Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - TomTomKlub

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26
1
The World Below / Re: Constitution Rewrite Only 2 States Away!
« on: December 12, 2008, 02:28:05 PM »
Putting the philosophy and linguistics aside.

This has been in the making for sometime. This is why all judicial branches have been ignoring the Obama Birth Issue Lawsuits.

The actions of the Con Con, will bring about PNACS Plans for the North American Union, with the UN dictating our new humanity laws.




2
The World Below / Re: Constitution Rewrite Only 2 States Away!
« on: December 12, 2008, 11:53:40 AM »
It would be great if I could post this on the homepage, but a certain member has gone crazy with the Money Matters Topics..................

4
The World Below / Re: Constitution Rewrite Only 2 States Away!
« on: December 12, 2008, 09:17:24 AM »
Like WND or not, this crap is going on now!

5
The World Below / Constitution Rewrite Only 2 States Away!
« on: December 12, 2008, 09:15:31 AM »
U.S. now only 2 states away from rewriting Constitution
Critic: 'This is a horrible time to try such a crazy scheme'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 12, 2008
12:25 am Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which "today's corrupt politicians and judges" could formally change the U.S. Constitution's "'problematic' provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society."

"Don't for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn't revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a 'collective' right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights," said the warning from the American Policy Institute.

"Additions could include the non-existent separation of church and state, the 'right' to abortion and euthanasia, and much, much more," the group said.

The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who is to be voted the next president by the Electoral College Monday, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events.

Tom DeWeese, who runs the center and its education and grassroots work, told WND the possibilities stunned him when he discovered lawmakers in Ohio are considering a call for a Constitutional Convention. He explained that 32 other states already have taken that vote, and only one more would be needed to require Congress to name convention delegates who then would have more power than Congress itself.


"The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the states can call for a convention," the alert said. "If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction. And it's a safe bet that those who hate this nation, and all She stands for, are waiting to pounce upon this opportunity to re-write our Constitution."

DeWeese told WND that a handful of quickly responding citizens appeared at the Ohio Legislature yesterday for the meeting at which the convention resolution was supposed to be handled.

State officials suddenly decided to delay action, he said, giving those concerned by the possibilities of such a convention a little time to breathe.

According to a Fox News report, Obama has stated repeatedly his desire for empathetic judges who "understand" the plight of minorities.


In a 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, he said, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

Obama also committed himself to respecting the Constitution but said the founding document must be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events.

Read how today's America already has rejected the Constitution, and what you can do about it.

Melody Barnes, a senior domestic policy adviser to the Obama campaign, said in the Fox News report, "His view is that our society isn't static and the law isn't static as well. That the Constitution is a living and breathing document and that the law and the justices who interpret it have to understand that."

Obama has criticized Justice Clarence Thomas, regarded as a conservative member of the court, as not a strong jurist or legal thinker. And Obama voted against both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two appointees of President Bush who vote with Thomas on many issues.

Further, WND also reported Obama believes the Constitution is flawed, because it fails to address wealth redistribution, and he says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that.

Obama said in a 2001 radio interview the Constitution is flawed in that it does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.

Obama told Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.

The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.

In the 2001 interview, Obama said:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I`d be OK
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

The video is available here:



DeWeese said the Constitutional Convention effort was begun in the 1980s by those who wanted to rein in government with an amendment requiring a balanced budget for the federal agencies.

"Certainly all loyal Americans want government constrained by a balanced budget," the alert said. "But calling a Con Con risks a revolutionary change in our form of government. The ultimate outcome will likely be a new constitution, one that would possibly eliminate the Article 1 restriction to the coinage of real money or even eliminate gun or property rights."

He noted that when the last Constitutional Convention met in 1787, the original goal was to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead, delegates simply threw them out and wrote a new Constitution.

"We were blessed in 1787; the Con Con delegates were the leaders of a freedom movement that had just cleansed this land of tyranny," the warning said. "Today's corrupt politicians and judges would like nothing better than the ability to legally ignore the Constitution - to modify its "problematic" provisions to reflect the philosophical and socials mores of our contemporary society."

DeWeese then listed some of the states whose legislatures already have issued a call: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

"You may have heard that some of those 32 states have voted to rescind their calls. This is true," the warning continued. "However, under Article V of the Constitution, Congress must call a Constitutional Convention whenever two-thirds (or 34) of the states apply. The Constitution makes no provision for rescission."

The warning also suggested that the belief that a Constitution Convention could be directed in its purpose is misplaced.

"In truth no restrictive language from any state can legally limit the scope or outcome of a Convention! Once a Convention is called, Congress determines how the delegates to the Convention are chosen. Once chosen, those Convention delegates possess more power than the U.S. Congress itself," the warning said.

"We have not had a Constitutional Convention since 1787. That Convention was called to make small changes in the Articles of Confederation. As a point of fact, several states first passed resolutions requiring their delegates discuss amendments to the Articles ONLY, forbidding even discussion of foundational changes. However, following the delegates' first agreement that their meetings be in secret, their second act was to agree to debate those state restrictions and to declare the Articles of Confederation NULL AND VOID! They also changed the ratification process, reducing the required states' approval from 100 percent to 75 percent. There is no reason to believe a contemporary Con Con wouldn't further 'modify' Article V restrictions to suit its purpose," the center warning said.

The website Principled Policy opined it is true that any new document would have to be submitted to a ratification process.

"However fighting a new Constitution would be a long, hard, ugly and expensive battle which is guaranteed to leave the nation split along ideological lines. It is not difficult to envision civil unrest, riots or even civil war as a result of any re-writing of the current Constitution," the site said.

American Policy cited a statement from former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger that said, "There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda."

"This is a horrible time to try such a crazy scheme," the policy center said. "The majority of U.S. voters just elected a dedicated leftist as president. `¦ Our uniquely and purely American concept of individual rights, endowed by our Creator, would be quickly set aside as an anachronistic relic of a bygone era; replaced by new 'collective' rights, awarded and enforced by government for the 'common good.'

"And state No. 34 is likely sitting silently in the wings, ready to act with lightning speed, sealing the fate of our once great nation before we can prevent it," the center said.

A Constitutional Convention would be, DeWeese told WND, "our worst nightmare in an age when you've got people who believe the Constitution is an antiquated document, we need to have everything from controls on guns `¦ all of these U.N. treaties `¦ and controls on how we raise our children."

"When you take the document that is in their way, put it on the table and say how would you like to change it," he said.

American Policy Center suggested several courses of action for people who are concerned, including the suggestion that Ohio lawmakers be contacted.

WND also has reported an associate at a Chicago law firm whose partner served on a finance committee for Obama has advocated simply abandoning the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen.

The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin on the corporate website.

The article by Herlihy is available online under law review articles from Kent University.

The issue of Obama's own eligibility is the subject of nearly two dozen court cases in recent weeks, including at least two that have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Herlihy's published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.

"The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the 'stupidest provision' in the Constitution, 'undecidedly un-American,' 'blatantly discriminatory,' and the 'Constitution's worst provision,'" Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled, "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83364

6
The World Below / Re: Obama Vs. Constitution (60 Sec. TV Ad)
« on: December 04, 2008, 11:54:40 AM »
copy and paste to get around anonymouse, whatever it is called!!!

7
The World Below / Obama Vs. Constitution (60 Sec. TV Ad)
« on: December 04, 2008, 08:38:52 AM »


- embedded the video

9
Me and you both....

10
 
US Supreme Court case > NEW JERSEY VOTER VS. OBAMA AND McCAIN ON "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" STATUS NOW BEFORE SUPREME COURT - ST
1 Comments / Subscribe To Comments
Posted: Nov.10.2008 @ 7:40 am | Lasted edited: Nov.10.2008 @ 12:22 pm
NEW JERSEY VOTER VS. OBAMA AND McCAIN ON "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" STATUS NOW BEFORE US SUPREME COURT - DONOFRIO v. WELLS - STANDING NOT CHALLENGED IN LOWER COURTS - OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE NOT MAIN ISSUE

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Docket #: 08A407

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Application for Emergency Stay and supporting brief: ScotusStayAppBrief.doc

NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT ORDER

On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being "natural born citizens" as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution. 

Unlike other law suits filed against the candidates, Berg etc., this action was the only bi-partisan suit, which sought to have both McCain and Obama removed for the same reason.  (Later, Plaintiff also sought the removal of Nicaraguan born Roger Colera, the Presidential candidate for the Socialist Workers Party). The Berg suit will almost certainly fail on the grounds of "standing", but Donofrio v. Wells, having come directly from NJ state courts, will require the SCOTUS to apply New Jersey law, and New Jersey has a liberal history of according standing to citizens seeking judicial review of State activity.

While raising it as an ancillary issue, Plaintiff in this case didn't rely upon questioning Obama`˜s birth certificate as the core Constitutional dilemma.  Rather, he alleges that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was born to a Kenyan national father and is therefore not eligible to be President due to having dual loyalties at birth and split jurisdiction at the time of his birth.

The cause of action first accrued on September 22, 2008, when Secretary Wells certified to county clerks, for ballot preparation, a written "statement", prepared under her seal of office, that was required by statute to contain names of only those candidates who were "by law entitled" to be listed on ballots in New Jersey.  The statement is demanded by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22.

The law suit raises a novel contention that the statutory code undergoes legal fusion with the Secretary's oath of office to uphold the US Constitution thereby creating a minimum standard of review based upon the "natural born citizen" requirement of Article 2, Section 1, and that the Supremacy clause of the Constitution would demand those requirements be resolved prior to the election.

The key fact, not challenged below, surrounds two conversations between the plaintiff-appellant and a key Secretary of State Election Division official wherein the official admitted, twice, that the defendant-Secretary just assumed the candidates were eligible taking no further action to actually verify that they were, in fact, eligible to the office of President.  These conversations took place on October 22nd and 23rd. 

Plaintiff-Appellant then initiated the litigation process on Monday, October 27th.

Now, post-election, plaintiff is seeking review by the United States Supreme Court to finally determine the "natural born citizen" issue.  Plaintiff alleged the Secretary has a legal duty to make certain the candidates pass the "natural born citizen" test.  The pre-election suit requested that New Jersey ballots be stayed as they were defective requiring replacements to feature only the names of candidates who were truly eligible to the office of President. 

The action was brought as a "Complaint In Lieu of Prerogative Writs" (aka writ of mandamus) directly to the Appellate Division in NJ.  An arduous four day litigation ended with Judge Sabatino denying plaintiff emergency relief.  The Appellate Division case generated the following documents:

NJ Appellate Division Fact Sheet Upon Application For Emergent Relief


Judge Sabatino's initial response

Supplemental Fact Sheet Upon Application For Emergent Relief

Fax letter to all parties regarding schedule for submitting briefs

Complaint In Lieu of Prerogative Writs

Letter to Judge Sabatino re: Motion for Summary Judgment


Notice of Motion For Summary Judgment, Counts 1and 2


NJ Attorney General's reply brief for Secretary of State Wells


Judge Sabatino's Opinion and Order, 5 pages





Plaintiff then submitted the case on an emergency basis to the New Jersey Supreme Court where a staff attorney reviewed it, requested 10 copies each of the Motion and 75 page appendix, and informed Plaintiff that a Supreme Court Justice would review it immediately with three possible scenarios unfolding:

- the Supreme Court Justice could grant the application on their own

- the Supreme Court Justice could deny the application on their own

- the Supreme Court Justice could call in the other Justices to review the case


Later that afternoon, Plaintiff was informed by telephone that his papers were in order and that other Justices of the Supreme Court had been brought in to discuss the case.

Regardless, later that afternoon, the application for emergency relief was denied. 

However, in an incredible turn of events, the NJ Supreme Court specifically ignored the lower court's five page opinion `“ such opinion having avoided the Constitutional question presented `“ and relied upon "Movant's Papers" which did discuss and employ Constitutional issues.

Here is the decision of the Honorable Justice Virginia A. Long:



"This matter having come before the court on an application for emergent relief pursuant to Rule 2:9-8, and the undersigned having reviewed the movant's papers and the papers filed by the defendant in the Superior Court, Appellate Division, it is hereby Ordered that the application for emergent relief is denied."


This then opened a door to US Supreme Court review.  Since "Movant's papers" are based on a Constitutional issue, it is proper for the US Supreme Court to review the case.

Plaintiff-appellant prepared the US Supreme Court emergency stay application over the weekend and then rushed off to Washington DC on November 3rd where he filed an Application For Emergency Stay of New Jersey ballots, and/or a stay of the "national election".  Plaintiff's terminology is of vital importance here.  Plaintiff's use of the term "national election" includes all aspects thereof, including the popular vote, full election results, and the electoral college process. 

Justice Suoter, facing a tough decision in the wake of Obama's landslide victory, took four days to examine the extensive lower court paper trail and legal precedents pertaining thereto, but he eventually denied the application on Nov. 6th, 2008.  However, the case is still live, but not for the reason erroneously listed on the SCOTUS Docket. 

It appears Justice Suoter was misinformed by the US Supreme Court Stay Clerk, Mr. Danny Bickle. A full Petition for Writ of Certiorari is listed as "pending" on the Supreme Court docket, and such Petition having not been dismissed by Justice Suoter indicates the serious merits of the case, but plaintiff-appellant did not make any such full Petition, and so its existence is a procedural fiction.  But the case is still live and pending as an Emergency Stay Application. 

Due to the emergent nature of Stay proceedings, plaintiff is entitled - by law - under US Supreme Court Rule 22 to resubmit the Application for an Emergency Stay to another Justice of his choice along with a supplemental letter to accompany the original Stay application.  Justice Suoter had right of first review because he is charged with review of 3rd Circuit actions, and New Jersey is in the 3rd Circuit.

But now that Justice Suoter has denied the emergency stay with prejudice, Plaintiff may resubmit the Application For An Emergency Stay of the national election results and Electoral College meeting to the Honorable US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.  Furthermore, all nine Justices will be served on this round, according to Rule 22 which requires Appellant to submit 10 copies of the original Stay application for the entire Supreme Court.

A supplemental letter detailing the unorthodox procedural history involved with this case is being prepared for Justice Thomas to review along with the prior Stay application.  This letter will be available at this site before it is actually submitted to the SCOTUS.

Instead of making a full Petition for Certiorari, plaintiff-appellant, as to his Emergency Stay Application, relied on the procedural history in Bush v. Gore, wherein Bush also chose to fore go a full Petition for Cert., and instead relied exclusively on an emergency Stay application handed to one Justice who then empaneled the entire court.  The Supreme Court then granted the Stay, treated the Stay application as a full Petition for Certiorari and granted that Petition despite the fact that Bush only submitted the one Application for Emergency Stay.  That was done because the urgency of the situation begged resolve of the national Presidential election.  The same conditions apply here as the clock is ticking down to December 15th, the day for the Electoral College to meet. 

The bi-partisan case progressed quietly through the lower courts with no publicity as the plaintiff-appellant sought to respect court authority seeking only to have the "natural born issue" determined once and for all.  He didn't create a web site or request donations.  The suit is self financed. 

However, due to some very unorthodox treatment of the case in the NJ Appellate Division, and also by the US Supreme Court Clerk's office, a press conference is now being prepared to coincide with the resubmission of the Stay application to Justice Clarence Thomas. 


More to follow.  Developing.

 
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

11
INRI,

I do not think you support Obama. Just threw that in for fun. Devvy does not call out the Zionists but her facts on Obama the Marxist are true. I like that she is keeping an eye on all the the two major lawsuits involving Obama's Birth Certificate. Berg and Martins.

12
She does criticize both Obama and Mccain. I guess you support Obama?

13
None the less, the birth certificate issue is important. The issues regarding Obama are true.

14
Because I have not been here for a long time. I do not support Newsmax. Devvy using them does not make her a traitor.

I was RebelX on LF, I remember you.........

In addition, her articles are featured on Rense. I'm sure you will find fault with him too. For myself, it is my favorite news site. After Mike Rivero supported Obama, I dumped WRH off my favorites.

15
I'm not going to fault her for that. She is using a source, for one point.


It's not like she used ABC CBS or NBC.


The article is keeping those interested, updated on the birth certificate issue.

16
Ryan from anti neocons made a video regarding what is up with Mike Rivero. I myself have noticed reading WRH over the last few years, that Mike has a preference for socialism. He is always applauding entitlement programs. Then when he started up with his Obama support, I knew for sure.

Oh there is more....

Mike Rivero of WhatReallyHappened.Com Is Decended from Marrano Jews of Spain

http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2007/10/mike-rivero-of-whatreallyhappenedcom-is.html

17
The World Below / COMRADE BARAK OBAMA IS NOT AMERICA'S NEXT PRESIDENT
« on: November 06, 2008, 08:25:03 PM »
Lots of links within the article, go to the url

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd411.htm



COMRADE BARAK OBAMA IS NOT AMERICA'S NEXT PRESIDENT


By: Devvy
November 6, 2008

© 2008 - NewsWithViews.com

 

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain, Notebook, 1904

I'm not going to comment on the carefully orchestrated show put on yesterday by the media; that will be my next column. What a scam. As I have covered in previous columns, between dirty voting rolls, voter registration fraud, illegals voting and corrupted electronic voting machines and scanners, we have NO idea who was legally elected yesterday. I updated the compilation of vote fraud links; see here. There are more at the bottom.

There is still the unresolved issue of Obama providing a COLB - Certification of Live Birth - to prove he is a natural born citizen. Not a "birth certificate," but the COLB. The fact that this thug from Chicago refuses to provide this document since June, 2008, says it all. The second issue is if Obama were born in the U.S., but was automatically made an Indonesian citizen by virtue of his mother's marriage to her Indonesian husband and Obama's legal name change, he is ineligible to run for the presidency. Naturalized citizens are not eligible for the highest office in the land.

Contrary to the propaganda spewed last night by the pimps who work for corporate media, Obama is not the next president. We need to remember how the system actually works:

The Electoral College:
November 5, 2004
Thomas H. Neale
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CRS Report for Congress

"When Americans vote for a President and Vice President, they actually vote for presidential electors, known collectively as the electoral college. It is these electors, chosen by the people, who elect the chief executive....

"It is these elector-candidates, rather than the presidential and vice presidential nominees, for whom the people vote in the election held on Tuesday after the first Monday in November....

"Electors assemble in their respective states on Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 13, 2004). They are pledged and expected, but not required, to vote for the candidates they represent. Separate ballots are cast for President and Vice President, after which the electoral college ceases to exist for another four years. The electoral vote results are counted and declared at a joint session of Congress, held on January 6 of the year succeeding the election. A majority of electoral votes (currently 270 of 538) is required to win."

Until those electors meet on December 15, 2008, cast their vote and those votes are counted on January 6, 2009, Obama is not the next president.

Phil Berg's lawsuit is still active with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Andy Martin's lawsuit: The next hearing date is November 18, 2008.

I fully realize that Americans who haven't joined the Obama cult are stunned at what happened on Tuesday, but we must remember it was all in the game plan. I have used this metaphor before to describe the illusion of fair and impartial elections: It's like a student taking driving lessons. The first time out, the student gets the fake steering wheel while the instructor is actually controlling the vehicle. But, the fake steering wheel makes the student "feel" he has control and that perception is all important when evil forces take over a country. That's what we saw yesterday. The fact that Mcain conceded around 8:30 pm CST before half the states west of the Mississippi had even counted 20% of their votes, only confirms what millions of us already knew - he was the designated loser.




America took the single largest step towards becoming a communist nation in my life time with this alleged election of a Marxist-Leninist. In April, I began describing Obama as a Marxist. My mail box filled up with angry email insisting that Obama is a "progressive," liberal Democrat. This is the ignorance of a dumbed down population who have no idea what Marxism means: The political and economic ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels as developed into a system of thought that gives class struggle a primary role in leading society from bourgeois democracy under capitalism to a socialist society and thence to communism. Redistribution of wealth is the major tenet of communism. It is also Obama's plan. Right up to the day before the election, a few braves souls in the media were finally referring to his real political ideology. Of course, Obama's cult followers immediately attempted to ridicule or slap them down.

It's easy to get depressed over last Tuesday. Don't. That's what the shadow government wants. We are warriors, not cry babies. I know the rage is blowing out there like a hot furnace, but the fight is not over. We're entering the next phase: the electors. We're also entering the most dangerous time in this nation's history since Lexington and Concord. Now isn't the time to throw in the towel. Now is the time to fight.

In my last column, I provided a link on auditing the vote and how to do it. The Democrats made vote fraud a national issue in 2000 and 2004. The Republican Party has never made vote fraud a national issue. Oh, sure, FAUX News Network and Lou Dobbs (CNN) pounded on it the past six weeks, but it's the Democrats who mobilized, ignored the vote fraud by their party and blamed it on all the Republicans. Yes, the last three presidential elections were rigged, but it was done by the forces who control the political system in this country and have for 40 years.

The pointing the finger exercise is a distraction. Just like the bull, the cape and the matador. Technology has simply made it easier than stuffing ballot boxes and having everyone in Chicago vote twice, including residents of their local cemeteries. Of course, now that a Democrat has allegedly "won" the White House by vote fraud, helped along by legions of ignorant, uninformed voters, some racists and those who voted for skin color only, they could care less about fairness in 2008.

Right now they're basking in their arrogance, but the wrath of the American people is just warming up. If Republican and 'third party' candidates who allegedly lost on Tuesday do not pursue catching the vote fraud in their election instead of just shrugging their shoulders and walking away, the destroyers win. Here is the link. I updated it slightly. Time is of the essence due to drop dead dates for certification. If you supported a candidate by a vote and/or working for their campaign, help them prove the fraud.

This is critical for all 434 seats in the House of Representatives (excluding Ron Paul). Here is the logic-free zone:

In 1994, voters were fed up with the communists, socialists and big spenders in Congress and "swept them out of power." In came the Republicans touting the farce called a 'Contract with America,' who bloated the budget and continued down the same path under a different label. They held power until November 2006. Voters wanted change! Voters wanted change so badly, they voted back in all the long time Democrats with a few "new" faces. In past two years a Democrat controlled Congress representing 'change' has done what? NOTHING except loot this country and continue funding the immoral, unconstitutional invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.




Americans were outraged over the rape and pillage called 'the bail out." A colossal failure that continues to drain the life blood of Americans. Yet, with the exception of 17 seats in the House and 5 in the unlawfully seated seated U.S. Senate, voters allegedly voted them all back into office on Tuesday! With the lowest approval rating in the history of the U.S. Congress, allegedly the American people once again rewarded these crooks by rehiring them and bringing in even more Democrats to join the grand larceny stealing the fruits of our labor! Quite a difference between from what polls indicated:

3 in 5 voters: Boot every congressman. 59 percent say they'd kick out all members of House, Senate. October 5, 2008: "If given the choice, a new poll reveals, 59 percent of Americans would sweep Capitol Hill clean of the current batch of senators and representatives to elect an entirely new Congress. Only 17 percent of voters polled said they would be willing to keep the current legislature."

Yesterday I filed four Freedom of Information Act requests and sent them over night mail. One: Illinois Secretary of State to obtain all documentation, applications, forms, electronic and hard copy, including proof of citizenship for Barack Hussein Obama for his 1996 Illinois State Senate race. I filed two with the U.S. State Department (1) Stanley Ann Dunham, married name Stanley Ann Obama to obtain her passport application and all travel records; departure and entry into the U.S. during the year 1961; and (2) Barack Obama, Sr., to obtain his travel records, entry and departure records for the year 1961. Four: I filed a State Records Act request with the University of Hawaii to obtain Stanley Ann Dunham, then married, Stanley Ann Obama's enrollment applications and list of classes, and any and all documentation regarding her departure from the University for good.

I also sent another letter over night mail to James Burrus, Chief Investigator of Election Fraud, Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington, DC. This is a follow up to my letter of October 30, 2008. I enclosed a copy of the transcripts of the interviews in Kenya (see bottom links in this column), an article from NewsMax.com regarding hundreds of millions of dollars illegally donated:

"In addition to the donations the campaign has disclosed, however, it has taken an unprecedented $218 million from donors whose names it is keeping secret, according to FEC spokesman Robert Biersack. That money came from individuals who in theory never passed the threshold of $200, the limit the FEC set for public disclosure of a donor`s name and place of residence, so there is no way of knowing how much foreign money could be included in that amount.

"For example, hidden away amidst the unprecedented $150 million Obama claims to have raised from individual donors in September was more than $42 million raised from secret donors. These donations appear in the records as a single entry under the heading, `Donors, Unitemized.`

"Newsmax retained the services of former CIA operations officer Frederick W. Rustmann Jr. and a team of international forensic accounting experts to comb through Obama`s donor list to identify those who apparently aren`t U.S. citizens or residents. Rustmann, a 24 year veteran field officer, operates CTC International Group Ltd., a West Palm Beach, Fla., firm that provides business intelligence services and analysis."

I reminded Burrus of the birth certificate issue and that he must investigate this while investigating possible violation of the wire fraud statute: 18 U.S.C. §1343. I reminded him of his oath of office and that this is not about politics or party loyalty, it's about the law. We cannot have an illegitimate president in the White House.

Please don't send me email about the FOIAs. I am aware documents can be forged or altered, but the truth will come out. Those who choose to participate in such unlawful activities will eventually get caught. I'm also aware of the uphill battle. However, my last FOIA against the FAA regarding 9/11 went to a lawsuit and I won. It is better to spend your time helping candidates prove vote fraud and with the plans regarding electoral college delegates.



Phil Berg is putting together the strategy for the electoral college delegates for all the states Obama allegedly won. This involves action before and on December 15, 2008, the date all electors meet at their state capitols to cast their votes for president and vice president. Remember: They are not bound to cast their vote for the candidate presented as a result of 'election day.' Electors who stand up for what is right are called "faithless." Does it ever happen? In 1976, a Republican elector in Washington voted for Ronald Reagan instead of Gerald Ford. This year we intend for it to be a landslide. What's right and for the good of our republic must trump worrying about staying in the good graces of some political party. Obama is gambling he can stall the birth certificate issue until coronation day and steal the White House under the idiom, possession is nine tenths of the law. We intend to stop him legally.



As soon as Phil has drafted his plan, I will get it into a column right away. I believe there are some other groups working on this issue and I hope they will join with Phil and let him be the central point of contact for this effort. That way we're all on the same sheet of music and it's done correctly. We will not get a second chance.


http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd411.htm

18
For me, Obama's color is not an issue. It was one for the people who elected him.+

I could care less about the man's skin color. If he stood for the Constitution, I would back him. Hope we find Obama's birth certificate...

It's not over..

He is not president yet..........

19
The World Below / Re: CONGRATULATIONS AMERICA!!
« on: November 05, 2008, 11:23:41 AM »
Darling,

you gotta be fucking kidding me :o

He is a Communist.

More importantly, he is probably not a citizen. He should not have been in any elected office.

Quote:
Before I get into the massive vote fraud and what ALL of us must do the day after this gigantic hoax tomorrow, I would like to give an update on the lawsuits regarding Obama's citizenship status. First, Berg v Obama, et al. Phil's web site has had more than 86 MILLION hits since he filed. The day after Phil Berg filed an 'Application to Justice Souter for an Immediate Injunction to Stay the Presidential Election of November 4, 2008' and Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, a news wire story flashed around the world, Oct. 31, 2008:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd409.htm


Justice Souter denies injunction for stay of predidential election
by Obama Crimes on Tue 04 Nov 2008 12:54 PM EST
Justice Souter's Clerk has informed Mr. Berg that Mr. Berg's application for an injunction to stay the November 4th election has been denied. (The U. S. Supreme Court Docket is below.)

The defendants are required to respond to the Writ of Certiorari by December first, after which Mr. Berg will have an opportunity to respond.

No. 08-570
 
Title: Philip J. Berg, Petitioner
v.
Barack Obama, et al.
 
Docketed: October 31, 2008
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
  Case Nos.: (08-4340)
Rule 11

~~~Date~~~  ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008) 
Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter. 
   more »

http://comments.obamacrimes.com/

20
Presidential selection caucuses - how secure are they?
 
1-4-08: Eh? Iowa Republicans STILL missing 65 precincts in results
It isn't even a skillful magic show.

The Republican caucuses usually take only half as long as the Democratic caucuses, due to simpler procedures. Yet the Republicans are lagging behind the Democrats now by over TEN HOURS in having all their results in. Results delays are a red flag.

Alert CSPAN watchers caught TV screen shots of Giuliani vote totals going down by a couple thousand votes midstream in, I believe it was, Linn County. That needs a confirm; screen shot images were posted on various blogs, but if anyone recorded the coverage and can corroborate those screen shots, please let us know.

As many of us know, vote totals that go DOWN during the middle of the count can be an error, but also can signal an election theft tactic whereby votes from a candidate finishing very low in the pack are skimmed off and given to a favored candidate higher in the pack. If corroborated, the vote total shift will be another red flag.

And with the Republican race, I wouldn't look first at fraud in the number one position. I'd look for it in the area of repositioning candidates in the second through sixth spot.

- The delay in results is a red flag.
- The vote totals going down during the count is a red flag.
- The failure to release county results in live time, as promised in a Republican Party press release on Jan. 2, is a red flag.
- The failure to release precinct totals at all is a corrupt procedure. Note that the day before the caucuses, after much pressure, the Republicans did (belatedly) promise to release the precinct results on election night. They didn't.

In addition: I'm trying to get information on whether the public was kicked out of the room during hand counting in all locations, or just some.

I will be publishing some reports by caucus attendees in the "Front Lines" section later today.

There is absolutely no reason to consider any of the Republican caucus results to be credible.

I'm not saying they are wrong, I am saying the breakdown in checks and balances was stunning enough to call it not a magic show, but a bad magic show.


http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26