Tag Archives: eligibility

Obama Eligibility Is Now a Conspiracy

A conspiracy is a secret agreement by two or more persons to perform an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

Somehow, conspiracy theories have become synonymous with kooky nutcases, sneered at by the MSM. But there are real conspiracies, for example, the assassination of Julius Caesar, the Dreyfus Affair, Nixon’s Watergate scandal, and the Iran-Contra Affair.

It is now incontrovertible that there is a massive conspiracy about Obama’s eligibility. Every branch and institution of our government is covering up for Obama.

First, it was the Democratic Party at both the state and national levels who looked the other way in 2008, choosing not to vett Obama’s birth documents to ensure he indeed is constitutionally eligible for the presidency. This was followed by the McCain campaign and the Republican Party acting like the eunuchs that they are in not questioning Obama’s eligibility.

Then, it was Congress that failed to screen his eligibility, using the lame excuse that no law requires them to do so, conveniently forgetting that the Constitution itself is the highest law of the land.

Next, the courts failed us. Beginning in 2008 even before Obama was elected president, American citizens brought one lawsuit after another challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility. But judge after judge in state after state refused to even grant a hearing to the lawsuits, using the lame excuse that the litigants “lacked standing” and in so doing, effectively said that the constitutional eligibility of the President of the United States is not a matter of concern or interest for We the People.

Last Monday, November 29, 2010, the judicial branch of the American government completed its surrender to Obama when the Supreme Court denied the Kerchner v Obama’s petition for a writ of certiorari (translated into ordinary English: SCOTUS refused to review/hear the case). Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., the lead plaintiff, is a retired Commander of the US Naval Reserve.

Then there’s the United States Army. It, too, capitulated to the Mighty Obama when the top military brass decided to court martial decorated (Bronze Star) Army surgeon Lt. Col. Terry Lakin who defied his deployment orders on the grounds of the dubious constitutional eligibility and authority of the top of the command chain – his Commander In Chief. To complete the Army’s self-castration, the military judge in Lakin’s court martial, Denise Lind, refused to grant the defense’s discovery request of Obama’s concealed documents (original long-form birth certificate, kindergarten and college records…), thereby making impossible Lakin’s defense.

The latest government agency to join the Conspiracy of Silence and Coverup is the Social Security Administration.

Last May, private investigators discovered that not only are multiple social security numbers associated with Barack Obama (when we are all supposed to have only one number each), the social security number that Obama is presently using is one that’s set aside for residents of the state of Connecticut — a state in which Obama has never lived and with which he has no association. As I explained in my post of May 13, 2010, Obama Uses Dead Connecticuter’s Social Security Number“:

The first three (3) digits of a person’s social security number are determined by the ZIP code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number. (See Q. 18 of “Frequently Asked Questions” on the Social Security Administration’s website, HERE.) Connecticut’s SS numbers begin with 040, 041, 042, 043, 044, 045, 046, 047, 048, or 049. Obama’s SS number begins with 042.

The most plausible explanation is that Obama’s Connecticut SS number once belonged to a Connecticuter, born in 1890, who is now diseased. This means that Obama is using that number illicitly because the SS administration says a SS number is never re-issued or re-used. (See Q. 20 of “Frequently Asked Questions” on the Social Security Administration’s website, HERE.)

Furthermore, since Obama’s first job was in a Baskin-Robbins ice cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii, when he was 14 or 15, he would have obtained a SS number then as a Hawaii resident. Hawaii’s SS numbers begin with the prefix 575 or 576. This means that he has used at least TWO different SS numbers, which is against the law, because the law says a person can have only one SS number in a lifetime.

Now, the Social Security Administration is introducing a new policy in an attempt to conceal, obfuscate, and evade Obama’s curious Connecticut social security number. Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily reports on November 30, 2010: 

Without addressing questions regarding the apparent assignment of a Connecticut-based Social Security number to President Barack Obama, who reportedly spent his growing-up years in Hawaii and Indonesia, the federal agency now is moving quickly to make certain such questions never come up again about political figures.

The administration is starting down a path that is intended to randomize all future Social Security numbers – a move critics allege is designed to make it impossible to tell where any future Social Security number is issued.

In a notice currently published on the Social Security Administration website, the SSA announces Social Security numbers issued in the future will be randomized starting on or about June 25, 2011.

A spokeswoman in the Social Security press office confirmed to WND the plan is moving forward.
“In an effort to increase the number of Social Security numbers (SSNs) available for use by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and in order to help reduce identity theft, SSA plans to change the methodology by which SSNs are issued. In June 2011, we will begin to issue SSNs randomly, regardless of the address on the application. As a result, we will have the ability to continue to issue SSNs in all areas of the country for many more years without having to make additional changes,” said Trish Nicasio….

Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels says the government policy change is an attempt to cover up in retrospect the controversy over Obama’s Social Security number by making it impossible in the future to trace where a Social Security applicant lived at the time the person applied for a Social Security number.
“Now all the Social Security Administration has to say is that they have been experimenting with randomized numbers for some time,” Daniels said. “How would anybody prove differently?”

She continued, “With Obama, there is obviously a case of fraud going on here. In 15 years of having a private investigator’s license in Ohio, I’ve never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly.”

The White House has refused to answer queries about Obama’s social security number.

If Diogenes were alive today, he’d be consigned to an eternal and fruitless wandering in his search for just one honest man in the U.S. government. Sadly, there is none.

H/t beloved fellows Tina & FS.

~Eowyn

White House Insider: Obama Not a Democrat, Maybe Not an American

Someone who calls himself “White House Insider” has been talking to NewsFlavor blogger Ulsterman, à la the Nixon Watergate scandal’s Deep Throat. 

Below are excerpts from DeepThroat2′s latest interview with Ulsterman, November 20, 2010.

~Eowyn

Nancy Pelosi has something incriminating on Obama’s birth/eligibility:

“yeah, I was told somethin’ related to that birther stuff.  Directly or indirectly, hell if I know. Speaker Pelosi been mouthin’ off against the president for some time now, right? Well, she was at it again and then she says something along the lines of, ‘How about I just hand over the goddamn certification file. They want me to go there?  Because that’s where they’re pushing me.’

Hell if I know – no…it was certification file – assume it has something to do with the whole birther thing – eligibility maybe? Just thought you might want to hear it. Just thought you might find it…interesting! It’s an odd thing to say, right? And it’s even odder that it was said like that period. The person who shared it with me thought so….  

Hell, fact is people are talking about this subject. Nobody wants to admit it in the open, but they are talking about it. Or whispering at least – but I want nothing to do with that -expletive-. Something like that will get your ass killed.  No joke.” 

What is the big Obama scandal that is about to burst?

“I ain’t touchin’ the birther garbage or the missile garbage or the gay club in Chicago garbage, or the gay lover -expletive- , or anything else that the nutjobs out there have thought up. No different than people running around saying Bush caused 9-11, or Cheney goes around shootin’ people in the face! (laughs)  -Expletive- country needs to grow up! No, let’s just stick to the real deal, right?  Because THAT is what is going to kick the president’s ass – and I’m talking kick that ass right to the goddamn curb! You got that?  TO – THE – CURB. You hear the reporting – it’s out there. You read it, right? We got the DOJ, we got the bank closures, we got the Rezko sentencing, we got the Blagotrial…all this -expletive – and more…everything is coming together. Everything that has been ignored for too long is finally getting some attention. And these dogs will hunt – I guarantee you that. Those Republicans on the Hill? Oh yeah, those little -expletive- are gonna bring the hammer down on this. They are gonna break every damn thing open until they find it – and they are gonna get help from some Democrats along the way. And you know the president knows it. His people know it. They are all hunkered down, eyes shifting this way and that, wonderin’ if it’s gonna be this scandal or that scandal or this, that, and the other scandal. One is gonna lead to one is gonna lead to the other….

Developing? Hell, it’s developed! It’s a living, breathing monster out there right now! What did I tell you before – what was it – weeks ago? Months ago? That was you, right? I said watch the DOJ  -that place is a mess and it’s about to get a rash of -expletive- come down on it. That is where I said all of this will start to unravel… I said it’ll start in Washington DC and then move on out to Chicago – and when that happens, this White House is in some deep -expletive-. They are gonna be swimming in it. And dimes to dollars Pelosi has some of the information. And when she steps aside, or is voted down, or whatever form it takes, then that information will be heading to the people who want to see it do the most damage to the Obama White House. And then the calls for someone to lead the party back to relevance will happen. And then comes the primary challenge in 2012. First the ice breaker challenger, and then the real deal – Hillary Clinton. And God keep her safe because we need her. How many people who voted Obama in those primaries, how many of those people now regret it? Oh man, there are a ton of those people!  A ton of ‘em. Course, if this scandal goes into overdrive mode sooner rather than-than later, hell, you might just see Barack Obama say he don’t wanna run for a second term. I’d call it a long shot at this point, but you never know. You never know.”

DT2 getting nervous about being wrong about Pelosi keeping her leadership position (as Minority Leader in 2011) in the House:

“we got more and more people telling her to step the -expletive- down. Stand aside. Don’t be surprised to be surprised on that. I said she was done as Speaker, and I was right on that. I said she-she didn’t have the support to be party leader and I still stand by that. Still standin’!

[But if DT2 is wrong and Pelosi stays on as Minority Leader] The number one impact is on the Democratic Party – and it would be a terrible-terrible thing for us. It’s inconceivable. Do you get that? Keep in place the same damn party leadership that cost us to lose 60 odd seats in the House? Why in the hell would we do that? Why? There is just no damn way the party is that stupid. No. Cannot be….

Plenty. For one, it makes me question myself – my information, and that would make me very-very nervous. I don’t like to receive surprises. Like to give them. Don’t like to get them.  That would be a nasty little surprise come my way…. I was told Pelosi was gone. “DC toast” I was told. Many times, by people who should know. If she were to actually stay on, that throws the whole process into suspicion. Now I can’t trust my own judgement, let alone what someone else is telling me, right? You get that-that, what I’m sayin’? Pelosi being gone is part of the deal, the-the-the process by which the White House is in for a real old fashioned Washington D.C. ass kicking. Hell, from my perspective, her staying on might very well signal a deal breaker. A goddamn deal breaker!  But that ain’t gonna happen. No sir. Unless I’m wrong of course – then this thing is a cluster -expletive- multiple times over.” 

But DT2 is wrong because Pelosi is staying in the House as Minority Leader. DT2 thinks this means Pelosi has cut a deal with Obama:

“I strongly suspect Nancy Pelosi has certain information, or parts of information, that-that would be essential to helping certain investigations against the White House. Investigations that could lead all the way to the top.  It was my understanding that Pelosi had decided to let this information be known to others, say members of a committee, in her…absence. She would be gone, living the good life out there in California, not part of the investigations, not the cause of the disclosure, you know, that kind of scenario – though I think she has let some stuff get out there already as a way of telling the White House to back the -expletive- off. But by laying back on all of it, she would have necessary separation from it all. Do you understand?

so if I’m being told this, being told repeatedly that Speaker Pelosi has had it with the White House, has had it with the president, is gonna help send them all packin’ away to political has-been street, and then she actually stays on as party leader, that means something happened. Something changed from what I am being told. Or somebody got it wrong – and either way, I can be -expletive- over on this whole thing. Do you realize how powerful a Speaker of the House really is? And Pelosi is about as tough a Speaker as I’ve seen. Tough-though lady. Not someone you wanna make an enemy of, right? So…if-if…if she stays on as party leader, that means she was got to. That means she made a deal. And if she was gonna help crack heads over at the White House, that means she probably made a deal with them, right? And that means this information she was supposed to help leak out there to the rest of us, to others, will probably disappear.

…Because the only way the White House would agree to a deal is if they were given that information to keep for themselves or had assurances it as no longer available. They are not going to just allow Pelosi to keep holding it over them. You see, the White House was sending out strong signals that Pelosi must go. I know this.  I heard it first hand from members of Congress. She is gone. So if she all of a sudden stays, and stays as leader of the party, that means the White House stopped pushing for her to be gone. And that means a deal was made. And THAT means I’m left scrambling for cover in all of this. And so is everyone who has been talking to me. The Republicans don’t take over until 2011, right? Whatever information Pelosi has on Obama – and she has it. Don’t you doubt that. She’s got it. Well, that information could easily be no more by January. Bye-bye, gone. Replaced, misplaced – never was, never will be again.  That -expletive- happens all the time.  I mean all the time.”

DT2 on Obama:

“Did you see the guy on TV the other day? He looked like he was runnin’on ’bout two hours sleep! You ever see clips of Elvis tryin’ to talk to an audience in those last years of his? The slurring, mumbling, the unfocused eyes? That’s our president! God help us all – that’s Obama! President Elvis -expletive- Obama! He’s either really-really tired all the time, or he’s over medicated, or he’s both. I keep waitin’ for him to say, “Thank yah…Thank yah very much,” at end of one of his speeches! (laughs) Ladies and gentlemen, Obama has left the building!  We all wish, huh?

…I don’t know what he is, but he ain’t no Democrat. He’s Barack Obama. He’s in it for himself, but he ain’t no Democrat. He’s an entirely different thing altogether. People are seeing that now – more are anyways. No, this guy is destroying Democrats, destroying the party. He ain’t no Democrat. Hell, maybe, just maybe, all that birther -expletive- is right…. Maybe he ain’t even an American.”

Bills in 4 States Require Birth Certificates For 2012 Election

Obama, you can run but you can’t hide.

Due to the unconscionable failure of Congress, state governments, and the Demonrat Party, you got away with not providing documentary proof of your constitutional eligibility to be President of the United State of America in 2008. But you will not in 2012!

Republican legislatures in four states — Texas, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona — have or plan to introduce bills that would require all candidates for president or vice president of the United States to show his or her birth certificate to be on the state ballot.

~Eowyn

State GOP leaders grab issue of Obama eligibility

By Bob Unruh – WorldNetDaily – Nov 18, 2010

The GOP members of Congress who booted Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi from the speaker’s seat when they took the majority in the U.S. House this month may be the least of President Barack Obama’s concerns as the 2012 presidential campaign assembles.

That’s because in Pennsylvania, and in at least a couple of other states, there are Republican-controlled Houses, Senates and governors’ offices where being developed right now are plans to use state law to demand proof of constitutional eligibility from presidential candidates before they would be allowed on the state ballot.

From Pennsylvania, Georgia and Texas there already is confirmation of such plans. Arizona is likely to have the same plan, and other states are expected to be in the works as legislatures approach the dates when they will convene.

Pennsylvania

In Pennsylvania, there was excitement over the GOP majority of both houses of the state legislature as well as the governor’s office.

Assemblyman Daryl Metcalfe told WND he is preparing to circulate a memo among his fellow GOP lawmakers for cosponsors for his proposal that would demand documentation of constitutional eligibility. “We aren’t sworn in until Jan. 4,” he said. “Once we’re sworn in we’ll be introducing the legislation that would require presidential candidates to prove their natural born citizenship before they are allowed to file petitions to have their name on the state ballot.” He described it as a “problem” that there has been no established procedure for making sure that presidential candidates meet the Constitution’s requirements for age, residency and being a “natural born citizen.” “We hope we would be able to pass this legislation and put it into law before the next session,” he said. He said any one of the states imposing such a requirement would be effective in solving his concerns. “I think the public relations nightmare that would ensue if any candidate would thumb their noses at a single state would torpedo their campaign,” he told WND.

Georgia

Another state that will be in play on the issue is Georgia, where Rep. Mark Hatfield confirmed to WND that he will have a similar proposal pending. He had introduced the legislation at the end of last year’s session to put fellow lawmakers on alert that the issue was coming.

“I do plan to reintroduce the bill,” he told WND today. “We’ll move forward with trying to get it before a committee.” In Georgia, Republicans hold majorities in both house of the legislature as well as “every constitutional statewide office,” he noted. “I would be optimistic that we can [adopt the legislation],” he said.

Hatfield said if only one or two states adopt such requirements, it readily will be apparent whether a candidate has issues with eligibility documentation or not. And while he noted a president could win a race without support from a specific state, a failure to qualify on the ballot “would give voters in other states pause, about whether or not a candidate is in fact qualified,” he said. “My goal is to make sure any person that aspires to be president meets the constitutional requirements,” he said. “This is a first step in that direction.”

Arizona

It was last session when the Arizona House of Representatives adopted a provision that would have required documentation of eligibility from presidential candidates, but the measure died through the inaction of the state Senate in the closing days of the session. Sponsor Rep. Judy Burges told WND at the time that her plan would be renewed this session.

Texas

WND reported just days ago on a bill prefiled for the Texas Legislature by Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, that would require such documentation. His effort was the first wave of a surging tide of developing questions that could be a hurdle to a second term for Obama, who escaped such demands last year when the Arizona Senate failed to act on a similar plan after the House approved it.

Berman’s legislation, House Bill 295, is brief and simple. It would add to the state election code the provision:

The secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the candidate’s original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen.

It includes an effective date of Sept. 1, 2011, in time for 2012 presidential campaigning.

Berman told WND he’s seen neither evidence nor indication that Obama qualifies under the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen,” a requirement not imposed on most other federal officers. “If the federal government is not going to vet these people, like they vetted John McCain, we’ll do it in our state,” he said. He noted the Senate’s investigation into McCain because of the Republican senator’s birth in Panama to military parents.

Berman also said there will be pressure on any lawmaker who opposes the bill, since voters would wonder why they wouldn’t want such basic data about a president revealed. And he said even if one state adopts the requirement, there will be national implications, because other states would be alerted to a possible problem.

“If Obama is going to run for re-election in 2012, he’ll have to show our secretary of state his birth certificate and prove he’s a natural-born citizen,” he said. “This is going to be significant.” Berman said he’s convinced there are problems with Obama’s eligibility, or else his handlers would not be so persistent in keeping the information concealed.

…much more continued at WND here

Wikipedia Took Down Entry on LtC Terry Lakin

Lt. Col. and Dr. Terrence (Terry) Lakin is a distinguished US Army surgeon and recipient of a Bronze Star who is undergoing court martial for refusing deployment orders on the grounds that his Commander in Chief (CIC) has not proven he is constitutionally eligibile to be CIC and President.

One would think that Dr. Lakin merits an entry in Wikipedia. And indeed, Wiki did have an entry on him; the URL for the entry is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php\?title=Terrence_L._Lakin&oldid=396351151.

If you click the URL however, you won’t find the entry because Wikipedia has removed it, ostensibly because Lakin is not a noteworthy person. That is most curious because the same Wikipedia find three other Lakins sufficiently noteworthy to warrant each an entry. They are:

Have you ever heard of them, especially “American actress” Christine Lakin? Me neither!

H/t beloved fellow Tina.

~Eowyn

Congress Admits It Did Not Check Obama’s Eligibility

This is just freakin’ unbelievable.

Do you know why we have the mess we now have about Obama’s birth certificate and his constitutional eligibility to be president?

It’s because the great United States of America, supposedly governed by the Rule of Law, has no law or regulation at the federal or state level requiring government to vet presidential candidates! (Umm, what about the U.S. Constitution? Isn’t the Constitution the highest law of the land? Doesn’t the Constitution specify that a president must be a “natural born citizen”?)

This was admitted by the Congressional Research Office in a memo meant for internal circulation, not to be seen by We the People. That was why nobody in Congress or the federal government or the state governments tried to ascertain Obama’s eligibility. And that’s why judge after judge has tossed out lawsuit after lawsuit challenging The Fraud’s eligibility.

When the newly elected members to the House of Representatives take their seats in the new year, their first order of business should be the drafting of a new law requiring Congress to thoroughly determine the eligibility — according to the United States Constitution – of all presidential candidates. As should the legislatures of each of our 50 state governments!

Is it too late in Obama’s case?

The answer is a resounding “No!!!”

Judges do have the discretionary authority and power to request that he produce documentary evidence of his eligibility. All we need is one good judge. Sadly, none has come forth thus far….

A big h/t to most beloved fellow Tina.

~Eowyn

Congress report concedes Obama eligibility unvetted

By Jerome R. Corsi - WorldNetDaily – Nov 8, 2010

A congressional document posted on the Internet confirms no one – not Congress, not the states and not election officials – bothered to check Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, and that status remains undocumented to this day. It’s because state and federal law did not require anyone in Congress or elsewhere to check to see if Obama was a “natural born Citizen” under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, according the document.

The analysis by the Congressional Research Service, a research arm of the U.S. Congress, openly admits no one in the federal government, including Congress, ever asked to see Obama’s long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. It explains no one was required to do so.

Technically, the CRS is a public policy research arm of the United States Congress that is organized as a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress; the CRS works exclusively for members of Congress, congressional committees and congressional staff in an advisory capacity, answering questions.

The CRS memorandum, published and distributed to congressional offices April 3, 2009, was written to explain to senators and members of the House how they could answer constituents who were demanding to see Obama’s birth certificate.

It first appeared on a blog posted by Mario Apuzzo, who has pending before the U.S. Supreme Court a request to hear a case claiming Congress and others failed to abide by the Constitution when they refused to investigate Obama’s eligibility. He explains the document, which has been posted online, was obtained through the “diligent and persistent efforts of a patriot going by the pen name of ‘Tom Deacon,’ who obtained it from a senator’s office.”

Authored by Jack Maskell, the legislative attorney in the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service, the document was a memorandum written for the subject “Qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate.”

Maskell confirmed to WND that the document is authentic. He explained he wrote it only for distribution to congressional offices, not for public distribution, and it was not posted on any of the CRS report sites where the public might have been able to find it. He suggested one of the congressional offices that got the report facilitated its release, and it ended up posted on the Internet. Maskell told WND he wrote it because so many members of Congress were getting questions from constituents about the issue, and they wanted to know how to respond. It would explain why so many mailed and e-mailed responses to constituents on the issue of eligibility sound just alike.

The CRS begins the memo by stating the problem:

“Many of the inquiries have questioned why then-Senator, and now President, Obama has not had to produce an original, so-called ‘long’ version of a ‘birth certificate’ from the State of Hawaii, how federal candidates are ‘vetted’ for qualifications generally, and have asked for an assessment of the various allegations and claims of non-eligibility status.”

In other words, senators and members of the House could not explain why nobody ever saw Obama’s long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate, and they needed a ready answer to give angry constituents who were writing, faxing and telephoning their offices for an answer.

The second full paragraph of the CRS memo must be read in its entirety to understand fully the circumstance that allowed a candidate for whom documentation was concealed from the public to be elected and sworn in as president. It states:

“Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate, it should be noted that there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation. Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that ‘vets’ candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to return.”

What the CRS admits is that Obama got a pass from Congress and the federal government as a whole on his birth qualifications under Article 2, Section 1. Nobody in Congress or the federal government sought to look for Obama’s certified long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate, because no law or regulation required them to look. After the document was written, nobody in Congress could claim that Congress or anyone else in the federal government had reviewed Obama’s birth certificate or determined Obama was eligible to be president. It simply did not happen.

A screen capture of the document’s first page, including the key second paragraph, confirms the conclusion:

The CRS memo also admits that federal elections are administered under state law, a circumstance apparent to lawyers but sometimes complicated for others. The relevant paragraph:

“The mechanics of elections of federal officials within the several states are administered under state law. The quadrennial presidential election, although required since 1845 to be held on the same day in each state is, in an administrative and operational sense, fifty-one separate elections in the states and the District of Columbia for presidential electors. States generally control, within the applicable constitutional parameters, the administrative issues, questions, and mechanisms of ballot placement and ballot access.”

The next key point is that like federal law, neither do state laws require anyone to examine the birth qualifications of presidential candidates. The states may have discretionary authority to question a candidate’s eligibility to run for federal office, but there is no requirement in state law to do so, not when it comes to looking at birth records.

Once more, the memo makes this plain:

“In Keyes v. Bowen, the California Supreme Court discussed a suit against the secretary of state that challenged President Obama’s eligibility and the California electoral votes for [the] finding that: ‘Petitioners have not identified any authority requiring the secretary of state to make an inquiry into or demand detailed proof of citizenship from presidential candidates,’ and thus mandamus (a writ of mandate) was not granted. However, although no ‘ministerial duty’ or mandatory requirement exists to support a mandamus action, there may still exist discretionary authority in such elections official.”

…What the CRS is saying is that since there was no state law demanding Obama show his birth certificate, the court could not demand he do so. It was entirely up to the California secretary of state who had discretion to ask for the document or not ask for the document, depending upon what the California secretary of state, a Democrat for othis election cycle, wanted to do.

The CRS’s conclusion is that Obama could refuse to show his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate because no state or federal law required him reveal it. The report said, therefore, Obama could release exactly what information he chose.

“Despite the absence of any formal administrative or legal requirement or oversight at the federal level, or specific state requirement to produce a birth certificate for ballot placement, it may be noted here briefly that the only ‘official’ documentation or record that has been presented in the matter of President Obama’s eligibility has been an official, certified copy of the record of live birth released by the Obama campaign in June of 2008, as an apparent effort by then-candidate Obama to address rumors and innuendos concerning the place of his birth.”

The result is that Obama could choose exactly what information – and in what format – he wanted released. He chose the computer-generated Certification of Live Birth, a form from the state of Hawaii that officials there have provided to those not born in the state, to document his eligibility.

The CRS also makes it clear that if the birth requirements of the Constitution are to be taken seriously, new laws at the state and federal levels will be needed to institutionalize government procedures requiring president candidates to come forward with their eligibility documentation.

Read the rest of this WND article HERE.

White House Insider on the Birth Certificate

Billboard in Bethel, Pennsylvania

Here’s the latest leak from the unnamed “White House insider” (DT2 or DeepThroat2) who’s been talking to NewsFlavor blogger, Ulsterman. The following excerpts are from White House Insider: Clintons, Scandals, and the Birth Certificate,” by Ulsterman, NewsFlavor.com, November 9, 2010: 

The Democratic Party remains in a state of crisis:

“…the party is still in crisis, and there is going to be much more to come…what’s that saying?  First comes denial, then anger, and finally acceptance.  Maybe I’m at the acceptance stage now.  People in the party are talking, things are forming, I see a new and stronger direction for 2012 and beyond.  Unless of course, Nancy Pelosi somehow manages to keep her leadership role within the party.  That would be…incredibly stupid of us.  But you never know what Democrats are capable of right?  If Pelosi retains her position, there will be more staff leaving the White House because that will signal the party has truly lost its political compass and the White House will have been proven powerless in correcting it.  Nobody wants to work for a loser.  The poor bastards who were around for Carter – it took them years to recover their careers, and some never really did. She [Pelosi] is out. I just cannot see it happening – her being allowed to be minority leader.  No way.  Yeah, it could happen – it’s possible, but very unlikely.  And if it does happen…well, you can throw all of my hope for 2012 out the window.  Pelosi is too mixed up in what is coming at us in the coming months.”

On the forthcoming White House big scandal(s):

“This thing is percolating just under the surface right now.  Sooner – not later, the pot is gonna start boiling.  Yeah, someone is about to test the waters with this thing.  I’ve heard that.  Then again, I’ve heard that for a while now, so who knows, huh?  I’d watch yourself though – told you that before.  Be very careful who you are talking to on this.  These people don’t play nice.

[DT2 refuses to name names or give specifics on the nature of the scandal because] “I don’t have the protection.  Read the [New York] Times.  Somebody there has sniffed it out.  And a guy over at the Post.  If the Post starts to get on it, the Times will probably go ahead and break it open, loyalty to the White House be damned.  I told you before, parts of the story have already been given out publicly here and there.  One part will lead to another and then another.  It’s underway right now.  Every week a little bit more shows itself.

About Obama’s birth certificate:

Best way to discredit skeptics is to portray them as crazy “birthers”:

Hey, almost every great government scandal began as a silly conspiracy right?  It’s how one side effectively discredits the other – just call them crazy.  I have done it many times.  Not so much because I enjoy it but because it works.

If Obama is not eligible to be president, there’d be chaos:

“Hell if I know – and I’m not sure I want to know.  Do you realize the mess that would create if it was true?  There would be violence of the kind this country has not seen in our lifetimes – or at least your lifetime.  I forget sometimes how old I really am.

Even DT2 wonders about whether Obama was born in America:

“Look, I will say this- people seem to have spent a considerable amount of time and money keeping others from finding out.  I don’t know why more than to say this president has been very protective of almost everything in his past.  From college transcripts to medical records to writings…he’s clearly very concerned with his privacy.  I don’t necessarily fault him for that, but it does make you wonder – I understand that.  If you are asking me if Obama is an American I say yes.  I have no doubt about that.  If you are asking me if Obama was born in America… Yeah…that one is a little tougher to say.  I sure as hell hope so, because if he wasn’t, and somebody is able to prove it – holy hell we got problems.

It’s not so much I don’t think he was born in America, it’s more that I am open to the possibility of that.  Or I’m at least sympathetic to people who wonder about it themselves.  But I don’t want to go there – it’s irrelevant to me.  It’s too dangerous to consider.  And it’s Obama’s own fault.  He has covered up his past.  Beyond his books, which frankly from what I have seen of him firsthand I don’t think he wrote entirely himself, there really is very little we know about the guy.  The one most responsible for all of these conspiracy stories is Barack Obama.  When you have White House staff – people who were involved in the day to day decisions coming out of the West Wing saying they have no clue who Obama really is, that shows an environment that is going to create a lot of this conspiracy stuff surrounding the president.” 

The brewing scandal is not about Obama’s birth certificate:

No [it's not about the birth certificate] – not to my knowledge, no.  Good lord, no.  Don’t tie me up to that subject matter! 

To read the interview for yourself:  http://newsflavor.com/politics/world-politics/white-house-insider-clintons-scandals-and-the-birth-certificate/

~Eowyn

Wayne Madsen: CIA Looking Into Obama Eligibility

D.C. investigative reporter Wayne Madsen’s exclusive-to-subscribers report of October 11-12, 2010, “Meltdown of Team Obama. White House in Crisis,” is chock full of fascinating information. In the past two days, I’ve mined his report for two posts:

Here’s my third post: Madsen claims that the meltdown of Obama and the White House has prompted the CIA to look into Obama’s background for “damaging information,” including his birth and parentage.

My reaction:

What took you so long? Shouldn’t this investigation have been conducted during the 2008 campaign? Instead, it’s unpaid citizen bloggers who took up the digging and investigating as their patriotic duty. Hey, CIA dude, you can start your investigation by reading our The Obama Chronicles page!

~Eowyn

From Wayne Madsen Report of October 11-12, 2010, Meltdown of Team Obama. White House in Crisis“:

Enter the CIA

In another eerie replay of the Watergate crisis, WMR has learned that the CIA has not sat by idly as the Obama White House has unraveled. WMR has previously reported on Obama’s and his family’s past links to the CIA. However, Langley appears ready to take advantage of the weakening position of Obama to bring about added uncertainty.

WMR has learned from a reliable intelligence source that the CIA has secretly contracted with a retired top CIA official who was a principal actor in the Iran-contra scandal, to uncover any information that could be damaging to Obama from his past. On the table are any documents and information on Obama’s place of birth, his paternal parentage, and his past employment activities. By contracting outside the CIA’s normal channels, the agency is seeking “plausible deniability” should documents or information damaging to Obama be uncovered and subsequently leaked to the media.

The retired CIA official has recently been active with a carve-out special Pentagon intelligence-gathering contract approved by his one-time boss at the CIA, then-CIA deputy director Robert Gates, now the defense secretary, and CIA Director Leon Panetta, President Clinton’s White House chief of staff. There is at least $15 million of Pentagon funds unaccounted for in the CIA’s off-the-books intelligence-gathering operation, reported to have officially been for counter-terrorism operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The contractor firm has been involved in domestic and foreign intelligence operations for the CIA and FBI for at least 20 years, including monitoring labor strikes, investigating at least one U.S. Supreme Court nominee, and its linkage to the FBI corruption case involving Boston criminal syndicate boss James “‘Whitey” Bulger.

+++

To save Obamatrolls the embarrassment of appearing really really stupid when they post comments that Obama has already released his birth certificate, here are, ONCE AGAIN, the differences between (1) The image of Obama’s certificate of live birth (COLB) which his campaign released online in 2008:

Online image of Obama’s certificate of live birth, a SECONDARY document
and (2) The document that Obama has spent $1-2 million in concealing: Hawaii’s LONG-FORM birth certificate — the PRIMARY document from which the secondary COLB is generated:   

A sample of Hawaii’s LONG-FORM birth certificate, the primary document from which Obama’s COLB presumably was generated

The differences between the two include the fact that document #2 (the long-form birth certificate that Obama refuses to produce) has the name of the hospital in which the baby was born, as well as the name of the attending physician.

If Military Won’t, The People Will Remove Obama

I’m grateful to my friend, Mark McGrew, for allowing Fellowship of the Minds to re-publish his outstanding article. Highly recommend!

P.S. I recently asked him why he publishes in Pravda. It was as I had thought: When Mark wrote his first article about Obama during the 2008 campaign season, he had sent it to every major newspaper in America. They all turned him down. Then he sent it to the major regional and local papers. They all turned him down as well. So he turned to FOREIGN news organs — and Pravda immediately snapped it up.

Sad commentary on the American media. What good is the First Amendment  when the press-media abuse their constitutional freedom by being so politically partisan and compromised that it censors itself?

~Eowyn

American military officers against Obama

By Mark S. McGrew
October 13, 2010

41981.jpegLieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin, Major General Carroll D. Childers, Captain Neil B. Turner, Commander Charles Kerchner, Lt. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick, Captain Connie Rhodes, Lieutenant Colonel David Earl Graef, Major Stefan Frederick Cook, Paul Vallely, Major General (Ret), US Army, Jim Cash, Brigadier General (Ret), USAF, Harry Riley, Colonel (Ret), US Army, Michael A. Trudell, Captain (Ret), USN, Harry Soloman, Lieutenant Colonel (Ret), USAF, Carmen A. Reynolds, Lieutenant Colonel (Ret), USAF, Debra A. Gunnoe, Lieutenant Colonel (Ret), USAF, Greg Hollister, Lieutenant Colonel (Ret), USAF, Richard C. Morris, Lieutenant Colonel (Ret), US Army, William Harker, Commander (Ret), USN, Bill Little, Commander (Ret), USN. John Johnson, 1st Lieutenant (Ret), USAF, Luther B. Neff, Captain (Ret), USAF, Fred Herndon, Captain (Ret), USAF, Jerry Curry Army Major General (Retired), General Thomas McInerney.

All of these people are either engaged in a legal action against Obama or have publicly expressed their support for people in legal actions against Obama.

What motivates these people to risk their lives, their freedom and their fortunes by publicly stating their position against a US President?

It is their sworn duty.

Upon entering the service of the American military, everyone must take this oath:

“I, __________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God”

The oath of an OFFICER of the United States Armed Forces, is as follows:

“I, __________________, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of Major do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

Notice that for an Officer, there is no “promise to obey the orders of the President”.

This oath is based on Title 5, §3331 of the United States Code:

More can be seen here: http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm

The question is: Are these men committing Treason or Mutiny?

Mutiny is described in Merriam Webster’s Dictionary as: Forcible or passive resistance to lawful authority especially concerted revolt (as of a naval crew) against discipline or a superior officer.

And they define Treason as: 1. The betrayal of a trust. 2. The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance.

IF…Obama is a lawful eligible President or lawful or eligible superior officer, their actions may be construed as Mutiny. IF……Obama is a lawful eligible President and IF he is “the government”, which he is not, then their actions may be construed as Treason.

It is looking more and more that Obama is not a lawful eligible President. And no President is “the government”. “We the People” are THE government. The President is just part time hired help.

Lt. Commander Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III filed a charge of “Treason” against Obama in Federal Court in Tennessee.

Commander Charles Kerchner, through his attorney, Mario Apuzzo, has filed a lawsuit against all of the US Congress, Dick Cheney, Nancy Pelosi and Obama for violating the US Constitution in certifying the Electoral College votes for Obama’s favor.

Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin has refused to be deployed until he sees proof that Obama is an eligible President. He is now being Court Marshaled, with a military Judge telling him that he can not see, nor present evidence pertaining to Obama’s eligibilty to be President, because Colonel Denise Lind ruled, “It may embarrass the President”.

Of the 100 or so legal actions against Obama to prove he is eligible to hold the office of President of The United States, most are dismissed without any trial, without any hearing, without any evidence presented by either side, never being judged on the merits of the case.

Instead, Judge after Judge says, “You don’t have “Standing”. It is none of your business if Obama is eligible or not.”

One Judge’s excuse was, “This has been tweeted and twittered on the Internet”. The Judge knows that the Internet is not a realm of unadulterated truth.

Many of these dozens of cases can be found on

Philip Berg, an attorney in Philadelphia has a case http://www.ObamaCrimes.com sitting in the US Supreme Court with Justice Thomas and his associates. Orly Taitz, an attorney with several dozen military Plaintiffs has cases http://www.orlytaitzesq.com before the US Supreme Court. Mario Apuzzo’s case http://puzo1.blogspot.com against Congress is now in the Supreme Court after being told his client has no “Standing” to ask if the US Congress is corrupt.

And it is not just legal actions against Obama personally. There are dozens of legal actions against his policies, such as Health Care, closing Chrysler dealerships, Gulf oil spill and many other totally un-American policies. Policies that most Americans were taught are repugnant to a free people.

Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia, filed suit against Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius directly after the Health Care legislation was passed by Congress in March 2010.

20 individual states filed a similar lawsuit led by Attorney General Bill McCollum of Florida. In Attorney General Kenneth Cucinelli’s case, Federal District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson has ordered a Motion questioning the legality of the Health Care Bill because it was signed into law by someone (Obama) who is ineligible to do so. The question of Obama being eligible to be the President is based on Obama’s refusal to provide verification that he is a Natural Born Citizen as required by the US Constitution.

And that question has finally, after dozens of denied legal actions, been made a part of a valid case in Federal Court.

American citizens and military officers from Coast to Coast are told they have “No Standing” to question Obama’s eligibility to be President.

What is this new legal buzzword, “Standing“? According to http://www.FindLaw.com it is: The status of being qualified to assert or enforce legal rights or duties in a judicial forum because one has a sufficient and protectable interest in the outcome of a justiciable controversy and has suffered or is threatened with actual injury.

According to http://www.dictionary.law.com “Standing” is: “The right to file a lawsuit or file a petition under the circumstances. A plaintiff will have standing to sue in federal court if a) there is an actual controversy, b) a federal statute gives the federal court jurisdiction, and c) the parties are residents of different states or otherwise fit the constitutional requirements for federal court jurisdiction.”

America is being decimated by a foreigner, acting as a President, and the Federal Judges want to say that an American citizen has no “Standing”?

In the matter of Obama’s eligibility, there:

1. Actual controversy.
2. Federal Statutes do give the federal court jurisdiction.
3. All parties are residents of different states.
4. It does fit the constitutional requirements for federal court jurisdiction.

Consider this: If none of the cases asking Obama to prove he is eligible have “Standing”, why is a Federal Judge and Obama’s Department of Justice allowing 11 foreign Nations to join a lawsuit against the State of Arizona?? NONE of those Nations are… residents of different states and NONE of those Nations has suffered or are threatened with actual injury.

Regarding the current cases pending in the Supreme Court of the United States, US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is on record answering a question about Obama’s eligibility, “We’re evading that one.”

We are witnessing corruption at the highest levels of government. The military officers listed in this report are attempting to correct that corruption.

Is the situation so serious that America may experience a “Military Coup”? Under normal circumstances that would be a delusional consideration. America is not a 3rd World country. Our Constitution allows for a “peaceful revolution” every four years.

But, under present circumstances, with an illegitimate President who has spent nearly $2 million to keep his citizenship secret, with a Congress ignoring Constitutional requirements to certify Obama’s Electoral Votes, with a Department of Justice attacking an individual State attempting to enforce Federal Immigration Law and allowing 11 Nations to join in that attack, with Federal Judges across the country resorting to the illicit reasoning of “Standing” to prohibit questions about Obama’s citizenship, with a Supreme Court whose job it is, to consider cases before them, and instead is proudly “evading that issue”, with certain factions of the military illegally and unconstitutionally attempting to silence any questions of Obama’s eligibility, with record unemployment, with record foreclosures, with record poverty levels, and with Obama going out of his way to insult every World leader he meets, there are only three options to restore the operations of the American government to its rightful owners:

  1. We the People, take to the streets and forcibly remove every anti-American politician and government employee and/or forcibly remove any politician or government employee that the People “perceive” to be anti-American.
  2. The United States Military must do a “surgical strike” to permanently remove the correctly identified anti-American forces in government positions.
  3. Foreign intervention of overwhelming force.

There are no other options. All other options have been exhausted.

In 1934 Colonel Smedley Butler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler was asked by extremely anti-American forces to amass an Armyof 500,000 soldiers and forcefully take over the sitting government, including President Franklin Roosevelt. Then, like now, their own arrogance was their downfall. Who but an idiot would ask the most highly decorated United States Marine Corps Officer in history to use weapons and soldiers to destroy his own government? The same government that granted them the ability to amass the wealth that they could not have acquired in any other Nation or any other time period in history.

Why were those traitors not arrested and executed? Some stories say it is because Franklin Roosevelt, who was a Democrat, did not want to tarnish the reputation of Democrats, being as the conspirators were Democrats.

In the summer prior to the election of Obama, there was perhaps 1 or 2% of the population questioning Obama’s eligibility. Obama said that that issue would go away 2 weeks after he was elected. However, 2 years after that election, over 65% of the American People question his eligibility and that number is growing.

If Obama is not eligible to be President, ALL of his Executive Orders, Laws, Treaties and Agreements can be reneged on by future administrations and by foreign entities. ALL orders being given to the United States military are unlawful orders and no soldier or officer has the duty to obey them. In fact, any and all military personnel who do obey his orders are subject to immense criminal punishment and possibly can be charged with and prosecuted successfully for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. Their duty is to not obey unlawful orders.

The vast majority of American citizens, “We the People” are fed up with Obama’s grossly anti-American policies. The vast majority are fed up with major media’s lies and distortions, as evidenced by massive amounts of readers and listeners abandoning the major news sources.

They are sick of billions or trillions of their dollars going to reward the crooked banks and other financial institutions who stole from them to begin with. They are sick of being punished for the crimes of the politician’s friends and campaign donors.

Obama and his supporters are so far detached from reality, they have absolutely no concept of what 100 million angry American’s are capable of inflicting upon them.

IF the military of America does not eliminate the corrupt Obama regime, the American people can and will do to them, far worse that the military would do.

The World has learned the hard way, that when America sneezes, their Nations catch a cold. If hard, fast and brutal remedies are not applied to the Obama Flu virus, America and other Nations will cease to exist as we know them and hundreds of millions of this Earth’s population will die a miserable death, far worse and farther reaching than the Black Plague of the Middle Ages. Poverty kills. Massive poverty kills massively.

In America, the opposing forces are not Liberal vs. Conservative or Right vs. Left or Democrat vs. Republican. The effective forces are only American vs. Anti-American.

If the American forces had one message to deliver to the Anti-American forces, it would be this: “We have been tolerant of your actions. We have been respectful of your Constitutional Right to Free Speech. We have been such, not solely because we are gentle people and respect your Rights, but also, because of our Biblical principles. The Bible says, “Know thine enemy.” How could we have known you if we did not allow you to speak? And this is why you don’t know us and don’t realize what we are capable of, because you have attempted and succeeded in many areas to silence us. In public maybe. And now, the bell can not be un-rung. You have spoken and We the People know you. And you will be destroyed as We the People have destroyed you many times in the history of America.”

Here are some links to just a few of the hundreds, maybe thousands of sites of organizations that are fighting Obama and his policies:

When it is all added up, when it is all understood by the American people, there is one solid truth that will become self evident: The forces controlling Obama can not legally execute us for what we are doing, but We the People can hang them by the neck until dead, for what they have done and are doing.

Mark S. McGrew can be reached at McGrewMX@aol.com. More of his articles can be seen at http://www.MarkSMcGrew.blogspot.com Please include a link to http://www.English.Pravda.ru if you republish this article.

Will Supreme Court Confront Obama?

Although this essay by Anthony Martin was published on July 9, 2010, I only just discovered it. Given that it’s now 3 months later and the Supreme Court has done nothing about Obama, I’m dubious about Martin’s prediction of an imminent, if at all, “smack down.” Still, we can pray, can’t we? LOL

H/t Glenn Neal, author of The Second American Revolution.

~Eowyn

Obama being sworn in, again, as POTUS by Chief Justice Roberts.

Sources say smackdown of Obama by Supreme Court may be inevitable

By Anthony G. Martin - Conservative Examiner - July 9, 2010

According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.

Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues.  Critics have complained that much if not all of Obama’s major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government. 

Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.

The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, ‘That’s not true,’ when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court’s ruling.  

As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government.  Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.

Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.  And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until ‘Obama is gone.’

Apparently, the Court has had enough.

The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration. Such a thing would be long overdue.

First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim. The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.

In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can ‘opt out.’

Second,  sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama’s history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii.  And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not the President himself, in hot water with the Court. Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years. Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.

In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ to sue the state of Arizona. That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.

And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party.  The group is caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls. A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.

This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling–that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Be sure to catch my blog at The Liberty Sphere.

Great Video On Obama Not Certified for Presidency

A big “thank you” to dear fellow Tina for spotting this video.

We’re delighted that the video made use of both the analysis and the language of our Sept. 20 post, Hawaii Democratic Party Did Not Certify Obama’s Eligibility“! 

The video asks that we send it to our Congress critters. Here’s the video’s URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4WsG9H8eh0

While you’re at it, please also send your Congress critters the URL to the Fellowship’s exposé post:  ;)http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/hawaii-democratic-party-refused-to-certify-obamas-eligibility/

~Eowyn