Breitbart died hours before planned release of damning Obama footage
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, March 2, 2012
In a stunning coincidence, It appears Andrew Breitbart suffered his untimely death just hours before he was set to release damning video footage that could have sunk Barack Obama?s 2012 re-election campaign.
Around three weeks ago on February 9 during the ?Blog Bash? event in Washington DC, Breitbart made a prophetic comment that takes on a somewhat chilling nature given the fact that he died in the early hours of March 1st.
Speaking to Lawrence Sinclair of
++++++++++++++
Sinclair News, Breitbart stated, ?Wait til they see what happens March 1st.?
It?s almost certain that Breitbart was referring to his plan to release damning footage of President Obama that he had been promising to reveal throughout the month of February.
As we reported yesterday, Breitbart spoke of his intention to release the tape during his CPAC speech last month. The footage shows Obama in his college days appearing alongside former Weather Underground terrorists Bill and Bernardine Dohrn. Observers had speculated that the footage could have derailed Obama?s hopes for a second term.
?I?ve got video from his college days that show you why racial division and class warfare are central to what hope and change was sold in 2008 ? the videos are going to come out,? said Breitbart, adding that Obama would be vetted.
You don?t have to be a conspiracy theorist to appreciate the downright weirdness of Breitbart predicting a major event to occur on March 1st, only for him to end up dying on that very date. Breitbart was officially pronounced dead at 12:19am.
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
Although the cause of Breitbart?s death was hastily reported to be of ?natural causes,? the Los Angeles County coroner?s office have refused to confirm anything until an autopsy has been performed.
According to marketing executive Arthur Sando, Breitbart spent his final hour in a bar near his home called the Brentwood sipping red wine and talking politics. After leaving the bar at around 11:30pm, Breitbart began to walk home before apparently suffering a fatal heart attack.
Although it is reported that Breitbart was rushed to Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, when Lawrence Sinclair called the hospital, they denied that anyone by that name had been admitted within the previous 72 hours.
Watch the CPAC video below where Breitbart mentions the Obama footage he had seemingly planned to release just hours before his death.
======================================
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Los Angeles County coroner?s office will review the death of conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart, who collapsed and died Thursday while taking a nighttime walk near his Westwood home.
Given his young age ? he was 43 ? and the unexpected manner in which he died, authorities will conduct an autopsy to help determine a specific cause of death.
Breitbart?s father-in-law, actor Orson Bean, said in an interview?with The Times that Breitbart was found collapsed near his home about 12:30 a.m. Paramedics took him to Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, but doctors were unable to revive him.
PHOTOS: Notable deaths of 2012
?We?re devastated. I loved him like a son,? Bean said. ?It looks like a heart attack, but no one knows until? an autopsy is done.
Breitbart, a star of the tea party movement, was a Hollywood-hating, mainstream-media-loathing conservative, according to a Times profile.
After 10 years as editor of the Drudge Report and helping to launch the Huffington Post, Breitbart launched in 2005 his news aggregation site Breitbart.com, which was designed to counter what he described as the ?bully media cabal? that he said ignored stories at odds with prevailing liberal orthodoxy.
His goal, he often said, was to ?destroy the institutional left.?
His big splash came in 2009, when he posted an undercover video in which a pair of conservative activists posing as a prostitute and her boyfriend asked employees of the community group ACORN for help with a brothel that would house underage Salvadorans.
ACORN was embarrassed when some of its workers seemed too helpful; Congress responded by defunding the organization.
In 2010, Breitbart posted a 2 1/2-minute video of Shirley Sherrod, a black employee of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in which she appeared to make racially charged comments.
It left viewers with the inaccurate impression?Sherrod had deliberately not helped a white man save his family farm in 1986 when she worked for a Georgia nonprofit organization.
The furor from the video caused Sherrod to be fired; when it was later revealed her comments had been taken out of context, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack called?Sherrod?to apologize and?ask whether she would return to the department.
Breitbart?s conservative news websites broke the story about the sexually charged tweets by Rep. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat from New York, in a scandal that led to his resignation.
The Times? Robin Abcarian visited his office in West Los Angeles in 2010: ?The command center of Andrew Breitbart?s growing media empire is a suite of offices on Sawtelle Boulevard in West Los Angeles with the temporary feel of a campaign office. Only the computers seem firmly anchored.?
Breitbart lived in Westwood with his wife, Susie, and their four young children, Samson, 12; Mia, 10; Charlie, 6; and William, 4.. He was adopted by moderately conservative Jewish parents and attended two of L.A.?s most exclusive private schools? ?Carlthorp and Brentwood.
His father, Gerald, owned Fox and Hounds, a landmark Tudor-style Santa Monica restaurant that later became the punk rock club Madame Wong?s West. His mother, Arlene, was an executive at Bank of America in Beverly Hills and downtown L.A.
Breitbart is also survived by his sister, Tracy.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
===================================
Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images
Andrew Breitbart spent his final hours much like he lived most of his life: passionately talking politics
Breibart, the 43-year-old conservative pundit and provocateur who died suddenly early Thursday while walking near his Los Angeles home, had stopped into The Brentwood, a nearby bar and restaurant. There, he struck up a conversation with Arthur Sando, a marketing executive who didn?t know Breitbart but likely was the last person to talk extensively with him before he died.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
============================================
Obama boycotting Georgia eligibility hearing
Lawyer urges secretary of state to cancel inquiry
?
?
?
Published: 21 hours ago
author-image by Bob UnruhEmail | Archive
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes plays in a church worship band.More ?
UnhappyObama
Barack Obama has announced through his attorney that he will boycott the administrative hearings scheduled tomorrow in Georgia to review evidence of whether he legitimately is a candidate for the presidency, prompting an attorney for one set of the plaintiffs to describe the nation?s commander-in-chief as acting like a ?5-year-old brat.?
A letter apparently from his lawyer, Michael Jablonski, was posted today on the website for California attorney Orly Taitz, whose determined pursuit of Obama?s eligibility documentation has taken her to courts across the nation, including the U.S. Supreme Court.
Jablonski told Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp in the letter that ?serious problems? had developed in the hearings ?pending before the Office of State Administration Hearings.?
He said, ?At issue in these hearings are challenges that allege that President Obama is not eligible to hold or run for re-election to his office, on the now wholly discredited theory that he does not meet the citizenship requirements.?
Discover what the Constitution?s reference to ?natural born citizen? means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of ?Where?s the REAL Birth Certificate??
Jablonski said the judge ? who previously rejected Obama?s demand to quash a subpoena for him to appear and bring with him his birth records documenting his status as a ?natural-born citizen? ? has ?exercised no control? over the proceeding.
?It threatens to degenerate into a pure forum for political posturing to the detriment of the reputation of the state and your office. Rather than bring this matter to a rapid conclusion, the ALJ has insisted on agreeing to a day of hearings, and on the full participation of the president in his capacity as a candidate,? Jablonski wrote.
In a response that was posted online after hours, Kemp said the case referral was ?in keeping with Georgia law.?
?As you are aware, OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.17 cited in your letter only applies to parties to a hearing. As the referring agency, the Secretary of State?s Office is not a party to the candidate challenge hearings scheduled for tomorrow. To the extent a request to withdraw the case referral is procedurally available, I do not believe such a request would be judicious given the hearing is set for tomorrow morning.?
He continued, ?I expect the administrative law judge to report his findings to me after his full consideration of the evidence and law. Upon receipt of the report, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge.?
He also had a warning about the costs of simply not showing up for a court hearing.
?Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.?
?We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26,? Jablonski wrote in the letter on the Taitz site, which indicated it had been sent to the participants in the case.
A blast of sarcasm aimed at Obama also was posted on the Taitz site.
?What Obama is asking now is totally insane,? it said. ?He is asking the secretary of state of GA to take the trial away from the judge on the eve of the trial. He is mostly crying on the shoulder of the secretary of state of GA and saying that Orly is bad, because she issued all of those subpoenas. So after the judge told Obama that the subpoena that I issued was perfectly valid and he had to appear in court tomorrow and bring with him all of the documents that I demanded, Obama decided to go behind the back of the judge and send the same complaint about me to the secretary of state and he is asking the secretary of state to take the trial away from the judge.
?Does this look like a behavior of an innocent person? An innocent person would have come to court and showed all the valid documents with the embossed seals, which are verifiable,? the statement said. ?Instead he is acting like a 5-year-old brat, saying, ?I am afraid of Orly, I want the secretary of state of GA to act like my mommy and protect me from Orly.? Some leader of the free world.?
?
The hearings are being brought by citizens of Georgia under a state law that allows voters to challenge the eligibility of candidates on the state?s ballot. It is the states that run elections in America, and national elections are just a compilation of the results of the 50 state elections.
The schedule for the hearings was set by Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires ?every candidate for federal? office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy ?shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.?
State law also grants the secretary of state and any ?elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate? in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate?s qualifications, the judge determined.
Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.
Jablonski told Kemp he should simply ?withdraw? the original hearing request as ?improvidently issued.?
?It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here ? a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country. The state of Hawaii produced official records documenting birth there; the president made documents available to the general public by placing them on his website,? he wrote.
Jablonski accused Malihi of allowing the attorneys to ?run amok.?
?Perhaps he is aware that there is no credible response; perhaps he appreciates that the very demand made of his office ? that it address constitutional issues ? is by law not within its authority.?
Obama, meanwhile, has a campaign trip to several Midwest and Western states lined up over the next few days.
WND reported earlier on the stunning decision from Malihi, who refused to quash the subpoena even after Obama outlined his defense strategy for such state-level challenges, which have erupted in half a dozen or more states already.
?Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,? Obama?s lawyer argued. ?The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant.?
The judge thought otherwise.
?Defendant argues that ?if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as president of the United States? to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend,? he wrote in his order.
?
?Defendant?s motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority,? the judge continued.
?Specifically, defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ?unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony ? [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party?s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced,?? the judge said.
Separately, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona told WND he also had received a subpoena to be at the hearings in Georgia. He said the purpose apparently is to ask him about his Cold Case Posse investigation of Obama?s eligibility, but he said since the investigation remains open, he wouldn?t be able to say much about it.
Hatfield also had filed with the court a ?Notice to Produce? asking for Obama?s documents and records.
He wants one of the two original certified copies of Obama?s long-form birth certificate.
Obama?s attorney, Jablonski, also had argued that the state should mind its own business.
?The sovereignty of the state of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. ? Since the sovereignty of the state does not extend beyond its territorial limits, an administrative subpoena has no effect,? the filing argued.
Taitz?s supporters joined a discussion on her website, where she also solicits support for the expenses of her court cases, judging that Obama is on the defensive.
?What a joke. He claims to be too busy performing the duties of the president of the United States. How many days of vacation has he taken? How many rounds of golf? If he is too busy to provide the documents that provide the basis for meeting the requirements of the office, then perhaps he better sit out the next four years,? said one.
Wrote another, ?The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant. ? This is complete utter nonsense!?
In fact, a presidential elector in California brought a lawsuit challenging Obama?s eligibility at the time of the 2008 election and was told the dispute was not yet ripe because the inauguration hadn?t taken place. The courts later ruled that the elector lost his ?standing? to bring the lawsuit after the inauguration.
Barack Obama
Irion said his argument is that the Founders clearly considered a ?natural-born citizen,? as the Constitution requires of a president and no one else, to be the offspring of two citizen parents. Since Obama himself has written in his books that his father, Barack Obama Sr. was a Kenyan, and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, Irion argues that Obama is disqualified under any circumstances based on his own testimony.
Those who argue against his birth in the United States note that numerous experts have given testimony and sworn statements that they believe Obama?s Hawaiian birth documentation to be fraudulent.
It is that concern that also has prompted Arpaio to turn over an investigation of that issue to his Cold Case Posse. Its investigative report is expected to be released in the next few weeks.
The image released by the White House in April:
Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House
Top constitutional expert Herb Titus contends that a ?natural-born citizen? is born of parents who are citizens. That argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor v. Happersett in 1875. The case includes one of very few references in the nation?s archives that addresses the definition of ?natural-born citizen.?
That case states: ?The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.?
An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.
??Natural born citizen? in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,? he said. ?Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.?
If you ?go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require ? that?s precisely what a natural born citizen is ?. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,? he said.
?Now what we?ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama?s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn?t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.?
????????????? ?? ?? 
DO NOT CENSOR THIS POSTING!!! THANKS!! THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS POST THAT WOULD JUSTIFY CENSORING IT!!
The issue is quite simple. To be President of the USA or to run for the Presidency of the USA, Obama must be a ?natural born citizen? according to the Constitution of the USA. The term ?natural born citizen? has been defined previously and it requires two conditions:
1) Obama must be born in the USA.
Obama?s long form birth certificate that Obama has provided through the White House web site HAS BEEN DECLARED BY MANY EXPERTS TO BE SIMPLY A FORGERY!!!
?See evidence that Obama forged the birth certificate that was posted on the White House servers on 27 April 2011 (!!) at http://www.scribd.com/collections/3166684
?See evidence that Obama is using a SSN 042-68-4425 that was not legally issued to him (!!) at http://www.scribd.com/collections/3260742
?Just type the keywords Obama long form birth certificate forgery in http://www.google.com and you will find many articles that thoroughly explain why Obama?s long form birth certificate is simply a forgery!!!
?Therefore, the only way to check this long form birth certificate is to go to Hawaii and to check directly the original long form birth certificate and in particular to assess if even this original is genuine that is if it is not also a forgery to cover up for the possible fact that Obama was never born in Hawaii!!
2) Obama?s parents MUST BOTH be American citizens.
We know that Obama?s father was a Kenyan and that he NEVER was an American citizen!!!!!
Therefore, THIS SECOND CONDITION ALONE DISQUALIFIES OBAMA TO RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA AND IT ALSO DISQUALIFIES OBAMA TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE USA, NO MATTER THE FACT THAT HE WON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION!!!!!!
More, Obama is a former lawyer. Therefore, he knew perfectly well that he was not entitled to run for the Presidency of the USA but he nevertheless did it DISHONESTLY, FRAUDULENTLY, deceiving purposefully the entire American people.
Furthermore, Obama was confronted with the definition of what a ?natural born citizen? is when he directly participated in the investigation of John McCain?s eligibility to run for the Presidency of the USA. Obama then signed Senate Resolution 511 from April 30, 2008 that reveals the indispensable requirement of having two US citizen parents in order to be a ?natural born citizen? according to the Constitution of the USA and therefore to be eligible to run for the Presidency of the USA or to be President of the USA!!!!!
Therefore, once again, Obama knew very well that he FRAUDULENTLY decided to run for the Presidency of the USA despite the fact that he knew perfectly well that he was NOT a natural born citizen and therefore that he was not entitled, according to the Constitution of the USA, to be President of the USA.
First Conclusion:
?Obama is NOT a natural born citizen and therefore he is not entitled to run for the Presidency of the USA nor is he entitled to be President of the USA, no matter the fact that he won the Presidential election!!!!
?Finally, Obama is a former lawyer and therefore OBAMA CONSCIOUSLY, INTENTIONALLY COMPLETELY DECEIVED THE ENTIRE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY RUNNING FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA WHEN HE KNEW PERFECTLY WELL THAT HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DO SO SIMPLY BECAUSE HE KNEW VERY WELL THAT HE WAS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, AS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA REQUIRES ONLY ON THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA!!!!
?THIS HUGE DECEPTION IS MORE THAN A FRAUDULENT ACT, IT IS WORSE THAN ANYTHING IMAGINABLE BECAUSE:
1) IT RELATES TO THE HIGHEST POSITION IN THE LAND, THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA, THAT OBAMA HAS FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED;
2) IT RELATES TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA BEING TRAMPLED UPON FRAUDULENTLY AND ILLEGALLY BY OBAMA;
3) IT RELATES TO THE FACT THAT OBAMA INTENTIONALLY DECEIVED AND MISLED THE ENTIRE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!
ANY PERSON GUILTY OF SUCH SERIOUS FRAUD SHOULD AT LEAST GET A JAIL SENTENCE, NO MATTER THAT OBAMA HAS FRAUDULENTY HELD THE POSITION OF PRESIDENT OF THE USA FOR A PERIOD OF TIME!!!
If you really want to have an expert legal explanation on what a ?natural born citizen? truly is according to the Constitution of the USA and why legally speaking it is this way, then I suggest that you read at least a few articles on Attorney Mario Apuzzo?s web site ?Natural Born Citizen ? A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers? at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
In particular, read:
??The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child?s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth? at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html
Second conclusion:
?If you are a rational person, no matter your political affiliation, you surely will be forced to conclude that the facts speak for themselves and that there is no doubt legally that a ?natural born citizen? indeed requires that the President of the USA has to have two parents that were BOTH American citizens at the time of Obama?s birth.
?The Constitution of the USA is sacred to any American citizen AND it applies to every single American citizen, no matter one?s political affiliation, no matter one?s color of the skin, no matter what!!!!
Therefore, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS UNDER THE RULE OF LAW LIKE ANYBODY ELSE (NOT ABOVE IT!!!) AND IN PARTICULAR OBAMA IS UNDER THE RULE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA LIKE ANYBODY ELSE!!!!
?You now have the facts fully on the table concerning what a ?natural born citizen? truly is, you cannot evade the truth about these facts!!!
Now, what path are you going to choose?
1) Keep Lying and hiding the facts, hoping that they will disappear by themselves!! Or
2) Choose to acknowledge these facts fully and be determined to fight for the truth?
The choice is yours! But the Constitution of the USA is at stake!!!
==============================================================
Obama eligibility challenges spread to 6 states
Decision in Georgia case expected soon, but ballot concerns going viral
Published: 1 day ago
author-image by Bob UnruhEmail | Archive
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes plays in a church worship band.More ?
rss feed Subscribe to author feed
inShare56
Printer Friendly
Share
Text smaller
Text bigger
obama-worried
An administrative law judge in Georgia could decide as early as this week whether voters in the state convinced him Barack Obama?s name should be removed from the 2012 presidential ballot because he is not qualified to hold the office.
But win, lose or draw, the fight isn?t going to be over, as other cases are erupting across the nation, with challenges being raised anew even in Obama?s own adopted political network in Illinois.
The Georgia hearing was before Judge Michael Malihi, and while none of the lawyers who appeared in the proceedings was willing to predict what the decision will be, several did confirm that Malihi had considered simply granting them a default victory, because Obama and his lawyers expressly stated they would not participate in a hearing to provide evidence that he is qualified to be on the ballot.
A default presumably would have meant a recommendation from the judge that Obama?s name be stricken from the ballot, a decision which would head for review immediately by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp.
He, however, was the one who warned Obama of the ?peril? of not participating in the hearing when Obama and his attorney had asked that the event be canceled.
Discover what the Constitution?s reference to ?natural born citizen? means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of ?Where?s the REAL Birth Certificate??
Whatever the outcome in Georgia, the issue is gaining traction in other states, too, including Alabama, Tennessee, Arizona, New Hampshire, and even Illinois, Obama?s home political base.
There, in a complaint recently filed by Stephen F. Boulton of McCarthy Duffy LLP and Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, their client is asking for a change in state law to allow the vetting of political candidates.
Obama isn?t even mentioned by name, but don?t think for a minute that the requested change wouldn?t include his candidacy.
The plaintiff is Sharon Meroni, who long has fought inside the system for a way to challenge the candidacies there. In her new case, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, she is petitioning for a judicial review of the state?s election procedures as they exist now.
Targeted are the state Board of Elections, members of the board, several county clerks and others, including candidates Dan Duffy and Amanda Howland.
Meroni, a registered voter in the 27th Legislative District in the state, said her concern is that ?only candidates qualified for office under the Illinois and United States Constitutions appear on the ballot.?
The state?s primary is in March.
The case alleges the candidates did not provide sufficient proof that they are U.S. citizens as required to hold the office being sought ?as is required by the Illinois Constitution of 1970.?
State officials refused to remove the names from the ballots, so Meroni has gone to court. Granting ballot access, she said in the complaint, ?is contrary to law, against the manifest weight of the evidence, arbitrary and capricious, and a denial of the rights of the petitioner.?
Kreep told WND the way the system is established in Illinois it essentially allows political parties to determine who runs for office, and unless voters find out about a filing and can assemble a formal objection within five days, their concerns are dismissed.
And the system has no procedure for verifying the eligibility of candidates, he said.
That particular issue has been in the headlines for the past four years, since before Obama?s 2008 election victory, because of the questions that remain over his eligibility. The U.S. Constitution demands a ?natural born citizen? be president and the Founders probably thought that to be the offspring of two citizen parents when they wrote the term.
But Obama?s father never was a citizen. There also are those who contend the junior Obama was not even born in the United States.
Kreep said the Illinois procedures make it virtually impossible for candidates to be challenged for their eligibility.
He said there likely will be raised in other states concerns similar to those in Illinois, where ?barriers now in existence ? bar voters from reasonable investigation of the citizenship of a candidate.?
That?s simply a deprivation of the constitutional right to due process, he said. The case seeks a declaration that the political maneuvers are unconstitutional.
There also have been assembled campaigns specifically to encourage voters to file eligibility complaints about candidates with states. One such effort is the Obama Ballot Challenge, which lists contacts for state elections offices across the country.
It is, of course, the states that actually run elections; a national election is just the compilation of the results from the 50 states.
?A candidate that is not legally qualified to be on the ballot, such as Barack Obama, steals votes from other candidates who are legally on the ballot,? the site advises.
WND previously reported that cases already have been begun in New Hampshire, where state officials rejected the claims; Alabama, Tennessee and Arizona.
The newest round of court actions do not try to have a judge determine Obama is not qualified for the Oval Office and remove him from it, they simply challenge his eligibility for the 2012 election.
Many of the cases cite Minor v. Happersett, a U.S. Supreme Court opinion from 1875 that said a ?natural born citizen? would be a person whose parents both were citizens.
?This complaint does not request any injunction against any state or federal government official. Instead this complaint asserts that the private entity, Defendant Democratic Party, intends to act negligently or fraudulently in a manner that will cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, to the states, and to the citizens of the United States,? said one of the filings.
It continued, ?Because Mr. Obama has admitted that his father was not a U.S. citizen, and because this fact has been confirmed by the U.S. State Department, any reasonable person with knowledge of these facts would doubt Mr. Obama?s constitutional qualifications. Therefore, any representation by the Democratic Party certifying said qualifications would be negligent, absent further evidence verifying Mr. Obama?s natural-born status.
?Plaintiffs further request an injunction prohibiting the Democratic Party from making any representation to any state official asserting, implying, or assuming that Mr. Obama is qualified to hold the office of president, absent a showing by the party sufficient to prove that said representation is not negligent.?
Van Irion, lead counsel for Liberty Legal Foundation, also is working on several of the issues, and has brought the question in court in Arizona.
?We picked the Arizona court for several reasons, but the main one being that it is part of the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit has indicated in dicta that an FEC-registered presidential candidate would have standing for this type of suit,? he said. The organization is working with John Dummett, a Liberty Legal Foundation member who is a candidate for the office of president in the 2012 election.
Irion said the other lawsuit was filed in state court in Tennessee.
?The focus of the state-court suit is to prevent certification to the Tennessee Secretary of State. This suit puts greater emphasis on the negligent misrepresentation/fraud aspects of a certification from the DNC. It includes more facts regarding Obama?s Indonesian dual citizenship and fraudulent Social Security Number,? he said.
He said if the cases succeed, the Democrats would not be able to list Obama as their candidate for 2012.
?Neither lawsuit discusses Obama?s place of birth or his birth certificate. These issues are completely irrelevant to the argument. LLF?s lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined ?natural-born citizen? as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen?s birth. Obama?s father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant,? Van Irion?s group said.
WND also has reported that Maricopa, Ariz., County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has launched a formal law enforcement investigation into concerns Obama may submit fraudulent documentation to be put on the state?s election ballot in 2012.
Other attorneys involved in the Georgia case are J. Mark Hatfield and Orly Taitz.
Hatfield has told WND that the goal is for a court determination on the definition of ?natural born citizen,? which then could be applied directly to Obama?s candidacy.
Obama boycotting Georgia eligibility hearing
Lawyer urges secretary of state to cancel inquiry
?
?
?
Published: 21 hours ago
author-image by Bob UnruhEmail | Archive
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes plays in a church worship band.More ?
UnhappyObama
Barack Obama has announced through his attorney that he will boycott the administrative hearings scheduled tomorrow in Georgia to review evidence of whether he legitimately is a candidate for the presidency, prompting an attorney for one set of the plaintiffs to describe the nation?s commander-in-chief as acting like a ?5-year-old brat.?
A letter apparently from his lawyer, Michael Jablonski, was posted today on the website for California attorney Orly Taitz, whose determined pursuit of Obama?s eligibility documentation has taken her to courts across the nation, including the U.S. Supreme Court.
Jablonski told Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp in the letter that ?serious problems? had developed in the hearings ?pending before the Office of State Administration Hearings.?
He said, ?At issue in these hearings are challenges that allege that President Obama is not eligible to hold or run for re-election to his office, on the now wholly discredited theory that he does not meet the citizenship requirements.?
Discover what the Constitution?s reference to ?natural born citizen? means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of ?Where?s the REAL Birth Certificate??
Jablonski said the judge ? who previously rejected Obama?s demand to quash a subpoena for him to appear and bring with him his birth records documenting his status as a ?natural-born citizen? ? has ?exercised no control? over the proceeding.
?It threatens to degenerate into a pure forum for political posturing to the detriment of the reputation of the state and your office. Rather than bring this matter to a rapid conclusion, the ALJ has insisted on agreeing to a day of hearings, and on the full participation of the president in his capacity as a candidate,? Jablonski wrote.
In a response that was posted online after hours, Kemp said the case referral was ?in keeping with Georgia law.?
?As you are aware, OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.17 cited in your letter only applies to parties to a hearing. As the referring agency, the Secretary of State?s Office is not a party to the candidate challenge hearings scheduled for tomorrow. To the extent a request to withdraw the case referral is procedurally available, I do not believe such a request would be judicious given the hearing is set for tomorrow morning.?
He continued, ?I expect the administrative law judge to report his findings to me after his full consideration of the evidence and law. Upon receipt of the report, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge.?
He also had a warning about the costs of simply not showing up for a court hearing.
?Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.?
?We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26,? Jablonski wrote in the letter on the Taitz site, which indicated it had been sent to the participants in the case.
A blast of sarcasm aimed at Obama also was posted on the Taitz site.
?What Obama is asking now is totally insane,? it said. ?He is asking the secretary of state of GA to take the trial away from the judge on the eve of the trial. He is mostly crying on the shoulder of the secretary of state of GA and saying that Orly is bad, because she issued all of those subpoenas. So after the judge told Obama that the subpoena that I issued was perfectly valid and he had to appear in court tomorrow and bring with him all of the documents that I demanded, Obama decided to go behind the back of the judge and send the same complaint about me to the secretary of state and he is asking the secretary of state to take the trial away from the judge.
?Does this look like a behavior of an innocent person? An innocent person would have come to court and showed all the valid documents with the embossed seals, which are verifiable,? the statement said. ?Instead he is acting like a 5-year-old brat, saying, ?I am afraid of Orly, I want the secretary of state of GA to act like my mommy and protect me from Orly.? Some leader of the free world.?
?
The hearings are being brought by citizens of Georgia under a state law that allows voters to challenge the eligibility of candidates on the state?s ballot. It is the states that run elections in America, and national elections are just a compilation of the results of the 50 state elections.
The schedule for the hearings was set by Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires ?every candidate for federal? office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy ?shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.?
State law also grants the secretary of state and any ?elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate? in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate?s qualifications, the judge determined.
Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.
Jablonski told Kemp he should simply ?withdraw? the original hearing request as ?improvidently issued.?
?It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here ? a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country. The state of Hawaii produced official records documenting birth there; the president made documents available to the general public by placing them on his website,? he wrote.
Jablonski accused Malihi of allowing the attorneys to ?run amok.?
?Perhaps he is aware that there is no credible response; perhaps he appreciates that the very demand made of his office ? that it address constitutional issues ? is by law not within its authority.?
Obama, meanwhile, has a campaign trip to several Midwest and Western states lined up over the next few days.
WND reported earlier on the stunning decision from Malihi, who refused to quash the subpoena even after Obama outlined his defense strategy for such state-level challenges, which have erupted in half a dozen or more states already.
?Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,? Obama?s lawyer argued. ?The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant.?
The judge thought otherwise.
?Defendant argues that ?if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as president of the United States? to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend,? he wrote in his order.
?
?Defendant?s motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority,? the judge continued.
?Specifically, defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ?unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony ? [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party?s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced,?? the judge said.
Separately, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona told WND he also had received a subpoena to be at the hearings in Georgia. He said the purpose apparently is to ask him about his Cold Case Posse investigation of Obama?s eligibility, but he said since the investigation remains open, he wouldn?t be able to say much about it.
Hatfield also had filed with the court a ?Notice to Produce? asking for Obama?s documents and records.
He wants one of the two original certified copies of Obama?s long-form birth certificate.
Obama?s attorney, Jablonski, also had argued that the state should mind its own business.
?The sovereignty of the state of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. ? Since the sovereignty of the state does not extend beyond its territorial limits, an administrative subpoena has no effect,? the filing argued.
Taitz?s supporters joined a discussion on her website, where she also solicits support for the expenses of her court cases, judging that Obama is on the defensive.
?What a joke. He claims to be too busy performing the duties of the president of the United States. How many days of vacation has he taken? How many rounds of golf? If he is too busy to provide the documents that provide the basis for meeting the requirements of the office, then perhaps he better sit out the next four years,? said one.
Wrote another, ?The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant. ? This is complete utter nonsense!?
In fact, a presidential elector in California brought a lawsuit challenging Obama?s eligibility at the time of the 2008 election and was told the dispute was not yet ripe because the inauguration hadn?t taken place. The courts later ruled that the elector lost his ?standing? to bring the lawsuit after the inauguration.
Barack Obama
Irion said his argument is that the Founders clearly considered a ?natural-born citizen,? as the Constitution requires of a president and no one else, to be the offspring of two citizen parents. Since Obama himself has written in his books that his father, Barack Obama Sr. was a Kenyan, and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, Irion argues that Obama is disqualified under any circumstances based on his own testimony.
Those who argue against his birth in the United States note that numerous experts have given testimony and sworn statements that they believe Obama?s Hawaiian birth documentation to be fraudulent.
It is that concern that also has prompted Arpaio to turn over an investigation of that issue to his Cold Case Posse. Its investigative report is expected to be released in the next few weeks.
The image released by the White House in April:
Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House
Top constitutional expert Herb Titus contends that a ?natural-born citizen? is born of parents who are citizens. That argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor v. Happersett in 1875. The case includes one of very few references in the nation?s archives that addresses the definition of ?natural-born citizen.?
That case states: ?The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.?
An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.
??Natural born citizen? in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,? he said. ?Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.?
If you ?go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require ? that?s precisely what a natural born citizen is ?. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,? he said.
?Now what we?ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama?s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn?t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.?
????????????? ?? ??
DO NOT CENSOR THIS POSTING!!! THANKS!! THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS POST THAT WOULD JUSTIFY CENSORING IT!!
The issue is quite simple. To be President of the USA or to run for the Presidency of the USA, Obama must be a ?natural born citizen? according to the Constitution of the USA. The term ?natural born citizen? has been defined previously and it requires two conditions:
1) Obama must be born in the USA.
Obama?s long form birth certificate that Obama has provided through the White House web site HAS BEEN DECLARED BY MANY EXPERTS TO BE SIMPLY A FORGERY!!!
?See evidence that Obama forged the birth certificate that was posted on the White House servers on 27 April 2011 (!!) at http://www.scribd.com/collections/3166684
?See evidence that Obama is using a SSN 042-68-4425 that was not legally issued to him (!!) at http://www.scribd.com/collections/3260742
?Just type the keywords Obama long form birth certificate forgery in http://www.google.com and you will find many articles that thoroughly explain why Obama?s long form birth certificate is simply a forgery!!!
?Therefore, the only way to check this long form birth certificate is to go to Hawaii and to check directly the original long form birth certificate and in particular to assess if even this original is genuine that is if it is not also a forgery to cover up for the possible fact that Obama was never born in Hawaii!!
2) Obama?s parents MUST BOTH be American citizens.
We know that Obama?s father was a Kenyan and that he NEVER was an American citizen!!!!!
Therefore, THIS SECOND CONDITION ALONE DISQUALIFIES OBAMA TO RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA AND IT ALSO DISQUALIFIES OBAMA TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE USA, NO MATTER THE FACT THAT HE WON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION!!!!!!
More, Obama is a former lawyer. Therefore, he knew perfectly well that he was not entitled to run for the Presidency of the USA but he nevertheless did it DISHONESTLY, FRAUDULENTLY, deceiving purposefully the entire American people.
Furthermore, Obama was confronted with the definition of what a ?natural born citizen? is when he directly participated in the investigation of John McCain?s eligibility to run for the Presidency of the USA. Obama then signed Senate Resolution 511 from April 30, 2008 that reveals the indispensable requirement of having two US citizen parents in order to be a ?natural born citizen? according to the Constitution of the USA and therefore to be eligible to run for the Presidency of the USA or to be President of the USA!!!!!
Therefore, once again, Obama knew very well that he FRAUDULENTLY decided to run for the Presidency of the USA despite the fact that he knew perfectly well that he was NOT a natural born citizen and therefore that he was not entitled, according to the Constitution of the USA, to be President of the USA.
First Conclusion:
?Obama is NOT a natural born citizen and therefore he is not entitled to run for the Presidency of the USA nor is he entitled to be President of the USA, no matter the fact that he won the Presidential election!!!!
?Finally, Obama is a former lawyer and therefore OBAMA CONSCIOUSLY, INTENTIONALLY COMPLETELY DECEIVED THE ENTIRE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY RUNNING FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA WHEN HE KNEW PERFECTLY WELL THAT HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DO SO SIMPLY BECAUSE HE KNEW VERY WELL THAT HE WAS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, AS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA REQUIRES ONLY ON THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA!!!!
?THIS HUGE DECEPTION IS MORE THAN A FRAUDULENT ACT, IT IS WORSE THAN ANYTHING IMAGINABLE BECAUSE:
1) IT RELATES TO THE HIGHEST POSITION IN THE LAND, THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA, THAT OBAMA HAS FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED;
2) IT RELATES TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA BEING TRAMPLED UPON FRAUDULENTLY AND ILLEGALLY BY OBAMA;
3) IT RELATES TO THE FACT THAT OBAMA INTENTIONALLY DECEIVED AND MISLED THE ENTIRE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!
ANY PERSON GUILTY OF SUCH SERIOUS FRAUD SHOULD AT LEAST GET A JAIL SENTENCE, NO MATTER THAT OBAMA HAS FRAUDULENTY HELD THE POSITION OF PRESIDENT OF THE USA FOR A PERIOD OF TIME!!!
If you really want to have an expert legal explanation on what a ?natural born citizen? truly is according to the Constitution of the USA and why legally speaking it is this way, then I suggest that you read at least a few articles on Attorney Mario Apuzzo?s web site ?Natural Born Citizen ? A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers? at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
In particular, read:
??The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child?s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth? at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html
Second conclusion:
?If you are a rational person, no matter your political affiliation, you surely will be forced to conclude that the facts speak for themselves and that there is no doubt legally that a ?natural born citizen? indeed requires that the President of the USA has to have two parents that were BOTH American citizens at the time of Obama?s birth.
?The Constitution of the USA is sacred to any American citizen AND it applies to every single American citizen, no matter one?s political affiliation, no matter one?s color of the skin, no matter what!!!!
Therefore, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS UNDER THE RULE OF LAW LIKE ANYBODY ELSE (NOT ABOVE IT!!!) AND IN PARTICULAR OBAMA IS UNDER THE RULE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA LIKE ANYBODY ELSE!!!!
?You now have the facts fully on the table concerning what a ?natural born citizen? truly is, you cannot evade the truth about these facts!!!
Now, what path are you going to choose?
1) Keep Lying and hiding the facts, hoping that they will disappear by themselves!! Or
2) Choose to acknowledge these facts fully and be determined to fight for the truth?
The choice is yours! But the Constitution of the USA is at stake!!!
==============================================================
0.000000 0.000000
Like this:
One blogger likes this post.
Source: http://tatoott1009.com/2012/03/02/breitbart-died-talked-politics-in-l-a-bar-an-hour-before-dying-exclusive/
derrick mason derrick mason lamichael james lamichael james harrisburg pa chynna phillips magic cube
?2012 Bay East. ?2012 CCAR. ?2012 EBRD. All rights reserved. Information deemed reliable but not guaranteed. This information is provided from three separate sources: Bay East, CCAR and EBRD. The listings presented here may or may not be listed by the Broker/Agent operating this website. Information last updated on 3/4/12 11:56 PM PST.
