is one off-the-record video leaked and the other one purposefully buried by the media? What is the line between good journalism and partisanship?

TheBlaze  thought those were good questions too, so they contacted the Los Angeles Times to find out if their position – refusing since 2008 to publish the Obama/Khalidi video – has changed on the matter.

First, some background. In April 2008, as the presidential campaign was getting underway, Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times published a story describing the going-away party for Professor Rashid Khalidi, a devoted advocate to the Palestinian cause and a harsh critic of Israel, who was on his way to a position at Columbia University. Khalidi was also a past spokesman for the PLO. The dinner occurred in 2003, when Barack Obama was then an Illinois state senator. Wallsten wrote:

* A special tribute came from Khalidi’s friend

 <--LINK

 and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It‘s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table,“ but around ”this entire world.”

   FIND OUT WHAT THE LA TIMES SAID BY CLICKING HERE!

Savage Nation Misses Possible Reason for Obama Gay Marriage Announcement

For the first time ever, tonight I tried calling in to the “Savage Nation” radio program.  I was unsuccessful.


Michael Savage, host of the radio talk show, was seeking theories explaining why (knowing how unpopular it was going to be) Obama would come out publicly supporting Gay Marriage. 


Savage suggested two possibilities:  1. Shoring up support from his base, and 2.  That Obama isn’t worried about getting re-elected because he knows the ‘fix is in’ on the election.


I have another theory that I didn't hear tonight.  Consider Obama realizing he is facing an up-hill battle this November.  He knows by now how wildly unpopular his Marxist policies are, and he knows he can’t distance himself from his former remarks regarding energy costs, anti-coal, fossil fuels, circumventing congress at every opportunity & his repeated crapping on the constitution; he feels  he must  do something popular.  

Keeping this in mind, any favorable change of heart (in energy matters for instance) would be jumped on as a calculated and purely political move.  No one would believe he has the capacity to have a ‘actual’ change of heart.  Unless….


Unless he has a record of being thoughtful and having views that are in various states of evolution.   He can now change his mind on any issue and say his feelings on it were evolving. 


 This makes me wonder how his views on partial (or after) birth abortion will evolve.


He can now reassure the American people that his Liberation Theology and Collective Salvation days are over, and he can point to his gay marriage announcement and say, "See, I can be objective despite political damage.




I expect Obama will cave on the Keystone pipeline project and approve it.  I predict he’ll back of on certain rhetoric that most Americans view as intrusive and unamerican.


His Marxist, Communist, socialist (Progressive) colleagues as well as MSM, will be discussing how courageous Obama was to make such a historic statement; especially knowing it is politically unpopular to a large majority of Americans.


MSNBC’s Mr. Ed (the talking jackass) spelled out the liberal talking point tonight.  In his story introduction, he said Obama is the candidate of equality, and Romney is the candidate of inequality.


Some callers on Savage’s radio show suggested the Obama confession is just a distraction.  If we are talking about that, we are not talking about Obama’s failed policies and record.


What about the election results?  Apparently, a company in Brazil is going to be counting our presidential ballots this fall.  Do you believe the election could actually be fixed?


Let me ask you this, If Obama ‘COULD’ fix the election and guarantee his reelection, do you think he would?


What about Romney?

Obama Vs. The Constitution

From my in-box:

From my in-box: 

"Dear Daniel, "I refuse to take 'No' for an answer," President Obama fumed this week. He may as well have added, "Even when the answer is in the U.S. Constitution." This week, President Obama named three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) -- in clear, unprecedented defiance of Congress and the Constitution. As you know, in the last two years the Obama Labor Board has repeatedly enacted one power grab after another on behalf of union bosses, to the detriment of the rights of individual employees -- especially those who wish to refrain from union activities. Union bosses know their coercive agenda is overwhelmingly unpopular with the American people, which is why they've turned to unelected administrative agencies like the NLRB to push through much of what they cannot get through Congress. With the presidential election less than a year away, Obama is desperate to ram through more sweetheart deals for Big Labor. But this latest power grab is especially dangerous. You see, Article II of the U.S. Constitution requires the President to obtain the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate for appointments to the most powerful positions in the executive branch. This crucial component of our system of checks and balances helps Congress hold the President accountable. The advice and consent clause allows the Senate to ensure that Presidential appointments to powerful executive positions are qualified and not beholden to special interests like Big Labor. The out-of-control Obama Labor Board shows why these checks and balances are so vital. The President may fill vacancies while Congress has recessed, but Obama's latest move even runs afoul of the rule cited by an Obama Administration lawyer at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 -- "the recess has to be longer than 3 days." That's why National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are exploring possible legal challenges to these unprecedented recess appointments. With such a flagrant abuse of power by the Obama Administration, I'm grateful for the continued generosity of Right to Work supporters like you who enable us to fight back in the courts and in the media. For decades Congress has abandoned much of its constitutional authority and handed it over to an ever-growing executive branch. Now President Obama has defiantly bypassed Congress, the Constitution, and the American people. Sincerely, Mark Mix P.S. The Foundation relies completely on voluntary contributions from its supporters to provide free legal aid. Please chip in with a tax-deductible contribution of $10 or more today to support the Foundation's programs.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses.  The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees in nearly 200 cases nationwide. The Foundation's mailing address is 8001 Braddock Road, Springfield, Virginia 22160. Its web address is www.nrtw.org/." I'm not affiliated with this group except for finding myself agreeing with everything they say here.  Take this information and do with it what you will. Best Regards; conservablogger

Debate Reaction - Obama out of his League

As I sat here watching the first presidential debate between President Obama and contender, Mit Romney, I had the distinct impression Obama was angrily  thinking, 'I can't believe they took my damned prompter.  He is kicking my ass!'

Obama levied lengthy-filibustering-inaccurate-charges at Romney, calling into question his stances on a variety of domestic issues.

After each mischaracterization by Obama, Romney delivered point-by-point retorts that, in most cases, went unrefuted.  Obama was so thrashed by Romney that
at one point in the debate, the moderator seemed to attempt helping Obama answer a question.

Romney sounded prepared, well schooled, competent, and frankly, quite presidential.

Obama, on the other hand, seemed tired, defensive, nervous, and distant. It appeared to me that Obama was way out of his league.

If You'd like to see the debate yourself, visit the following link:  http://video.foxnews.com/v/1876230836001/

Obama's Birth Info: Fact or Faked?

The following text, as well as the video in the previous post, came to me in an e-mail. 

After reading it, I felt  compelled to post it here.  Please visit the linked sources to do your own homework on these matters.

And remember, "THE TRUTH HAS NO AGENDA".

Here is a comment from a reader to George Ure at UrbanSurvival.com:

"As you all know, Donald Trump made a big deal about Obama's birth certificate. As of yesterday, the White House released the birth certificate.


I will tell you right now that I had never given this "birther" issue any credit. I watched the hype and the crazies come out. I completely dismissed the entire ordeal altogether. In fact, it was not until the White House released the birth certificate that it had gained my attention.


I am the studious sort of guy, and I have plenty of time on my hands. So, I took a close look at this document. While I would have thought that this issue would have been closed for good (and, got the crazies to crawl back into their holes), I found two extremely strange inconsistencies that merit some attention.


First of all, the birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was born in " Kenya , East Africa ". This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. How could have Obama's father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the "British East Africa Protectorate". But, this is not the only thing that I found that just does not jive.


The other item that I looked into was the hospital that Obama was born in. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called "KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home", respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?


Go ahead, look it up. I am not talking crazy talk, these are the facts. Like I said, I thought that this was a non-issue until the actual certificate was released. Now that it has been released, of course I had to look into it. I have found these issues, now I know that something is up. If you doubt me, just look at the following resources:


Sure as hell, the hospital part is true, as you can read about the 1978 merger here.


Post-colonial history (from Wikipedia)


The first direct elections for Africans to the Legislative Council took place in 1957. Despite British hopes of handing power to "moderate" African rivals, it was the Kenya African National Union (KANU) of Jomo Kenyatta that formed a government shortly before Kenya became independent on 12 December 1963, on the same day forming the first Constitution of Kenya.

Obama's Marxist Speech: Roanoke, Va 7/13/12 video

Obama is the second speaker in the video below.


Why Marxist you ask?  Because Obama reveals his  ideology that  the government is the be all and end all of America.  Nobody can do anything without the intervention of the government, and no one should be able to do anything that turns a profit, unless the government gets most of it to redistribute. 

Ditto to Rush who said this speech shows Obama resents America. He resents the values that built America.


How did roads and bridges get built? Who paid for them? Why were they needed in the first place? Business spurred them on.  People had to get goods to market.  People had to get to the market.


One more point:  Look at all the Solar (green energy) companies Obama injected our dollars into.  They used the same roads and bridges and they failed.  


Do you know anyone who started a business because they wanted to create jobs? When people start a business, isn't it because they have an idea, a product or a service; coupled with hard work and determination, that they want to sell to earn themselves a living?

Which party needs the poor in order to maintain a vibrant voting population? Which party creates group upon group of permanently dependent citizens? What party constantly promotes class warfare?

 Here is the best response to Obama's marxist speech I've heard thus far. Please watch and share... Below is the text of one  Rush Limbaugh caller on this subject:   CALLER: Hey, Rush, how are you doing? I just wanted to call and tell you that I think Obama might be on to something here about how somebody has helped in their successful business. Because I've been listening to you for about 20 years now, going back to about 1990. And in that time I opened a business. We ended up having to close that down. But we got ourselves back on our feet and we reopened the business about a year and a half ago. And I'd like to thank you for all the times that you've pumped me up when various entities just want to kick the crap out of me. (chuckles) I have listened to you for a lot of years and I think he might be right. You've helped me a lot. RUSH: Well, I really appreciate that. Thanks. Thanks very much. But, you know, don't forget you're part of the equation here, too, and you got yourself back on your feet. See, if I were Obama, I would take total credit for everything that you say you did. I'd happily take total credit. If you were calling Barack Obama, it would be (impression), "Thank you. Thank you for recognizing that you couldn'ta done it without me and all the other people that came to help you," and so forth and so on. But people like you... I consider people like you to be the people who make the country work. So I'm gratified when you call and tell me these things. I really am. I thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Obama Year in Scandal

 With 2011 drawing to a close, it is time to account. As an early-and-often chronicler of Chicago-on-the-Potomac, I am amazed at the stubborn and clingy persistence of President Barack Obama's snowblowers in the media. See no scandal, hear no scandal, speak no scandal.

Dartmouth College professor Brendan Nyhan asserted in May -- while Operation Fast and Furious subpoenas were flying on Capitol Hill -- that "one of the least remarked upon aspects of the Obama presidency has been the lack of scandals." Conveniently, he defines scandal as a "widespread elite perception of wrongdoing."
So as long as left-wing Ivy League scribes refuse to perceive something to be a scandal -- never mind the actual suffering endured by the family of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, whose death came at the hands of a Mexican cartel thug wielding a Fast and Furious gun walked across the southern border under Attorney General Eric Holder's watch -- there is no scandal!

Self-serving much?

Mother Jones' Kevin Drum likewise proclaimed: "Obama's presidency has so far been almost completely free of scandal."

This after the year kicked off in January with the departure of lying eco-radical czar Carol Browner. In backroom negotiations, she infamously bullied auto execs to "put nothing in writing, ever." The previous fall, the White House's own oil spill panel had singled out Browner for misleading the public about the scientific evidence for the administration's Draconian drilling moratorium and "contributing to the perception that the government's findings were more exact than they actually were."

The Interior Department inspector general and federal judges likewise blasted drilling ban book-cooking by Browner and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who falsely rewrote the White House drilling ban report to doctor the Obama-appointed panel's own overwhelming scientific objections to the job-killing edict.

In February, federal judge Martin Feldman in Louisiana excoriated the Obama Interior Department for defying his May 2010 order to lift its fraudulent ban on offshore oil and gas drilling in the Gulf. He called out the administration's culture of contempt and "determined disregard" for the law.

This spring saw rising public anger over the preferential Obamacare waiver process (which I first reported on in September 2010). Some 2,000 lucky golden ticket winners were freed from the costly federal mandates -- including a handful of fancy restaurants in Aloha Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district, the entire state of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's Nevada, and scores of local, state and national Big Labor organizations, from the Service Employees International Union and Teamsters on down. Meanwhile, as The Hill newspaper reported last month, other not-so-lucky Republican-led states seeking waivers, such as Indiana and Louisiana, were rejected.

 Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/michelle-malkin/2012/01/01/year-obama-scandals-and-scandal-deniers#ixzz1iKDq4Gsz

Read the rest of this article using the above link.

Conservablogger Comment:  Do you think the current White House administration is without scandal?  P L E A S E!  Where are today's  Woodward and Bernstein?  The media is so far up Obama's ass they cant smell crap anymore, much less report about it. 

We have to go to Infowars and GBTV to get truth since all I seem to get from mainstream is government propaganda. And, I can't stand it!

Email Reveals Team Obama is Worried - Pushes Narrative

The following correspondence speaks for itself. 


It makes me laugh because I'm just a poor, mildly-educated, middle-aged guy who has no affiliation with big businesses or special interests.  I'm affiliated with the Constitution.  I am a grass root. 


In this email, Ann Marie Habershaw (Chief Operating Officer for
Obama for America) claims the Obama doners are grass roots.  Some may be, but Lord knows most of Obama's campaign money comes from unions.


Here's the email:


" Friend --


Yesterday we found out Mitt Romney and the Republican Party outraised us for the first time in this election.


In fact, it's the first time that the Obama organization has been outraised by an opponent since 2007.


If you just want to cut to the chase, here's the link where you can donate to Barack Obama now:


https://donate.barackobama.com/May-Numbers


Now, here are a few things you should know about this race in the aftermath of yesterday's news:


-- We are not guaranteed to win this election. If there's anyone still out there acting like we have this thing in the bag, do me a favor and tell them they're dead wrong.


-- Now that Mitt Romney has locked up his party's nomination, yesterday's numbers are only the beginning. The Republican big-dollar donors and special-interest cash will only keep coming out of the woodwork, lining up to support him.


-- The $76 million the Romney campaign and Republican Party raised in May doesn't even take into consideration the additional $75+ million that right-wing ideologues and corporate interests have already spent on ads attacking Obama. (Those groups plan to spend $1 billion when it's all said and done.)


If you're ready to do something right now, then help send a clear signal to the folks on the other side that our base of grassroots supporters will match them.


We may have been outraised this time around, but we won't be outhustled.


Pitch in what you can today -- and let's do this the right way:


https://donate.barackobama.com/May-Numbers


Thanks,


Ann Marie


Ann Marie Habershaw
Chief Operating Officer
Obama for America

Obama aide: ‘He’s no goddamned war hero’

The Daily Caller reports - For President Barack Obama, it’s now personal.

A new book cites Obama aides saying that the president has a “genuine disdain” for Mitt Romney.

“One factor made the 2012 grind bearable and at times even fun for Obama: he began campaign preparations feeling neutral about Romney, but like the former governor’s GOP opponents in 2008 and 2012, he quickly developed a genuine disdain for the man,” author Glenn Thrush writes in the soon-to-be released e-book “Obama’s Last Stand.”

Thrush — a reporter for Politico, which published book excerpts Sunday —- writes that Obama’s feelings for Romney are different from how he personally felt about other Republican opponents on the Hill and campaign rivals of the past.

Read the entire article by clicking here. <---LINK

Conservablogger Comment:

Why does the president dislike Romney so much?  I happen to believe Obama was never neutral as the article points out.

I believe Romney stands for everything Obama hates about America.  He's white and affluent, and he got his money by taking it form others... by stealing it.  He has never lagitimately earned a dollar in his life.  

I'll finish my rant later.  I got called away.   

To be continued...