Posted on 01/28/2013 11:33:35 AM PST by ethical
On January 10, 2013 the Washington State Supreme Court fined Linda Jordan almost $13,000 because she legally challenged Barack Obama's use of forged identity documents: A fake birth certificate and phony Social Security Number.
Jordan wanted the original records to be produced for comparison. Why did Jordan want to see Obama’s real ID?
• The Maricopa County Sheriff Department has presented credible evidence that the birth certificate Barack Obama posted on the White House website on April 27, 2011 was forged. (Maricopa County Sheriff Department 602.876.1801) • Jordan’s own research confirmed that Hawaii law requires signatures on birth certificates to be in permanent ink. The signature of Obama’s mother, on his purported 1961 birth certificate, is partly ink and partly a computer created signature. This compilation means the signature was forged. • Ohio Private Investigator Susan Daniels has confirmed that the Social Security Number Obama is using was previously issued to someone else. SSN’s are NEVER re-issued.
Obama used this fake ID to prove he was eligible to be President. It got him on the ballot and into the White House. This is fraud in the least, treason at worst.
“I filed the lawsuit because I fear for America’s future. A serious crime has been committed right in front of us and federal agents turned a blind eye to it. There is substantial evidence that Barack Obama is using fraudulent identity documents. The court ignored this evidence and sanctioned me with almost $13,000 in fines for exercising my right to request an evidentiary hearing. They labeled my concerns "frivolous". Surely Americans have the right to confirm if Obama used fake ID to gain access to the White House.” Linda Jordan
http://www.obamaforgeries.com
Between the two of us, darlin’, you’re the only one lying and back-stabbing.That was proven in March 2012 when you publicly lied to Laz about what you claim I said to you and couldn’t back up your lies when he asked for proof.
Move on already. Your obsession is pathetic.
What on 9-10-01 would have been labeled an “irrationally large conspiracy” was on 9-11-01 the deadliest attack on this nation’s soil.
The sad part? The US military had already done data mining of public sources, showing suspicious activity by the terrorist cell that carried out 9-11. The head of that intel-gathering operation, Able Danger, desperately tried to get the government to take it seriously. They wouldn’t.
Wanna know why? Because they knew that Able Danger was dead accurate at finding suspicious connections.
See, Able Danger had also pinpointed suspicious connections between Sec Def William Perry, Stanford University, and the Chinese military. The courts covered Perry’s arse while he was in office but after he was out of office a judge required a FOIA request to be fulfilled according to law and it was found that Sec Def Perry’s own company had illegally sold encrypted satellite technology to what he knew was the company owned by the Chinese military leader’s wife. They had been introduced specifically for that purpose through connections at Stanford.
This was after Congress had investigated and issued the Cox Report and another one (I keep forgetting the name of it; was it the one led by Fred Thompson?) - both focusing on the potential national security vulnerabilities caused by the Clinton regime selling out to China. Congress had requested a DOJ investigation of both campaign funding from China and Chinese front companies that were used for the Clinton regime to sell our technological secrets to the Chinese military. AG Janet Reno kept those investigations from ever happening - much like the Clinton-appointed DC Circuit “Magnificent Seven” judges (one of whom tried to sanction Hemenway because Obama’s eligibility had already been decided on Twitter...) bypassed the normal random computer assignments of cases in order to assign themselves to cases involving the Clintons or the Clintons’ cronies. IOW, their sole job was to make sure that none of Clinton’s buddies faced real justice. Those judges have been overturned time and time again, but they served as a buffer to make sure it was expensive and difficult to keep ANY of the DC politicians and cronies accountable to the law. They were (and probably still are) political hatchet-men to obstruct justice.
The lawlessness of SecDef Perry and the regime that covered his arse cost 3,000 Americans their lives on 9-11-01, because if the DOD had not been trying to cover the crimes of SecDef Perry, they would have pursued Able Danger’s intel and caught Mohammad Atta and his cell members before those Americans had to die.
At this point anybody who believes our government is not capable of carrying out massive conspiracies, while silencing and covering up the tell-tale signs of it, is just not learning from our history.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. What that means is that the moment the majority dismisses the warnings of the watchkeepers because “it could never happen here”, it is set in stone that it WILL happen here. Think Germany when the Reichstag was deliberating whether to give Hitler the power to overrule the German Constitution. If they had ever seriously considered what COULD happen there, the gas chambers, the war dead, Hiroshima... all could have been prevented.
Normalcy bias is deadly. It keeps us from catching the crooks in government before they can sell the US and her people down the river. Obama’s Columbia University pals such as Bill Ayers planned to kill TWENTY-FIVE MILLION AMERICANS for no crime other than refusing to be “re-educated” to accept communism. What Obama is working on - along with the world communist and Islamist allies he has to help him - makes 9-11-01 look like a walk in the park.
Look at Lucy T’s by-line, palmer, and realize that those people killed were killed by their own governments’ CONSPIRACIES. Justice from government is the exception in this world, not the norm. For a long time we had a system of accountability that helped us keep the injustices relatively rare here, but once the society believes that only kooks suspect their government, that accountability is lost, and we become just like every other great civilization, which falls from within, to chaos, tyranny, and/or annihilation.
No, troll. You mentioned Congress in the process of certifying the electoral vote to come up with a “President elect”.
The one who enforces the 20th Amendment in the event that the “President elect” (the one ALREADY certified as the electoral winner by Congress) fails to qualify by Jan 20th has to do so AFTER Congress is done. (If Congress had found that the candidate failed to qualify because of the objection process you describe, they would never have certified him as the electoral winner, and there thus would never BE a “President elect” who still failed to qualify by Jan 20th.)
And nobody on here or anywhere else has said who that would have to be. This question should be easy, guys. What’s your problem, that you can’t answer it?
When she backs off dissing Buckeye Texan. We can disagree on issues without insulting fellow FReepers.
Nothing is "dead accurate". I'll read through this: http://www.abledangerblog.com/2006/02/lt-col-shaffers-written-testimony.html (it is long) and give you my thoughts on it. The salient issue with data mining systems is that they generate both false positives and false negatives. Had Able Danger been cranked up to full alert status to catch 9/11, it would have also generated false positives, or it would have missed 9/11.
See, Able Danger had also pinpointed suspicious connections between Sec Def William Perry, Stanford University, and the Chinese military.
That could be a false positive or a true positive. But it reinforces my point because a system with a wide scope will have more false positives. Also any intelligence that links the Sec Def and some foreign power does not need a data mining tool to extract it. It would simply be a standalone piece of intel, a cable of some sort with the facts of the connection explained in it. If it were politically embarrassing it would be deep six'd by someone in the political chain of command without ever being sent to a data mining system like Able Danger.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. What that means is that the moment the majority dismisses the warnings of the watchkeepers because “it could never happen here”, it is set in stone that it WILL happen here
You are obviously missing a very large point. The Able Danger system that hypothetically finds terrorists and crooked sec defs is a perfect example of absolute power. If it really did both those things it should rightly have been dismantled. It is much more likely, however, that Able Danger did none of those things. But I will read the link and let you know what I think afterwards.
It is possible, as just an example, that LBJ had Kennedy killed. A perfectly reasonable conspiracy that did not directly lead to mass murder by government. You could however argue that if LBJ had killed Kennedy so that he could expand federal power and move it leftward, that would eventually lead to mass murder by government. I could argue that LBJ's hypothetical killing of Kennedy had no bearing on whether the federal government would eventually commit mass murder since LBJ lost in 68. OTOH Nixon gave us the EPA which is now shutting down coal power plants (and Obama has promised gas as well) which will actually kill Americans.
Have you seen David Horowitz’s site that shows connections between people and places? That’s the kind of data mining we’re talking about here. Able Danger found that there was a hub of activity that connected Stanford, the Chinese military, and SecDef Perry. The military used that to say that the Able Danger intel was quackery. But what I am saying is that SecDef Perry knew it was NOT quackery. He knew it was dead-accurate in finding suspicious connections, because he knew his company was introduced to the Chinese military leader’s wife through a mutual contact at Stanford. Able Danger was right over the target on that one, and the SecDef knew it. So they dismantled Able Danger and destroyed its data (though the people involved saved the data on their own, IIRC)
They knew Able Danger was trustworthy and if they had cared more about national security than about covering their own criminal arses they would have taken Able Danger’s warnings about the Brooklyn Al Qaeda cell very, very seriously.
But they didn’t. And that is my point. They covered their own criminal arses. Was that a “conspiracy”, palmer? Do you think arse-covering is a rare occurrence in government, or an automatic occurrence when whistle-blowers are ridiculed or otherwise silenced because they are “kooks”?
Thanks for ping LucyT...up to 330 comments -— missed this altogether.
“However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President...”
________________________________________________________
It is due to this is why I hope that Orly does not ask for this specific action at all in her case.
Removing a sitting President is not going to be done via silver bullet court case. There are so many things that work against this that it should not even be on the radar.
When it comes to what action she wants to take she should make simple. So simple that there would be no logical reason to deny it. For example - the payment of $1 for legal fees in the case.
If you shoot too high they will find a reason to slap you down. So go the other direction - shoot way low. So low they can not deny for any reason.
Since she has the default judgement pending maybe she should just the facts stand and ask for the simplest of things to get the judgement on the books - a symbolic $1 that would basically be an admission.
Once the first domino falls with a successful day in court other dominoes will appear and will fall hopefully.
Just a thought.
You’d have to ask Lucy, but I don’t think those figures are based on “what-if’s” but on people actually killed by their government.
The point, though, is that while we ridicule “conspiracies” as crazy speculation, most of the world is full of real conspiracies. The Islamists and communists have openly stated that they are working to destroy us. Are you familiar with the Cloward-Piven Plan? Obama was the lawyer who argued the 2 legal planks for that plan to destroy America from within - Motor Voter, and Community Reinvestment Act harassment to force subprime lending. About the only things he ever used his Saudi-funded Harvard law degree for. The party that was co-founded by Frances Fox Piven (the co-author with her husband of that plan to destroy America) was The New Party, and records were unearthed shorty before the 2008 election showing Obama a SIGNED MEMBER of The New Party. They conspired to take over the democratic and/or republican parties and pull them hard left, eventually having a communist party that had the “branding” and unwitting followers from those parties. These are open conspiracies, and Obama was in the middle of it all.
Why do you not believe these people when they tell us they are conspiring against us? Why do you not believe that Obama is one of them doing the conspiring and implementing, when he was a signed member of the group and the only legal actions he took were exactly what the conspiracy called for?
See, by saying that anybody is “crazy” (or whatever term you used) for believing that there are real conspiracies, you would have us deny a HUGE body of information, as well as observable reality.
Saying that there can’t really be a big conspiracy is called normalcy bias. None of us wants to believe there really is a boogie-man. But there are hundreds of people saying outright that they are out to “get us”. The only way we keep away from the danger of normalcy bias is by committing to believe what the EVIDENCE tells us, not what a pre-conceived bias tells us.
No, that doesn't make a bit of sense. Let's say there are a million professors maybe who are connected to 10 million people. The SecDef would have first degree connections to a dozen or two. Let's say one of those connections was also connected first degree to the Chinese leader's wife. First, how does A.D. spit out only the interesting connections, not the thousands of others (e.g. potential terrorists it is putatively looking for)? Second how does A.D. know that the SecDef would use the connection to introduce his company to the Chinese leader's wife? There are lots of other people with first degree connections to professors who are connected first degree to China who didn't introduce their companies.
Basically you are describing a giant GIGO system with huge false positive outputs that would never be taken seriously about any true positive. The G part of the system is the fact that it knows about all the friendships or other first degree connections between all the people like the SecDef and all the professors in the US. Such data would be chock full of garbage (false leads, wrong info, wrong names, etc)
That’s an excellent question and the answer is “NOTHING.” Both the Nixon Articles of Impeachment drawn up by the House Judiciary Committee and the Clinton Articles of Impeachment relied heavily on evidence produced by the Watergate and Whitewater & Paula Jones Grand Juries.
What hasn’t happened with Obama is a CRIMINAL investigation by a grand jury that would set the stage for a finding of probable cause of high crimes and misdemeanors having been committed.
Also, it is likely that the other option for removing a president, resignation would come into play if there were to be a criminal indictment. Nixon resigned after being named by the grand jury as an “un-indicted co-conspirator.”
As I pointed out above (I wonder if you read my posts), the Obama entity is both leftist with his own socialist designs for America, plus a tool of America's enemies who put him in power. It would be better for America's enemies if Obama were an actual citizen with solid credentials that everyone can examine. It would only matter to Obama the leftist with his own selfish reasons for power that he be seen as American even if he were not.
Obama the leftist with his own designs is a political threat. Unfortunately we lost the election thanks, in part, to the fracturing of the right over dumbass issues like the BC. The other threat from abroad is more serious and may well be fatal but, as you are manifestly unable to realize, it requires a citizen with solid birth creds not a flaky one.
I don’t know the mechanisms, but what I am saying is that they already had a control to test the accuracy of the methods - Able Danger’s red flag of the Stanford-Perry-Chinese military connection. They knew the technology had pinpointed a real threat. But because that threat was THEM, they wanted everything about Able Danger ended.
I think you’re missing the larger point, though. There were clues that a diligent government should have paid attention to - both on Perry and on AQ. Those clues were suppressed and the people who were desperately trying to warn of impending danger on AQ were gagged and suppressed because if Able Danger was treated as credible, it could lead people to investigate our OWN GOVERNMENT - and specifically our own Secretary of Defense, who WAS BREAKING LAWS BY ARMING OUR ENEMIES. China’s satellite capabilities in asymmetric warfare go directly to the treason by OUR OWN SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
Look at that and try telling me that our government would never conspire to do something bad and then cover it up by silencing the people talking about the clues.
Do you assume that Fast and Furious never happened because it would have to be a government conspiracy?
From the Wikipedia entry on “President-elect of the United States.”
“Two congressional reports found that the President-elect is the eventual winner of the majority of electoral ballots cast in December. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Library of Congress, in its 2004 report “Presidential and Vice Presidential Succession: Overview and Current Legislation,” discussed the question of when candidates who have received a majority of electoral votes become President-elect. The report notes that the constitutional status of the President-elect is disputed:
Some commentators doubt whether an official President- and Vice President-elect exist prior to the electoral votes being counted and announced by Congress on January 6, maintaining that this is a problematic contingency lacking clear constitutional or statutory direction. Others assert that once a majority of electoral votes has been cast for one ticket, then the recipients of these votes become the President- and Vice President-elect, notwithstanding the fact that the electoral votes are not counted and certified until the following January 6.
The CRS report quotes the 1933 U.S. House committee report accompanying the Twentieth Amendment as endorsing the latter view:
It will be noted that the committee uses the term “President elect” in its generally accepted sense, as meaning the person who has received the majority of electoral votes, or the person who has been chosen by the House of Representatives in the event that the election is thrown into the House. It is immaterial whether or not the votes have been counted, for the person becomes the President elect as soon as the votes are cast.”
So, it is possible that the conferring of the President-elect title precedes the Joint Session of Congress and written objections raised there as to whether the President-elect has qualified could be the way to address those objections.
So, let’s say, just for discussion sake, that the eligibility challenges to Obama in California (Grinolds v California Electors) and in Ohio (Daniels v Husted) were still in process on January 4, 2013. Congresswoman Marcia Blackburn and Senator Rand Paul submit written objections to the certification of Obama’s electoral votes to the President of the Senate, Joe Biden. The objections state that California’s and Ohio’s electoral votes should not be certified until those legal challenges are resolved. Both Houses adjourn from the Joint Session and both Houses vote to uphold the objections to the certification of California’s 55 Electoral votes and Ohio’s 18 Electoral votes until the legal challenges are resolved. Obama then goes from 332 Electoral votes to 259 electoral votes, not enough to be president ( he needed 270). Joe Biden also doesn’t have 270, he can’t be Acting President unless the House of Representatives appoints him as such.
Most likely, John Boehner becomes Acting President until the California and Ohio lawsuits into whether Obama has qualified are resolved.
The 12th Amendment states that whoever receives a majority of the votes of the Electors “shall be the president.” The only other constitutional requirement is taking the Oath of Office. No court and no action of Congress has ruled or found Obama to be ineligible. Congress sends him bills to sign and Congress confirms his nominees. He’s the president. A usurper needs to be stopped BEFORE the Joint Session of Congress certifies the Electoral vote. That’s what Judge Carter was saying.
Of course the communist-Islamist alliance that put Obama in power wants him to appear genuine. That’s why they’ve threatened everybody to not talk about the fact that he’s a total fraud with no documentation to support his eligibility.
So then how do you consider it “dumbass” to point out the evidence that the guy is a foreign enemy combatant who had to threaten people and commit crimes like forgery, perjury, and fraud to even get on the ballot? The whole point is so that everyone will know that he is NOT legitimate but is a foreign enemy combatant. I’d say that’s a pretty important way of trying to combat the communist-Islamist alliance that put him in power.
You can’t fight the mafia through politics. It matters not one whit what people believe if thugs count the votes. And you can’t even influence what people believe through dialog if even the conservative media has to take orders from Soros. 2008 was a coup. You don’t overcome a coup through politics. The way to overcome it is to fight back, which only happens if people recognize that it was a coup.
I’ll quote from Yuri Bezmenov (I think around 1986):
“The second thing, at the moment at least part of the United States population is convinced that the danger is real. They have to force their government - and I’m not talking about sending letters, signing petitions, and all this beautiful, noble activity - I’m talking about forcing United States government to stop aiding communism.”
We can’t just do the political talk. We have to expose the danger of the mafia that put a foreign enemy combatant into our White House, so he has access to purge the military of patriots, kill American citizens, shut down the internet, take all our medical records and deny certain people medical care, arm our enemies, leave the border wide open to terrorists, steal elections, gut our military, put anti-Constitution judges in place for life, regulate our industries out of existence, etc.
We need people to realize that this guy considers innocent Mexicans to be “collateral damage” in order to get his own political agenda passed. We need people to realize that Soros in effect writes the script for every “news broadcast” they hear, because he threatens the lives of those who might think of saying something else. We need people to realize that a brother can’t even see the original birth certificate for his deceased sister, and at least 4 people from Aug 1961 had their birth certificate number changed in the last year.
The reason people need to see this is for the very reason that i stated on my first blog page: because if these thugs can do this, they can do anything. Without the rule of law, these thugs can get away with whatever they want to do. And what they want to do is NOT pretty at all. Again, the extermination of 25 million people is what Bill Ayers and his pals were talking about...
Have you read the memo on Presidential eligibility by the Congressional Research Service?
They mentioned two of the “political” avenues for addressing eligibility: states governing their own election procedures, and Congress certifying the electoral vote.
One of those things was given as a DEFINITE Constitutional avenue for eligibility to be addressed, and the other was considered a POSSIBLE avenue.
Which one was definitely a Constitutional avenue, and which was speculated to be a possible Constitutional avenue?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.