Category Archives: LEGAL ISSUES

Obama’s Failed Presidency Summed Up in Two Words; Let’s Pretend

SHREADING THE CONSTITUTIONWatching what has taken place in the world since Barack Hussein Obama fraudulently entered the White House has been horrific enough. Countless millions have been displaced in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Libya because of his meddling and inaction when most urgently needed.

Yesterday was the breaking point.Russia bombed Syrian freedom fighters instead of ISIS, thus propping Assad and strengthening IRAN.


As the U.S. leads from behind (an oxymoron if ever there was) Obama’s chaotic policy, has brought the rise of ISIS with mass murders on a scale not seen since WWII. And if all of this hasn’t been bad enough, the world has had to suffer watching the barbaric destruction of ancient sites and priceless artifacts along with the ethnic cleaning of Christians and other non-Muslim minorities.


All of this was unnecessary. All of this could have been prevented had the media, political classes, and the legal profession had been truthful about Obama’s eligibility to run for the office of U.S. president.


Instead we have Let’s Pretend that:


  1. a man whose father was British subject when he was born, making him a dual citizen at best, met the legal requirement of Natural Born Citizen for the office of POTUS
  2. his upbringing in Indonesia living in a Muslim country during his formative years, going to school and reciting Muslim prayers had no impact on his adult view of the world
  3. the Founding Fathers didn’t foresee that persons not born as Natural Born Citizens (NBC) would face the challenge of divided loyalties
  4. the person holding the single most important position in the world shouldn’t be absolutely clear that his/her loyalty belongs 100% to this country and the Constitution
  5. a community organizer and part-time Constitutional law instructor with radical friends like Bill Ayers, a man with one year in the U.S. Senate was ever qualified for the office
  6. members of both political parties weren’t aware Obama was ineligible because of their own selfish political motives … McCain, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal all ineligible
  7. progressives in politics, the media, and in the legal community haven’t been trying to eliminate the NBC Constitutional qualification for years by ignoring current laws, passing resolutions and private laws designed to side step it
  8. Obama’s draw-down of the military, cuts in defense, obsession with getting an Iran treaty at all costs, giving lip service help our Mideast allies including Jordan, Israel, the Kurds hasn’t helped Iran and strengthened Russia
  9. Obama should remain in office one minute longer!


The fraud at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue needs to resign or be removed as quickly as possible. His residency in the White House is a threat to the safety and security of this country and the civilized world.


Obama’s actions and inactions have proven conclusively his is incapable of carrying  out the duties of POTUS.

Why Trump is Correct About Birthright Citizenship

The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.  …  Sen. Jacob M. Howard, author of the citizenship clause

Make no mistake we are finally talking about the 14th Amendment,  birthright citizenship  and its impact on the country because of Donald Trump’s bid to become president. Anchor babies have long been an issue Progressives, radical Democrats, and the MSM have deliberately down-played while ridiculing those who seek to see the Constitution properly upheld.  Those who consider themselves Constitutionalists are portrayed as racists, uncouth unpolished “nativists” deserving contempt.


Donald Trump’s entrance into the GOP race for president has once again ignited a long standing battle over the meaning of birthright citizenship between two competing groups. It may also produce an honest discussion about this critically important issue.


Hard core Progressives, believe in the theory of a living Constitution. What they really mean is selective enforcement and interpretation of the Constitution.  Put another way, if you like a law enforce it. If you don’t like a law ignore it.


Trump supporters, many in the GOP, independents, and a lesser known group of attorneys and jurists believe in enforcing the Constitution as written (original intent). What this means is if you don’t like a law change or amend it but don’t ignore or selectively enforce it!


These two camps are also aligned against each other as it relates to the Constitutional requirement of Natural Born Citizenship for the presidency. Both the NBC clause (Article II Section 1 Clause 5) and birthright citizenship (as defined in the 14th Amendment) are linked by the open borders gang. The MSM refused to cover the issue honestly and truthfully, but Trump was right about Obama’s citizenship, even if Obama’s birth certificate was a secondary issue.


Progressives, radical Democrats, print journalists, and many well-known on-air personalities/attorneys know that open borders bringing a flood of illegal immigrants intentionally dilutes U.S. citizenship. This political faction believes that the Constitution and U.S. citizenship are quaint concepts to be ignored and overturned. They talk about the rule of law and give it lip service, but rarely practice it. One of the reasons, no strike that, one of the excuses used is the Constitution is just so darn hard to change through the amendment process!


Attorneys and liberal professors from the country’s most prestigious law schools are in the ranks leading the charge.  The MSM’s legal Constitutional experts on speed dial are blowing smoke, conflating the issues and intentionally lying.  These Constitutional lawyers  get away with twisting the truth because way too much deference is paid to them, most of it undeserved. They are corrupt propagandists who get away with their mendacity because too few of us take the time to actually go to the source (ahem, the Constitution and its amendments) and read what is written.


All of which brings us to Donald Trump’s run for the presidency, his campaign launch and his position on birthright citizenship.


When the 14th Amendment was passed, it was after slavery had been declared unconstitutional. The Civil War had ended but many Southern Democrats continued to continue the battle under the cover of states’ rights. At that time in our history there were many states trying to limit the citizenship rights of the newly freed slave population with Jim Crow laws.


The 14th Amendment as passed was designed to grant citizenship to and protect the civil liberties of recently freed slaves. Granting citizenship to native-born black Americans and their children in this manner prevented states from “denying or abridging the privileges or immunities” of all U.S. citizens.  The 14th Amendment  gave the newly freed slaves, now U.S. citizens equal protection under the laws of our country.


The key phrase in the 14th Amendment is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and it is what provides that U.S. citizenship is intended for those lawfully in the country, under the jurisdiction of its laws and those who can legally claim allegiance to the U.S.


Those native born in other countries and their children, under the jurisdiction of the laws of their native country and without allegiance to the U.S. are not  guaranteed automatic citizenship by virtue of placing their feet on U.S. soil as the open borders crowd would have you believe.


The good news is Trump has forced the GOP, the Democrats, and the MSM to bring the kind of focus birthright citizenship deserves. The bad news, however, is the open door policy espoused by the Obama administration especially in the last seven years has placed our country in danger.


Sadly, the use and misuse of the 14th Amendment has been going on for over 100 years. It has become the go-to amendment for the Supreme Court to use for cases having absolutely nothing to do with ensuring the rights and ensuring the protection of native-born black citizens of this country.


The equal protection clause which  provides for equal protection under the law for life, liberty, and property has been used for everything from whether a state statue a state statute can prohibit counseling on birth control to married couples Griswold v. Connecticut to the recent case upholding same sex marriage in all 50 states Obergefell v. Hodges.


In truth, the 14th Amendment has gone from post Civil War reconstruction legislation to a club used by Progressive politicians and their friends on the Court to find new rights never enumerated or conceived of by the framers of the Constitution.


Obamacare Website Knowingly Launched With 40% of Payment Software Not Completed!

Only in Washington is it acceptable to launch a website, 3  years in the development, that was never properly tested, crashing multiple times with as few as 6 users prior to the October 1st launch date, with limitless privacy issues, and STILL needs the back-end of the software to be built.




It seems that less than two weeks before the Ocare website is supposed to fully functional (AGAIN!) as promised by Team Obama, 40% of the payment software is still to be completed. Do I have to state the obvious? Well, maybe for those Ocare supporters who can’t stop drinking the Kool-Aid, I do.


A glitch is a small momentary or temporary happenstance. A website that isn’t fully built, is a travesty, a hoax foisted on the American people by Washington ideologues, Progressives who don’t give a damn about anything but their always failed political agendas.


The whole thing needs to be scrapped. The government and its slew of annoyingly arrogant bureaucrats cannot build a system of this type. It isn’t only the complexity that Obama finally acknowledged yesterday, it is the lack of real life business experience and flexibility.


Crats” know how to propose laws and enforce them when it suits their needs and little else.   People who couldn’t operate a lemonade stand and make a profit have NO business trying to build a healthcare system that impacts one-sixth of the nation’s economy!  Geez!

Are Obama’s Obamacare Lies Cause for the Administration to Be Sued for False Inducement & Fraud?

A successful fraudulent inducement claim requires a claimant to establish that it “reasonably relied” upon promises of future conduct made by another party.

We all heard Obama’s claims countless times. A vote for the Democrats and support of the Affordable Care Act would not impact you negatively. If you already had insurance liked your plan you could keep it. Don’t worry you wouldn’t have to find a new doctor or change your current health insurance policy. The MSM, social media, cable news all have his claims on tape. There were NO equivocations, you could keep your planOBAMA LIED & GRANNY DIEDPERIOD!   With the failed website and the possibility that as many as 15,000,000 will lose the plans they liked and their doctors as well, we all know the cynical lies repeated by Obama and his team. Team Obama lied knowing that if the truth were really told to the American people that Obamacare, now refereed to as the Unaffordable Care Act, would never pass.   So, many in Congress voted for Obamacare based on the promises and representations of the Obama administration.  The American people re-elected this man based on the same fake promises. Worse still, it has come to light the Obama knew as far back as 2010 what he was pitching to sell Ocare was little more than a load a horse manure.


Findlaw defines fraud as any act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to deceive another to his or her disadvantage.  

The key words in this definition are calculated to deceive. The heart of this type of fraud is misleading the other party as to the facts upon which he/she will base his/her decision to act.  Misrepresentation causes one to enter a transaction without accurately realizing the risks, duties, or obligations incurred. Sound like the promises Obama has been making since 2010 and before?

Did Obama not verbally make false representations? Did he not knowingly conceal the truth about people losing their health care plans?  Clarence Page, Chicago Tribune columnist and long time supporter of the president and his policies thinks Obama’s lies were political lies and that somehow makes it OK!  

Obama Owns Supreme Court’s Decision; Obamacare is Legal as a Tax!

When is a win not a win or a tax not a tax? Or maybe I should have opined, “be careful for what you wish for, you may get it.” 

Obamacare passed constitutional muster today in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Roberts. The most hated piece of legislation ever passed by the Congress is now officially the law of the land.

Yea, rah rah, maybe!

Chief Justice Roberts is either the cleverest or the most devious jurist ever. With his majority opinion in place, that Obamacare is not constitutional under the Commerce Clause, but is constitutional as a tax, Obama is stuck explaining how this contradiction in his portrayal of the law could have come to pass.

After all, didn’t Obama and is minions tell the American people countless times that Obamacare was not a tax.

This is from the White House Insider and what today’s decision means:

And the initial reports I’m getting are telling me there was a lot more clever going on inside that decision than the initial reaction will indicate. It’s the Obama Tax now.  And states were given an out.  The entire law is a big ass convoluted mess and the ruling has reinforced that fact.  Obama will have to defend something he doesn’t understand, and Romney can now sit back and just repeat over and over again “repeal-repeal-repeal”.

Oh, one other thing, it’s going to be a long, long time before Obama and the radical progressives will be able to talk about “activist judges” on the Supreme Court subverting the will of Congress and the American people.  Chief Justice John Roberts just saw to that.

Louisiana Bans Cash Sales; Why the Government Wants to Take Your Cash

“Money’s destiny is to become digital,” announced a 2002 study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In terms of public safety and national security, the sooner the world moves to a digital cashless economy, the better. Jonathan Lipow

The headline screamed, “Louisiana Bans Cash!” When I heard this two days ago I thought it was a joke, but this isn’t funny and it’s no joke.

The State of Louisiana has banned cash sales on all 2nd hand goods. Yes, boys ‘n girls you can no longer go to a swap meet, antique store, garage sale, etc. and use cash to purchase your items .

The excuse being used by the author of House Bill 195, Rickey Hardy, is that by eliminating cash sales of second hand goods this will help law enforcement track stolen goods like copper, etc.

Customers will have to use checks, credit cards, or purchase a money order. And it gets worse, according to Attorney Thad D. Ackel, lead counsel at Ackel and Associates LLC.:

. “For every transaction a secondhand dealer must obtain the seller’s personal information such as their name, address, driver’s license number and the license plate number of the vehicle in which the goods were delivered. They must also make a detailed description of the item(s) purchased and submit this with the personal identification information of every transaction to the local policing authorities through electronic daily reports.”

Now why would Louisiana or any state want to ban cash sales? Because they want to track our every move.

This is just the first OVERT step in moving us towards a cashless society, towards implanted tracking chips, national ID cards, and more.

Here’s another excuse for a NWO cashless society. Turn in your cash and we’ll all be safer!. Ya, right!


Thirteen Years After 9/11, What Really Happened to WTC Building 7?

This was written in 2009. Little as changed except the MSM continues to become less and less reliable as a source of news. 

There simply is no reason to believe anything the MSM puts out there as factual. The media can no longer be trusted … can no longer be believed … too many lies over too many years!


FOX comes the closest to consistently reporting most sides of an issue, but not always. The most glaring exception remains their non-existent reporting Obama’s ineligibility for the office of POTUS.

Obama admits he held British/dual citizenship status on the day he was born. This is a clear disqualification for the office of POTUS.

Whether FOX is too cowardly or whether the network has been warned to back-off at the risk of suffering severe consequences is immaterial! A lie is a lie and there is none bigger than president Obama.

After witnessing the events that have brought us our first knowingly faux president, why shouldn’t we question a host of other stories/ issues that have been “reported” by the MSM.

I find myself questioning everything that has been reported as fact for the last 30 years. Tell me, why should we believe anything they tell us when we can see the supporting documents with our own eyes and hear the propaganda churned out on an hourly basis?

All of which brings us to the 10th anniversary of the tragic events on 9/11. Ten years ago the thought that 9/11 was a staged event by persons within our own government, one designed to bring chaos and fear was dismissed as insanity.

No more. Do I think it possible? You betcha! The primary reason remains WTC Building 7, the building that our government wants us to believe “just fell” for no reason.

What really happened to WTC Building 7?

National Geographic recently produced  a show to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories.  The approach was to depict anyone who questions what happened on 9/11 as a wing-nut. If the Nat Geo’s facts were so strong, why devote less than 1 minute addressing WTC  Building 7 in a 2 hour show?

Why didn’t the 9/11 Commission have subpoena power?

Do you believe “them” or do you believe your own eyes?

There is no victory in being right in this case. You can’t blame people for wanting to believe in their government, those entrusted to do what is in the best interest of the people. But the facts don’t lie and physical laws of science can’t be changed.

The most damning video is what follows as a BBC reporter discusses the collapse of WTC 7 on air minutes before it happened and with the building in the background! Opps, move to the 1:25 mark and then to the 7:26 mark!

Isn’t the TRUTH what we want from the people running this country … what most of us want from our government, our officials, the courts,  and the media?

What a sad state of affairs … we have a country with more power brokers than patriots!  A selfish, self righteous, sanctimonious group that cares little about anything or anyone but themselves!



(H/T) The Post & Email

So not only does Obama not have a valid social security number and valid application, but his mother’s appears to be fraudulent as well. We have no idea who these people are.  His mother does not have a valid social security number.  She obtained her social security number using falsified forms, as evidenced by the notation at the bottom of the page where it gives a revision date of 7/55.

What are the chances that Obama and his momma, Stanley Ann Dunham, would both have phony social security numbers? How ’bout slim, fat chance, and none, and yet they do!

Obama has MULTIPLE social security numbers. The one used most frequently belongs to a deceased man born in Connecticut…and yet no curiosity on the part of the cable networks (including FOX) or surprise (not!) the MSM!

Fraud runs rampant in the Obama family! Who has multiple social security numbers unless they are in witness protection or we have elements within our government designing the hidden identity and agenda of Barack Obama and his momma!

Let us not forget Obama’s father. He is just as suspect as his “son”. Harvard wanted him out, deported! Politico reported Obama Sr. was forced out of Harvard!

The following is from Anti-Mullah.



Irrefutable Proof Obama’s Mama’s Social Security Application Fraudulent: 1965 Application Form Signed In 1959. Got A Time Machine?!

One wonders why would Stanley Ann Dunham’s Social Security card be forged?

To place a verifiable signature of hers into the public record.

Then you see it would match the signature on the recently provided (forged) LFBC (Long Form Birth Certificate) by Obama and in the forged book copy in Hawaii Department of Health.

Since Stanley Anne Dunham can’t sign any documents created since she died they would have to recreate her signature and a document history to verify it.

That is: someone alive is signing for her and placing this document into the record would be the way to authenticate her signature as an ‘existing’ sample.

Now at the bottom of Dunham’s SS-5 form , it can clearly be seen that the form was Revised on 7/65 . That is quite a task as seeing that she signed the form in 1959. More on that below.

Comments added to the forms below are in bold red.



The forms look almost the same. There are just a few minor differences. They are noted in red on the forms.

Basically what they did was just switch the locations of those two areas on the forms. Unless you were looking very closely, those 2 forms would look identical. Someone not paying attention would think the 1965 form was the 1959 form.

Want More? This is from

Where does that leave us ?

1). The SS-5 form used in 1959 is a form that was revised in 1946
2). The Dunham form ( supposedly signed in 1959 ) is different from that used in 1959. In fact, it has the statement Revised 7/65 on the form. Short of using a time machine, there is no way she could have signed that in 1959.
3). It is obvious that the Dunham SS-5 form is a fake. The forger used a form that looked just like the one used in 1959, but he did not look close enough. He missed the layout change in those two fields.


For additional details concerning the letter and graph Orly Taitz received from the Social Security Administration under the FOIA read here.


I don't want to be a citizen, just your money!

11 Countries Suing Georgia over Its Tough New Immigration Law

Say what? Someone tell me how these countries have the right to sue the sovereign State of Georgia in the Republic of the United States of America. Mexico and countries in Central and South America are suing Georgia for passing its new immigration law.

I don't want to be a citizen, I just want your money!

Georgia’s law, known as HB 87, allows law enforcement to check the immigration status of a suspect who cannot provide identification.  The law also empowers law enforcement to turn over anyone found to be in the country illegally to the federal authorities The law adds new penalties for those convicted of harboring illegal immigrants and presenting false documents when applying for a job.

UPI is reporting:

ATLANTA, June 16 (UPI) — The Anti-Defamation League and 11 Latin American countries added their voices to legal efforts to halt Georgia’s tough new crackdown on illegal immigration.

The league and Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua and Peru joined the American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center and several other civil and immigrant rights groups in arguing the Georgia law is unconstitutional because it’s preempted by federal law.

Their federal class-action lawsuit also asks U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash to keep the measure from going into effect while their case is still pending.

Rather than address their own fiscal and economic problems, these countries would rather sue Georgia in an effort to force the state to accept hoards of illegals. Talk about chutzpah (that’s balls for the uninitiated)! We are facing skyrocketing violence at the borders, skyrocketing deficits, massive unemployment and these 11 countries want U.S. citizens to suffer even more indignities with the continued influx of illegals.

Wonder if any of us would be allowed to go to Mexico and sue that country for not living up to its Constitution? Fat chance, right? As it happens, Mexico’s illegal immigration laws are tougher than Arizona’s!

The Washington Times reported on Mexico’s illegal immigration laws several months ago saying:

Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.

The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” violate Mexican law, are not “physically or mentally healthy” or lack the “necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents.

It should be of note that as the Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC) is reporting, “A recent estimate by the Pew Hispanic Center puts the number of illegal immigrants in Georgia at 425,000, the seventh-highest among the states.”






OK, here’s legislation that can be hated by conservatives and liberals alike. Embed a YouTube video and you could be committing a felony. Yes, with everything that is happening in the U.S., the $14 trillion debt, the joblessness, food up, gas prices up, home starts down, and the White House wants to focus on embedding videos from YouTube!

This is from techdirt:

Okay, this is just getting ridiculous. A few weeks back, we noted that Senators Amy Klobuchar, John Cornyn and Christopher Coons had proposed a new bill that was designed to make “streaming” infringing material a felony. At the time, the actual text of the bill wasn’t available, but we assumed, naturally, that it would just extend “public performance” rights to section 506a of the Copyright Act.

This proposed legislation is White House initiated, as CNET noted on March 15, 2011;


The White House today proposed sweeping revisions to U.S. copyright law, including making “illegal streaming” of audio or video a federal felony and allowing FBI agents to wiretap suspected infringers.

In a 20-page white paper (PDF), the Obama administration called on the U.S. Congress to fix “deficiencies that could hinder enforcement” of intellectual property laws.

Victoria Espinel, the first Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, with Vice President Joe Biden during an event last year.


The report was prepared by Victoria Espinel, the first Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator who received Senate confirmation in December 2009, and represents a broad tightening of many forms of intellectual property law including ones that deal with counterfeit pharmaceuticals and overseas royalties for copyright holders. (See CNET’s report last month previewing today’s white paper.)

Some of the highlights:

• The White House is concerned that “illegal streaming of content” may not be covered by criminal law, saying “questions have arisen about whether streaming constitutes the distribution of copyrighted works.” To resolve that ambiguity, it wants a new law to “clarify that infringement by streaming, or by means of other similar new technology, is a felony in appropriate circumstances.”

• Under federal law, wiretaps may only be conducted in investigations of serious crimes, a list that was expanded by the 2001 Patriot Act (recently renewed) to include offenses such as material support of terrorism and use of weapons of mass destruction. The administration is proposing to add copyright and trademark infringement, arguing that move “would assist U.S. law enforcement agencies to effectively investigate those offenses.”