Sunday, November 30, 2008

Could Obama's new eye twitch come from his fears that some hidden, dark secrets from his past may come to light?

It seems that President Elect Obama is beginning to show signs of folding under the pressure of an Office that he hasn't even had one day on the job. He has developed a fairly noticeable stress related eye twitch recently. Could Obama's twitch come from his fears that some hidden, dark secrets from his past may come to light? Larry Sinclair has alleged that he and then Sen. "Twitchy" Obama used cocaine and engaged in consensual sex in 1999. Mr. Sinclair's allegations are making a super-market debut this week on the cover of Globe.

Today is YOUR last opportunity to get an autographed copy of Larry Sinclair's new book about his encounters with Sen. Obama, the Senator's campaign staff, and the murdered choir director of Obama's former church.

Go to Larry Sinclair's site to order your signed copy and to discover Mr. Sinclair's story in detail for yourself.

Below is Mr. Sinclair's post for today.

Saturday, November 29, 2008


Barack Obama and the Obama team do not want word of my upcoming book to get out. Or is that Obama and the Obama team do not want the TRUTH about him revealed? I say it is the latter.

I believe the world that Barack Obama says is so in love with him, should know exactly what this man is about, how he and his associates manipulated the world media into giving him a free pass and suppressing this story and the attacks his organization leveled against me.

This book will give in-depth detail of every aspect of this encounter from the Chicago 1999 trip to current date.

Sorry Barack, but this book is going to come out, and I will make sure it is center stage in DC for the some 4 million you plan on busing in to witness you taking your "Throne."

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Obama May Reach For TUMS This Thanksgiving

Just a few quick matters of note that may cause Sen. Obama to reach for the Tums on this Thanksgiving Day.

    • After just a few days online, the public outcry to require Sen. Obama prove that he is eligible to hold the Office of the Presidency is growing quickly. WorldNetDaily's PETITION FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFBARACK OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE GOES OVER 101,000. Sign Here
    • The Globe has a story hitting the Super-Markets that has Sen. Obama a tad bit agravated. "PRESIDENT-elect Barack Obama is furious over a shocking new book that claims to reveal his sex and drug secrets - and link him to a murder - political insiders say in a stunning GLOBE world exclusive." Larry Sinclair's new book- BARACK OBAMA & LARRY SINCLAIR: Coke, Sex, Lies & Murder? -will be available nationwide on January 15, 2009.
    • The Supreme Court of the United States will be having a Conference on December 5, 2008, to determine if they wish to hear the case Donofrio v Wells. This is one of several cases challenging Sen. Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States.
    • Two other cases awaiting action by the Supreme Court are BERG v OBAMA and WROTNOWSKI V. BYSIEWICZ. Wrotnowski has been docketed in the past couple of days ( No. 08A469). In the Berg case, Obama, et. al. have until Dec. 1, 2008 to respond to Berg's Writ of Certiorari.
    • Another case of note is Alan Keye's lawsuit in California.
    • Here is a good site to look at for a quick update of the cases .
Have a Happy Thanksgiving.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

New "The Globe" Article - Is it about Larry Sinclair's New Book

I just saw this and am wondering if it is about Larry Sinclair's new book?

If it is, Larry's book will definitely be a collector's item. Go Larry!

From The Globe:

Obama's Outrage!

PRESIDENT-elect Barack Obama is furious over a shocking new book that claims to reveal his sex and drug secrets - and link him to a murder - political insiders say in a stunning GLOBE world exclusive. Find out who is blowing the whistle on America's next commander-in-chief and why the author's bombshells could wreck the inauguration. It's must reading for every American!

Happy Thanksgiving!

Wishing Everyone

Happy Thanksgiving!

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Atlas Shrugs - Orly Taitz - Alan Keyes - A Call to Action Regarding Obama Ineligibility Lawsuit!

The following is a call for citizen action by Orly Taitz from his lawsuit posted by Atlas Shrugs:

....So what can we conclude? We know its a fraud. I don't know what he is hiding. I know he is hiding something. Rule of law folks. RELEASE THE VAULT COPY BEFORE HE SEIZES THE MANTLE.

Orly Taitz, lawyer representing Alan Keyes in his lawsuit to have Obama declared ineligible:

    We need to write to all the governmental official listed in the attachments, including pres Bush, that due to the fact that Mr. Obama refused to provide proof of eligibility (Hawaii allows to issue birth certificates to children of Hawaiian residents, that are born abroad, and issue them based on a statement of one realtive only) , he cannot be certified as President and he cannot receive National Security CIA briefings.

    We believe all the Secretaries of State should give Mr. Obama 24 hours to sign the consent for release of any and all documents, verifying his eligibility, including, but not limited to a certified copy of his original birth certificate with the name and the signature of the doctor and the name of the hospital, certified copy of the birthing records from the hospital noted in the birth certificate, any and all passports with all the immigration stamps, application and registration forms from Columbia university, Harvard college, Occidental College and the schools in Indonesia, that Mr. Obama attended; and official response from the Governments of Great Britain, Kenya and Indonesia in regards to Mr. Obama’s citizenship status in those countries. If Mr. Obama refuses to provide such consent, or if the consent is provided, but the documents show him to be ineligible, no Secretary of State and no Governor of State has any legal right to sign the Certificate of Ascertainment, no Elector has any legal right to sign a certificate of vote, since doing so will constitute aiding and abetting fraud in voting and punishable by up to 3 years in jail (California election code 18500) and similarly punishable by corresponding statutes in other states of the union, it possibly can be viewed as aiding and abeting commission of treason.

    This has to be forwarded to all the media outlets. We need to write to the media, that American citizens are reasonably relying on them to provide them with information in regards to such issues of National Importance. Refusal by Media to publish information in regards to Mr. Obama’s status as a British Citizen by birth and other issues relating to his lack of eligibility to be the President of the US, is de facto aiding and abetting commission of fraud in voting and elections (see above).

    I believe we should contact all sponsors and all advertisers and all citizens that believe in the Constitution of this country an demand that they boycott all the media outlets that refuse to air this information that is akin to a Constitutional crisis. We should start a recall of all the Governors and Secretaries of States that sign the certificates of Ascertainment without proof of eligibility. No member of US military can be expected to risk his life under orders of a Commander in Chief, who was not willing to produce proof of his eligibility for office, no order or law signed by somebody, who was not proven to be eligible will be valid. We have to stop this constitutional crisis.

Orly Taitz DDS Esq

Monday, November 24, 2008

A Memorial to Obama’s Secret Lives – Larry Sinclair Sets His Story to Paper

A Memorial to Obama’s Secret Lives – Larry Sinclair Sets His Story to Paper

(Could Larry’s Book Become the Quintessential 2008 Election Memorabilia?)

Once upon a time, America knew next to nothing about Sen. Obama. Then the young Illinois Senator gave a speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention and a possible coup of American common sense began to take shape. Allies in the media began stepping forward to support the Obama narrative with their pens. Under the radar, a junior senator from Illinois was being groomed and elevated in political stature based on his grandiloquence and two seemingly candid well written books.

How honest and refreshing the story sounded. The senator even admitted that he had used drugs and alcohol a lot in his teenage years. Many heads turned to give the young senator their attention and the narrative continued unquestioned.

The American public had been effectively brow beaten for years into war weariness and hopelessness by a media suffering from a terrible case of Bush Derangement Syndrome. The media were working tirelessly to tarnish any image of George Bush and his party while minimizing the blemishes of the Democratic Party. The political soil was being skillfully tilled for a different crop.

Because the media never questioned or investigated the senator, many Americans (especially the younger voters) began to accept the superficial Obama story and the fictionalized Republican story as truth. They were forming emotional attachments to the “idea” of Obama. As a result, many Americans were choosing to suspend any and all pretext of circumspection concerning the Senator of Change. America was looking for the “fairy tale” this year and they found it in Obama. (It was telling that a recent Zogby Poll showed that 57% of Obama supporters were unable to identify which party held control of the House and Senate leading up to the Election.)

However, another story was beginning. A young man from Minnesota had read the Senator’s books and found that some of the statements made in the books were not factually correct. You see, Larry Sinclair had recalled a couple of his own encounters with Senator Obama that directly contradicted Obama’s assertions. At first, Larry sought only to have Sen. Obama and his campaign admit that the Senator had used drugs much later than what he claimed in the books. However, he met a brick wall when he approached the campaign. Thus, Larry Sinclair’s story began.

Mr. Sinclair’s story and his determination in correcting the Obama record caused many people (myself included) to look again at Senator Obama. When I looked again, I saw a very different Obama than the one being sold to the American public by the media. The real Obama is a man full of secrets and troubling associations that make him unworthy to hold the Office of the Presidency.

Another person inspired by the Larry Sinclair story to more closely investigate Senator Obama is CitizenWells; and he had this to say:

…the one event and breaking story that probably gained the attention of more people and subsequently caused Obama to be scrutinized more by more people, was the YouTube video and allegation from Larry Sinclair of a drug and sex encounter with Obama in November 1999. This was the catalyst for me and many others to examine the life, character and associations of Obama more closely. Not only did many more people get involved researching Obama, but Larry Sinclair’s websites became a gathering place for sharing information and experiences with the Obama camp that varied from personal attacks and death threats to tampering of information on the internet and shutting down of sites questioning Obama.

We witnessed a new paradigm of news gathering and presentation. The MSM failed to report the truth about Obama and Sean Hannity referred to this as the death of journalism.

The internet began to take over as the only place to find out about the real Obama. Of course the Obama camp tried it’s best to thwart the efforts by citizen journalists. This is where Larry Sinclair and many other bloggers and internet reporters stepped in. Despite the MSM not only ignoring the Larry Sinclair allegations and other important stories about Obama and along with the Obama camp trying to discredit Sinclair and anyone questioning Obama, Larry Sinclair and the internet news prevailed.

Larry Sinclair is publishing a book about his encounter with Obama in 1999 and the bigger story of his experience trying to get Obama to be held accountable and making the public aware. This is an incredible story that I have watched play out from a front row seat to my astonishment and disbelief. Up to this point in my life, I have only read about experiences like this happening in other countries. However, despite this all appearing surreal, it did indeed happen.

As soon as Larry Sinclair produced his YouTube video, he received personal attacks and death threats on his person and family, website attacks and eventual incarceration in Delaware. This did not happen in the Soviet Union, Kenya or South America. This happened in America. I have followed, researched and written about the Larry Sinclair story probably more than any other source. I can state with authority that Larry Sinclair could not have made up this story….

I agree with CitizenWells' conclusions. Mr. Sinclair has gone through way too much to be merely spinning a tale. It is also note worthy that Sen. Obama’s campaign has never provided any records that could easily disprove the Senator’s availability to Larry Sinclair on the dates in question. The media is also to blame for the lack of any credible information being available to rebut Mr. Sinclair’s claims by passively allowing the Senator to withhold many pertinent records concerning his past from public scrutiny. Why weren’t they asking questions? He was their candidate and they had invested too much to see him fail.

Frankly, it is my personal opinion that Larry’s new book will be a collector’s item one day. It clearly illustrates for historians that the American media failed miserably in their duty to discover truth and inform the public. Hopefully, historians will realize that most of the main stream media stories of 2008 concerning Senator Obama are not to be fully trusted because of their not so hidden agenda.

The media has been completely AWOL about Larry Sinclair’s allegations that he and Senator Obama used cocaine and engaged in consensual sex in 1999.

They have also been AWOL about the controversies concerning Senator Obama’s birth certificate and the possibility that he may have had or still has citizenship in countries other that the U. S. This controversy has been mostly ignored by the media even though numerous lawsuits have sprung up around the country challenging the Senator’s eligibility to hold the Office of the Presidency. Berg v. Obama and Donofrio v. Wells are the most prominent of these. In fact, Donofrio’s is scheduled for a conference in the Supreme Court of the United States on December 5th. Where is the media? AWOL

The media has also been silent about a petition drive that was started late last week by World Net Daily demanding Sen. Obama prove his eligibility to hold the Office. As of November 24, 2008, this drive has collected 65,912 signatures. Where is the media? AWOL. It seems to me that having nearly 66 thousand Americans questioning Obama’s eligibility to serve is news worthy.

The list of ignored or superficially touched subjects by the media is very long indeed. Most people vaguely know about Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko. (Again from Zogby, 56% of Obama supporters did not know that Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground. Ayers and Dorn-Talk about having blinders on.) Where were the media when the controversies arose about Obama’s possible violations of the Logan Act regarding Iraq and Kenya? AWOL.

Anyway, it will be interesting to watch how historians portray the facts of 2008.

Thank you Mr. Sinclair for doing your part in searching for truth and good luck with your new book!

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Petition Demanding Obama Prove His Eligibility to Hold Office of President

World Net Daily has a petition up that demands Obama prove his eligibility to hold the Office of the President. Many thousands have already signed it!

Petitioners tell president-elect to prove his eligibility for office
Thousands sign online demand, reveal frustration over secrecy

Posted: November 21, 2008
11:00 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Thousands of people are jumping aboard a petition that demands documentation of President-elect Barack Obama's eligibility to hold the highest office in the U.S., not just assurances from party officials.

Within only a few hours of its launch, more than 10,000 petitioners today had joined the effort coordinated by WND founder and editor Joseph Farah.

A report accompany Farah's petition explains the many questions raised about Obama's eligibility, from an apparently fabricated "Certification of Live Birth" posted online to questions about what nation's passport he used during to travel to Pakistan.



Where is the MSM on this? AWOL as usual. The Media's behavior is shameful. What about the allegations that Obama used cocaine and engaged in consensual gay sex with Larry Sinclair in November of 1999? Will they look deeply into Obama's relationships with William Ayers, Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, Acorn, and all the rest? Will they look into the Democratic involvement in Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac failures? Will they call Sen. Obama to task for his possible violations of the Logan Act in Iraq and Kenya?

Friday, November 21, 2008

CitizenWells - Electoral College must be maintained

Mr. Wells is in contact with many of the players concerning Sen. Obama’s possible lack of eligibility. There are a few places to check concerning this issue.

1 CitizenWells

2 ObamaCrimes

3 AmericasRight

4 AmericaMustKnow

This is from CitizenWells:

Electoral College facts, Obama not eligible, Electors must vote per US Constitution, Faithless Electors, Federal Election Laws, State Laws, Elector pledges, States and Electors must uphold US Constitution

November 21, 2008

“The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.” — Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.

1860 election: 4 electors in New Jersey, pledged for Stephen Douglas, voted for Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln.

Electoral College must be maintained

We must adhere to spirit and intent of law

The Electoral College was set up by the founding fathers to achieve two primary goals.

  • To prevent smaller states and lower population areas from being dominated by a few larger states with
    higher population densities.
  • To prevent a tyrant or usurper of power from deceiving an uninformed populace.

I have been wading through the quagmire of the election process and in particular, the Electoral College
vote and state laws that control the election process through the Electors voting. Some aspects are
crystal clear. The US Constitution reveals the eligibility requirements for president, the responsibility
of the federal and state governments and how the electors must vote. The individual states have the
power of controlling general election ballots and orchestrating the selection, meeting and votes of the
Electoral College Electors. There is much confusion however, regarding the duties and powers of state
election officials to ensure the qualifications of candidates and in states’ power to control the way
Electors vote.

Here are the laws and facts regarding the pivotal point in the election process, the Vote by the Electoral College Electors:

US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The US Constitution gives powers to the states for the general election.
US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

Federal Election Law:

“The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended):

§ 8. The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.”

From US National Archives

“There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.”

List of Electors Bound by State Law and Pledges, as of November 2000
Source: Congressional Research Service

No Legal Requirement
Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ARIZONA - 10 Electoral Votes
ARKANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes
DELAWARE - 3 Electoral Votes
GEORGIA - 15 Electoral Votes
IDAHO - 4 Electoral Votes
ILLINOIS - 21 Electoral Votes
INDIANA - 11 Electoral Votes
IOWA - 7 Electoral Votes
KANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes
KENTUCKY - 8 Electoral Votes
LOUISIANA - 9 Electoral Votes
MINNESOTA - 10 Electoral Votes
MISSOURI - 11 Electoral Votes
NEW HAMPSHIRE - 4 Electoral Votes
NEW JERSEY - 15 Electoral Votes
NEW YORK - 31 Electoral Votes
NORTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes
PENNSYLVANIA - 21 Electoral Votes
RHODE ISLAND - 4 Electoral Votes
SOUTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes
TENNESSEE - 11 Electoral Votes
TEXAS - 34 Electoral Votes
UTAH - 5 Electoral Votes
WEST VIRGINIA - 5 Electoral Votes

Legal Requirements or Pledges
Electors in these States are bound by State Law or by pledges to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ALABAMA - 9 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law - § 17-19-2
ALASKA - 3 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law - § 15.30.040; 15.30.070
CALIFORNIA - 55 Electoral Votes
State Law - § 6906
COLORADO - 9 Electoral Votes
State Law - § 1-4-304
CONNECTICUT - 7 Electoral Votes
State Law § 9-175
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA - 3 Electoral Votes
DC Pledge / DC Law - § 1-1312(g)
FLORIDA - 27 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law - § 103.021(1)
HAWAII - 4 Electoral Votes
State Law - §§ 14-26 to 14-28
MAINE - 4 Electoral Votes
State Law - § 805
MARYLAND - 10 Electoral Votes
State Law - § 20-4
MASSACHUSETTS - 12 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law - Ch. 53, § 8, Supp.
MICHIGAN - 17 Electoral Votes
State Law - §168.47 (Violation cancels vote and elector is replaced).
MISSISSIPPI - 6 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law - §23-15-785(3)
MONTANA - 3 Electoral Votes
State Law - §13-25-104
NEBRASKA - 5 Electoral Votes
State Law - § 32-714
NEVADA - 5 Electoral Votes
State Law - § 298.050
NEW MEXICO - 5 Electoral Votes
State Law - § 1-15-5 to 1-15-9 (Violation is a fourth degree felony.)
NORTH CAROLINA - 15 Electoral Votes
State Law - § 163-212 (Violation cancels vote; elector is replaced and is subject to $500 fine.)
OHIO - 20 Electoral Votes
State Law - § 3505.40
OKLAHOMA - 7 Electoral Votes
State Pledge / State Law - 26, §§ 10-102; 10-109 (Violation of oath is a misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $1000.)
OREGON - 7 Electoral Votes
State Pledge / State Law - § 248.355
SOUTH CAROLINA - 8 Electoral Votes
State Pledge / State Law - § 7-19-80 (Replacement and criminal sanctions for violation.)
VERMONT - 3 Electoral Votes
State Law - title 17, § 2732
* VIRGINIA - 13 Electoral Votes
State Law - § 24.1-162 (Virginia statute may be advisory - “Shall be expected” to vote for nominees.)
WASHINGTON - 11 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law - §§ 29.71.020, 29.71.040, Supp. ($1000 fine.)
WISCONSIN - 10 Electoral Votes
State Law - § 7.75
WYOMING - 3 Electoral Votes
State Law - §§ 22-19-106; 22-19-108

So called “Faithless Electors”

“It turns out there is no federal law that requires an elector to vote according to their pledge (to their respective party). And so, more than a few electors have cast their votes without following the popular vote or their party. These electors are called “faithless electors.”

In response to these faithless electors’ actions, several states have created laws to enforce an elector’s pledge to his or her party vote or the popular vote. Some states even go the extra step to assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine to such actions. For example, the state of North Carolina charges a fine of $10,000 to faithless electors.

It’s important to note, that although these states have created these laws, a large number of scholars believe that such state-level laws hold no true bearing and would not survive constitutional challenge.”


So, we have a situation where electors are referred to as “faithless” for not following the party line
or state mandate. However, the state mandates are unconstitutional. There is no such mandate from the
US Constitution or Federal Election Law. On the contrary, Electors are bound to vote in the manner defined
in the US Constitution. Following a political party or state mandate when confronted by serious concerns
regarding a presidential candidate’s eligibility, clearly violates the spirit of the law. The individual
states have the power over candidates being placed on and remaining on ballots. If they are to dictate
the manner in which Electors vote, they must exercise their powers and demand proof of eligibility
to prevent violations of constitutional law and potential voter disenfranchisement.

Let’s consider a comment from an Indiana Elector and Indiana law.

“Good Morning CW, I sent an email to all of the Electorals in Indiana asking them to support the Constitution requirements for President. This is what I received back, “Brenda I don’t represent you. I do however represent the people who voted for President Elect Barack Obama in the state of Indiana. Anthe the State did go from Red to Blue, did it not? Any think you have to further communicate with me is of no interest. Please refrain.” Cordelia Lewis-Burks. Then the next e-mail sent a picture of all the Presidents of the United States with the caption, One thing has changed” because it had Obama’s picture added. How do you get people like this to even question his qualifications? They do not care. All they care about is the fact that he is part black. By the way, this lady is black. I also have a question–why doesn’t she represent me? She is just an electoral, and I am a citizen of Indiana and the United States. Any suggestions ? Thanks. Brenda”

Electors pledge to a political party to vote for parties candidate. This is another example of party over country. The DNC did not vet Obama and now expect Electors to blindly follow.

The Indiana Elector in the above comment has pledged to the Democrat Party to vote for their candidate. I wonder if the Elector is aware of their duty to vote in the manner directed by the US Constitution. The Elector has been made aware of the eligibility issue with Barack Obama. Ignorance is not bliss. If the electors in Indiana are not made aware of their responsibilities and Obama being ineligible, then their Electoral votes must be challenged in Congress.

Indiana Law from the Secretary of State

“After election day, each county sends its presidential vote totals to the Secretary of State in Indianapolis. It can take several weeks after the election for the final version of all these county returns to arrive. When all the county votes have been received (and any errors or omissions corrected), the Secretary of State certifies to the Governor the final, official returns for the presidential elector candidates.

The Governor then signs a “Certificate of Ascertainment.” This document officially appoints the winning presidential electors to serve as Indiana’s members of the Electoral College. Three copies of this document are immediately sent to the National Archives in Washington.”
“After an invocation and any welcoming remarks by state officials, the Certificate of Ascertainment and the roll call of the electors are read. The electors who are present then take their oath of office.”

“The presidential electors then vote for President on a paper ballot. The ballots are tabulated and the results announced. The electors then cast a separate paper ballot for Vice-President, and the result of this voting is announced. The electors then sign a Certificate that sets forth the votes each Presidential candidate and Vice-Presidential candidate received, and a transmittal cover sheet.”

“Indiana has never had a “faithless” elector. Each individual has voted for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates to whom they were pledged.”


It is obvious that we must do the following:

  • Inform Electoral College Electors, State Election Officials and congressmen of the Obama ineligibility
    issues and their duty to uphold the law and serve the citizens.
  • Educate Electors on their constitutional duty and priorities.
  • Demand that State election officials require proof of eligibility of Barack Obama and any other presidential candidates.
  • Hold all accountable.
  • However, even though some Electors have been complicit with the DNC in not vetting Obama, not all are guilty of dubious actions and all should be addressed with the proper respect.

Leo Donofrio's Update on Donofrio v Obama

Update from Donofrio's Blog:

Nov.20.2008 @ 9:20 pm | Lasted edited: Nov.20.2008 @ 9:31 pm


I am awaiting clarification from the Clerk's office at the United States Supreme Court as to whether my stay application has now been accepted in lieu of a more formal full petition for certiorari (and/or mandamus or prohibition). Such a transformation is a rare and significant emergency procedure. It was used in Bush v. Gore, a case I have relied on in my brief.

We do know the case has certainly been "DISTRIBUTED for Conference", a process usually reserved for full petitions of certiorari. Stays are usually dealt with in a different manner. As to a stay application, a single Justice may; a) deny the stay; b) grant the stay; c) refer the stay to the full Court.

My stay application was originally denied by Justice Souter. So, under Rule 22.4, I renewed it to Justice Thomas who did not deny it. The sparse reporting on this issue I have seen today has failed to stress how unique such a situation is to Supreme Court practice. The vast majority of stay applications are denied. And once denied, a renewed application is truly a desperate measure the success of which heralds one of the rarest birds in Supreme Court history.

The relief I requested, a stay of the national election and a finding that candidates Obama, McCain and Calero be held ineligible to hold the office of President, has also not been granted at this time. So that leaves option "c)": Justice Thomas has referred the case to the full court. That much is clear from looking at the docket.

What isn't clear is whether the full court has already examined the referral and taken the extraordinary action of accepting the stay application as if it were a full petition for writ of certiorari which was done in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 at 98 (2000):

"The court ordered all manual recounts to begin at once. Governor Bush and Richard Cheney, Republican Candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, filed an emergency application for a stay of this mandate. On December 9, we granted the application, treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted certiorari." (Emphasis added.)

It's not clear that SCOTUS precedent would allow a stay application to be "DISTRIBUTED for Conference" without it first having been transformed by the court into a full petition. I don't know if such a transformation could be sanctioned by Justice Thomas by himself. Again, I'm waiting for an official disposition notice from the Clerk's office. Regardless, either the full court has set this for Conference, or Justice Thomas has done it on his own. Either way, it signifies an affirmative action inside the US Supreme Court testifying to the serious issues raised by this law suit.


Where's the Media? AWOL Just as they were in regard to Larry Sinclair, Rezko, Ayers, Wright, Logan Act violations, Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac, the media is AWOL regarding anything that might threaten Sen. Obama. Good Jounalism? I don't think so!

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Devvy Kidd, CitizenWells, Americas Right - Two Cases Challenging Obama Move Up a Level In Supreme Court Process - Fraud in Virginia Case Rumor?

Regarding Donofrio v Obama - this is from

Donofrio v Obama Citizenship
Case Moves To New
Supreme Court Level

By Devvy Kidd
Leo Donofrio's case submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court reagrding Obama's citizenship has reached a new level: the case has been "distributed for conference."
On December 5, 2008, only ten days before the electoral college votes, the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will meet in private to discuss this case identified as:
Leo C. Donofrio, v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey
United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407
Leo informed me earlier today via telephone about this historic event and wanted to thank everyone who sent their letters to Justice Clarence Thomas.
This is the link to the Supreme Court showing the docket and action:
If you go to this link, it will give you the process under Title 18: conference-on.html
Click on Justices Conference for more history on this process.
This docketing today by the court for this next step should send ripples of fear through the Obama camp. Obama has been proceeding at lighenting speed to put together a cabinet and take possession of the White House with the hope that he won't have to answer the question of whether or not he was "at birth" a "natural born citizen."
Every major news network, print and cable news like FOX, CNN and MSNBC, have ignored all the court cases challenging Obama's eligibility as sore losers or conspiracy theories. It might be in their best interest at this point to report this critically important meeting to take place on December 5, 2008, or lose what little credibility they have left.
Regarding Berg v. Obama - this is from CitizenWells:

Jeff Schreiber spoke to Philip J Berg after the FEC filed a waiver of right to respond. Here are some exerpts
from Jeff Schreiber’s report:

“According to the Docket No. 08-570 at the United States Supreme Court, the Federal Election Commission yesterday filed a waiver of its right to respond to attorney Philip Berg’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari, filed on October 31 and currently pending before the Court.

Contrary to Internet rumor that Justice Souter had ordered Barack Obama to provide the vault copy of his birth certificate, the Court merely set December 1, 2008 as the date by which the respondents–Obama, the Democratic National Committee and Federal Election Commission–were to respond to Berg’s petition if they chose to do so at all. Yesterday’s filing, which appeared on the docket this afternoon, shows that the respondents have waived their right to respond.”

“This distinction is not lost on Philip Berg.

“If it were just the FEC filing the waiver, I must say that I’m surprised,” Berg said. “I’m surprised because I think they should take the position that the Supreme Court should grant standing to us. I think they have a responsibility not only to Phil Berg, but to all citizens of this country, to put forth a sense of balance which otherwise doesn’t seem to exist.”

“However, if this was filed by the FEC on behalf of the DNC and Barack Obama too, it reeks of collusion,” he said, noting that the attorney from the Solicitor General’s office should be representing federal respondents and not the DNC or Obama.

Indeed, neither the DNC nor the president-elect are, for now, federal respondents, though Obama’s status as Illinois senator–a position from which he resigned this past weekend–could place him under the representational umbrella of the Justice Department.”

“While outright collusion could be a stretch, if indeed the FEC’s attorney is acting on behalf of all respondents and not just the FEC, there certainly is the appearance of coordination. Regardless of the veracity of the allegations put forth against Barack Obama, for the Department of Justice and the Solicitor General of the United States to be facilitating a defense which is calculated to shield from disclosure, rather than compel disclosure, of manifestly relevant and critical information bearing directly upon not just the qualifications but the very constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama — the word “unorthodox” comes to mind. As does “shameful.” And yet, in these post-election times, especially considering the FEC’s decision not to audit Obama’s $600 million take during his campaign (at least $63 million of which was from undisclosed sources), this appears to be the new standard in post-election times.”

Read more of the article here:

Help Philip J Berg defend the Constitution:

Regarding Berg v. Obama - this is from America's Right:

"...Normally, during their term, the Supreme Court Justices conference on Wednesday (typically, but not always) and review the various petitions and applications before them, deciding which of the many such proceedings should be heard by the Court. I suspect that we could soon see a similar entry on the docket for Berg's case as well.

Now, this does not mean that the Court has decided to hear either of these matters and, in fact, is fairly typical when it comes to the process. Still, for those hoping to have these cases heard on their merits, for those who feel these issues are more about the United States Constitution than Barack Obama, this is a step in the right direction..."

Regarding possible fraud regarding rumored Virginia Case - this is from CitizenWells:

Obama is not eligible, Virginia Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Circuit Court, Richmond Virginia, Judge Walter W. Stout III, Court ruling, Wild Bill, VA Board of Elections, Obama camp fraud?, Breaking News **

November 19, 2008

Another Obama Camp scam?

When I first read about the Virginia lawsuit claiming Obama is ineligible and the subsequent ruling by
the judge, it did not smell right. I have reread the exerpts placed on the internet and after much thought
and deciding that I had to read the Petition and the judges ruling, I searched for a record of the filing
and hearing on the official Virginia Courts website. I did extensive searching by names and dates and
found nothing. After much searching, I called the clerk of court’s office. I was told that several people
had called inquiring about the case and they could find no record of any case....


Found here:

If this is not another attempt by the Obama camp to shore up credibility and discredit those such as Philip J Berg, please respond with proof to the contrary.

Also, anyone affiliated with Circuit Court Judge Walter W. Stout III in Richmond Virginia, we would love to get a response from you.

** UPDATE **

I Just found this on


I too believe that this case is a “fake case” based on the following:

1. I conducted multiple searches for the case at — Using a variety of names, including Board of Elections, Elections, Election, etc. — and no case was reported.

2. I contacted Judge Stout’s Office (the judge in the case, per Wild Bill. (Info at The clerk there could find no record of the case in the docket.

3. I contacted two local Richmond newspapers, with all the info available. There was no subsequent report on the case. Given that at least local news has reported on all similar cases, I find it very hard to believe that local Richmond news would not report on such a substantial opinion.

While you and I may have drawn different conclusions about the “facts,” I believe that we both seek the truth and, therefore, provide this research - which you can verify yourself - for your consideration.”


COMMENT: Where is the Media? AWOL as always. Where were they during the Election? AWOL They ignored Larry Sinclair's allegations that he and Obama did cocaine and engaged in consensual sex in 1999. They ignored Obama's extensive relations with dubious characters such as Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Farrakhan, Dorn, etc. They ignored the Democrats role in putting America in the current financial crisis through their protection of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac from meaningful regulations put forth by Sen. McCain and others. They ignored Sen. Obama's possible violations of the Logan Act by his meddling in Iraq and Kenya. The list of ignored issues goes on and on. The year investigative journalism died is 2008.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Full Page Ad Ran In Washington Times Weekly

This is from ObamaCrimes:

Full Page Ad in Washington Times Weekly - November 17, 2008

This full-page ad appeared today in the Washington Times National Weekly (Monday November 17th edition) It will hit subscribers' mailboxes on Tuesday. (PDF attached at bottom)


To view PDF go to ObamaCrimes


The Media has ignored Rev. Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko, Larry Sinclair, and many others from Obama's life. Don't let them ignore this Constitutional Crisis!

Saturday, November 15, 2008

AmericaMustKnow organizes list of Obama lawsuits

AmericaMustKnow organizes a list of current lawsuits against a likely illegal President Elect Obama.

Where's the Media? AWOL The Media never investigated Larry Sinclair's allegations that he and Obama did cocaine and engaged in consensual sex in 1999. The Media never investigated fully the associations of Obama with Ayers, Wright, Dorn, Rezko, etc. The Media was AWOL in investigating the allegations that Obama violated the Logan Act by his actions in Iraq and Kenya. The Media has been just plain AWOL and they are fully responsible for weakening our system of elections.

The list is found at

Related Lawsuits

This is a summary of what has happened legally regarding Obama's eligibility:

Friday, November 14, 2008

America needs citizen involvement!

America needs citizen involvement! Find your pin quickly.

This is from CitizenWells:

Philip J Berg lawsuit, US Supreme Court, Obama not eligible, Supreme Court Justices, Berg appeal, Help defend the US Constitution

November 13, 2008 ·

I just received the following email from Philip J Berg’s office. Mr. Berg’s
lawsuit is one of two lawsuits currently before the Supreme Court of the
United States. Both lawsuits state that Barack Obama is not eligible
to be president. Here is the email:

“November 13, 2008

We have received a lot of emails asking what you can do to be heard regarding the issues pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Although we cannot tell you to do anything, we can answer your questions and inform you what is available so you may be heard.

You as citizens can individually address letters to all the Court Justices and address your concerns regarding Mr. Obama’s eligibility to serve as the President of the United States according to the requirements of Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution.

United States Supreme Court

1 First Street NE

Washington DC 20543

The Supreme Court Justices are as follows:

Supreme Court Justice John Stevens

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy

Supreme Court Justice David Souter

Supreme Court Justice Thomas Clarence

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer

Supreme Court Justice Samual Alito



Assistant to Philip J. Berg


Thursday, November 13, 2008

Who is this guy the media and the uninformed masses elected?

Who is this guy the media and the uninformed masses elected?

More evidence that the Media failed to do its job!!!

Where's the Media? AWOL again? Just like- they were AWOL regarding Larry Sinclair's allegations that he and Sen. Obama did cocaine and engaged in consensual sex in 1999. Just like- they were AWOL regarding the cursory treatment that all of Obama's past associations were given. Just like- they were AWOL in giving a blind eye concerning the possible violations of the Logan Act that Sen. Obama may have committed regarding Iraq and Kenya. Just like- they were AWOL concerning the role Sen. Obama and the Democratic leadership had/have in the current financial mess, which began at Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.

2008 - The Year Journalism Died!

The following article is from Debbie Schlussel.

November 13, 2008
EXCLUSIVE: Did Next Commander-in-Chief Falsify Selective Service Registration? Never Actually Register? Obama's Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions

ByDebbie Schlussel

**** Copyright 2008, Must Cite Debbie Schlussel and link to ****


Did President-elect Barack Hussein Obama commit a federal crime in September of this year? Or did he never actually register and, instead, did friends of his in the Chicago federal records center, which maintains the official copy of his alleged Selective Service registration commit the crime for him?

It's either one or the other, as indicated by the release of Barack Obama's official Selective Service registration for the draft. A friend of mine, who is a retired federal agent, spent almost a year trying to obtain this document through a Freedom of Information Act request, and, after much stonewalling, finally received it and released it to me.

But the release of Obama's draft registration and an accompanying document, posted below, raises more questions than it answers. And it shows many signs of fraud, not to mention putting the lie to Obama's claim that he registered for the draft in June 1979, before it was required by law.

The official campaign for President may be over. But Barack Obama's Selective Service registration card and accompanying documents show that questions about him are not only NOT over, but if the signature on the document is in fact his, our next Commander-in-Chief may have committed a federal crime in 2008, well within the statute of limitations on the matter. If it is not his, then it's proof positive that our next Commander-in-Chief never registered with the Selective Service as required by law. By law, he was required to register and was legally able to do so until the age of 26.

But the Selective Service System registration ("SSS Form 1") and accompanying computer print-out ("SSS Print-out), below, released by the Selective Service show the following oddities and irregularities, all of which indicate the document was created in 2008 and backdated:

* Document Location Number Indicates Obama Selective Service Form was Created in 2008

First, there is the Document Location Number (DLN) on the form. In the upper right hand corner of the Selective Service form SSS Form 1, there is the standard Bates-stamped DLN, in this case "0897080632," which I've labeled as "A" on both the SSS Form and the computer printout document. On the form, it reflects a 2008 creation.

As the retired federal agent notes:

Having worked for the Federal Government for several decades, I know that the standardization of DLNs have the first two digits of the DLN representing the year of issue. That would mean that this DLN was issued in 2008. The DLN on the computer screen printout is the exact same number, except the 0 and 8 have changed positions making it a 1980 DLN number. And 1980 is the year Senator/President Elect Obama is said to have timely registered. So, why does the machine-stamped DLN reflect this year (2008) and the DLN in the database (which was manually input) reflect a "corrected" DLN year of 1980? Were all the DLNs issued in 1980 erroneously marked with a 2008 DLN year or does the Selective Service use a different DLN system then the rest of the Federal Government? Or was the SSS Form 1 actually processed in 2008 and not 1980?

It's quite a "coincidence" . . . that is, if you believe in coincidences, especially in this case....


Larry Sinclair - Details of Encounter With Sen. Obama

Below you will find the story the media does not want to touch, investigate, report or acknowledge! They report about Gov. Palin's 17 year old daughter and they try to hide the John Edwards affair. Bias? YOU THINK! The AWOL Media - The Big Story of the Election.

This is from Larry Sinclair:

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

THE SINCLAIR/OBAMA ENCOUNTER: The original written statement from Jan '08


Below article contains language and descriptions of sexual acts that may be offensive to some readers. This article is re-posted solely for news purposes regarding President Elect Barack Obama.

For those who are making comments about "what happened to the 2nd night" this statement was given at the request for a statement detailing the FIRST night I met Barack Obama. This statement is and always has been from the time it was made, a detailed account of the first meeting with Barack Obama.

Published January 21, 2008 at:

On January 18, Larry Sinclair posted a YouTube video in which he claims to have engaged in oral sex and used cocaine with Democratic Presidential candidate, Barack Obama, in 1999. Requests for a statement from the Obama camp have not been acknowledged.

In an attempt to provide additional details, Larry Sinclair has provided the following statement:

My name is Larry Sinclair, (True), I was born in S.C. (I am not and have not been a resident of S.C. since 1975).

Please understand that the names of the driver, limo company and my hotel are not being disclosed at this time due to the threat of retaliation against them and or their businesses. I assure you they will be forthcoming at the appropriate time.

I was in the Chicago area from November 3, 1999 thru November 8, 1999 to attend the graduation of my God son from the Great Lakes Navy Training Center outside Chicago. While out for a night on the town, I hired a limo. After expressing to the limo driver that I wanted some company for the night with someone who knew Chicago, I was introduced to Barack Obama by my driver at a bar on Rush street. Mr. Obama and I had a few drinks and talked for about an hour or so at the bar. I mentioned to Mr. Obama that I could really use a couple of lines to wake up, as I was really tired but I wanted to do a night on the town while in Chicago. Obama asked if I was referring to coke and I stated I was. Obama then stated he could get it for me.

After Obama made a phone call, we left the lounge together in the limo I hired. Obama instructed the driver as to where we were going. After about what felt like a 30 or so minute drive we stopped and Mr. Obama got out after telling me he would be right back. Obama returned to the car after about 5 minutes had passed, at which time he pulled a packet out of his pocket and handed it to me. I took a CD case I had in the limo with me and put out three lines of cocaine on it. While resting the CD case on Obama's leg and taking a rolled up dollar bill, I snorted one line.

During my conversation with Obama, I had made it very clear that I was openly gay. In my lifetime, I have always been good at judging whether or not a person is interested. My instincts told me that Obama was interested. After snorting the first line, I used my right hand to rub Obama's left leg up to his crotch....Continue Reading (review warning above)

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

CitizenWells - Demand For Action

From CitizenWells:

"I believe the states have the power and obligation to verify eligibility
of presidential candidates. I find no federal or state law prohibiting
states from doing so and instead a constitutional duty to ensure that
a qualified candidate becomes a ballot choice for the Electoral College

I strongly agree with CitizenWells. We cannot let this attempt to circumvent the Constitutional requirement to have ONLY "Qualified" candidates on the Ballot!

Obama not eligible, US Constitution, Tenth Amendment, Bill of Rights, US Supreme Court, Federal Judges, State Judges, State Election Officials, Electoral College Electors, Philip J Berg lawsuit, Leo C Donofrio lawsuit, Citizen Wells facts and arguments
November 12, 2008 ·


Justice Souter
Justice Thomas
US Supreme Court
Federal Judges
State judges
State election officials
Electoral College Electors
US Citizens
The US Constitution must be upheld
US citizens have the right, the power and the duty to require proof of
eligibilty of presidential candidates

What I am about to write is so inherently simple and self evident,
that it may appear on the surface to be implausible. However, the
following facts and arguments flow from the founding fathers’ wisdom
and desire to protect the American citizens from tyrrany. I have read
the US Constitution, Federal election law and numerous state election
laws. I have had dialogue with offices of a number of Secretaries of State
and Election Boards. The US Constitution gives the states power over
the general election. The states control which candidates are placed
on ballots and regardless of the methodology used for doing so, I
believe the states have the power and obligation to verify eligibility
of presidential candidates. I find no federal or state law prohibiting
states from doing so and instead a constitutional duty to ensure that
a qualified candidate becomes a ballot choice for the Electoral College
Electors. Failure to do so effectively may lead to voter disenfranchisement.
I have believed and stated for weeks that the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution gives US citizens the power to demand that a presidential
candidate prove eligbility and certainly standing in a lawsuit. A lawsuit
should not be necessary. We already have the power, directly from the
US Constitution Bill of Rights.

* The US Constitution clearly defines the eligibiity requirement for president.
* The US Constitution rules.
* The US Constitution gives states the power to choose electors. With this power comes the obligation to uphold the Constitution and protect voter rights.
* State laws vary but are consistent in their approach to placing
presidential candidates on the ballot.
* Presidential Balloting evolved from tradition.
* The two party system evolved from tradition.
* States place presidential candidates on ballots from instructions of
the major political parties.
* States should have enacted laws to require proof of eligibility.
* States are not exercising their duty to the Constitution.
* States have the power and obligation to ensure that only eligible candidates remain on ballots. Despite compelling evidence that Barack Obama is not eligible, and notification, the states left him on the ballot.
* States claim no power to remove a candidate when in fact they do have power over the general election process.
* The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution gives the people power, including Phil J Berg, Leo C. Donofrio and others that have had their lawsuits dismissed in state courts.

By virtue of the powers given to the people in the Tenth Amendment in The BIll of Rights of the US Constitution, we do not have to file lawsuits to demand proof of eligibility or require state election officials to do so.

A US citizen filing a lawsuit demanding that a presidential candidate provide proof of eligibility has standing.... Continue Reading

Comment: Again the media is failing in its duty to report and investigate. Where are they? AWOL Just as they were AWOL during the campaign when they ignored Larry Sinclair's allegations that he and Sen. Obama used cocaine and engaged in consensual sex in 1999, the media is AWOL. They remain AWOL about Obama's campaign fund raising issues. They remain AWOL about ACORN, Ayers, Rezko, Rev. Wright, Farrakhan, Socialism, censorship, and indoctrination of children.

If Americans are to have any respect for our system of laws, they must be enforced! At this point, the Courts and Electors stand as the last of the checks and balances requiring compliance with our Constitution's requirement that the President of the United States be a "Natural Born" citizen.

Everyone must keep demanding justice.


Monday, November 10, 2008

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Larry Sinclair Has New Post About Media's Admission That They Did Not Adequately Investigate Obama.

Now that the Washington Post has admitted it's failure to investigate adequately, will they do so now? We will see. Larry Sinclair, the man who alleges that he and Sen. Obama used cocaine and engaged in consensual sex in 1999, has a new post up today. I agree completely with Mr. Sinclair's analysis of the media's utter failure to investigate Sen. Obama. I also agree with his urging Republican Party Officials to follow Philip Berg's lead and file suit against Sen. Obama.

From Larry Sinclair:

Sunday, November 9, 2008


For months now the Obama Campaign along with its supporters/surrogates have falsely and repeatedly claimed "The media has not reported Sinclair's allegations against Barack Obama because they investigated them and found them to be lies."

Well today the Washington Post has admitted that the Post failed to "give the serious scrutiny to Obama that he deserved..." and admitted that the Post failed to look into "Obama's own admitted drug use, his time in Chicago and his ties with Rezko..."

As I have responded for months to those claiming the media investigated and debunked my allegations, the media has not investigated but in fact simply ignored and or covered the story. Today's admission by the Washington Post only reaffirms that fact.

Maybe now the "undressing of the real Barack Obama" will begin.

In the mean time I will continue to reveal the truth about Barack Obama, and today put out a call to any State Republican party official who believes in the law being upheld, and advise you that according to a sitting US Federal Judge, legal action brought challenging Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to hold the office of POTUS by any State Republican party office WILL HAVE STANDING. I urge you to file suit on the grounds of his adoption and being a citizen of Indonesia.

(Copyright 2008 by Larry Sinclair/ and Larry All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Without express written permission of Larry Sinclair.)

Friday, November 7, 2008

It’s After the Election, Should We Let Sleeping Dogs Lie?

It’s After the Election, Should We Let Sleeping Dogs Lie?

(No - Not As Long As Fundamental Questions Remain)

First let me say that I was disappointed with the result of our Presidential Election. Not totally, it was good to see that Sen. Obama’s race did not play a significant part in the outcome. I’m old enough to have seen firsthand the truly ugly times in our race relations and I’m glad they are gone. However, the historic significance of this Election did not play a significant part in how I determined where to cast my vote. It was decision about the issues, character, intelligence, ideology and vision for our future. Frankly, I’m still shocked that so many have appeared to disregard all of these for the illusory concept of “Change”, the Messiah image and the fact of the Senator’s race.

Naturally, many Americans have been reflecting on the outcome and their next step(s) regarding the newly chosen President Elect. Some have shrugged and changed the channel on the TV. Some have decided to give the President Elect a honeymoon and then judge him on his actions. Some people have not made any decisions yet. Others have decided that there remain way too many troubling associations, past actions, ideologies and positions that have not been responsibly reported on, investigated and/or adequately understood by the voting public. There are also many people who are waiting on the outcomes of numerous lawsuits involving the fundamental question of whether Sen. Obama is in fact eligible, by law, under the Constitution to hold the Office of the Presidency. Where do I stand? For me, it is now and will always be a question of fundamentals.

While I do remain deeply troubled by the media’s fawning and intentional malicious intervention in this election outcome, it is what it is. Polls showed that most voters recognized the media bias intellectually; however, the misinformation also appears to have been effective. It is what it is; and I do believe, people who were truly interested in finding reasonably reliable information about Sen. Obama could find sufficient amounts to make a somewhat informed decision about him. For those who have been suffering under BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome), no amount of information would have had any effect whatsoever. Again, it is what it is.

Nevertheless, I still believe that Sen. Obama does not have a fundamental understanding of economic principles and will dig us much deeper into financial calamity. When you are up to your neck in trouble, stop digging. Raising taxes on those who create jobs will only negatively impact the number of jobs created. Raising taxes on businesses will only result in that increased cost being pasted on to consumers, or may be so damaging to the competitiveness of the company that they go out of business. During the election, I didn’t hear very much from Sen. Obama about the reducing spending (or spending growth), side of the balanced budget equation. I did hear about his redistribution of wealth ideas and bankrupting the coal industry; which sound a lot like socialism and draconian energy policies that our economy cannot withstand. Responsible management of our economy is a fundamental; and affordable energy is essential to that in times of recession or worse. Therefore, President Elect Obama will not be getting a honeymoon from me.

On to the challenges to Sen. Obama’s eligibility to hold the Office of the Presidency; what can be more fundamental than that?

Important principles may, and must, be inflexible.
Abraham Lincoln

Philip Berg, in the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, is saying that the location and circumstances of Sen. Obama’s birth, his subsequent adoption under Indonesian law, and other circumstances regarding possible multiple citizenships have resulted in Sen. Obama being Constitutionally barred from holding the Office of the Presidency. Right now, the Berg v. Obama case is seeking certiorari review in the Supreme Court of the United States.

As of yet, there has been no legal determination that Sen. Obama is or is not eligible under the Constitution. The allegations in Berg v. Obama, and the other concurrent legal actions, have not been addressed by Sen. Obama at all. He has chosen to follow a course of legal maneuvers, seeking dismissal, instead of simply submitting sufficient evidence establishing his eligibility to serve. Why?

Why not just put this issue to bed? Sen. Obama can at any time. It seems that Mr. Berg has a recording of Sen. Obama’s grandmother indicating that she was present at Obama’s birth in Kenya. Why doesn’t he confront Mr. Berg? Isn’t Sen. Obama’s credibility also at stake by these claims? There are rumors of hospital records indicating his birth in Kenya. There are new allegations of his Kenyan birth coming out of Africa. No explanation from Obama?

The fact is that no one really knows what or how much evidence Philip Berg has to support his claims against Sen. Obama, or if such evidence is legally sufficient. However, the allegations raised, if true, would bar Sen. Obama from taking office.

Senator Obama’s side-stepping every obstacle from Rev. Wright to Ayers to ACORN to now questions of his own birth does not work for me. He can’t be allowed to vote present on this one. Fundamental issues such as Sen. Obama’s eligibility to be or not to be President, they must be addressed or they will tear the fabric of our democracy. They can’t be compromised away by elections, the media, aversion to potential consequences, or by popular opinion.

To be or not to be is not a question of compromise. Either you be or you don't be.
Golda Meir

Earlier tonight I walked through our bedroom and my dog Eli was on the bed. The thought came to mind that I should let sleeping dogs lie. With regard to Eli, I did let him lie because he has our permission to sleep on the bed. Eli is well groomed and doesn’t hurt our bed in the least. Our two cats don’t mind him very much because he follows the rules. Can the same be said about Sen. Obama?

Will the possibility of an illegitimate President hurt our Constitution? Would such an action hurt our belief that no one is above the law? Would you mind having such a President?

Will you stand for this possibility?

Don't compromise yourself. You are all you've got.
Janis Joplin

I can’t compromise on this one.

Note: There are also stories that some Electors from the Electoral College are planning to demand proof of Sen. Obama’s eligibility.

For more information regarding the continuing legal struggles to have Sen. Obama’s eligibility established once and for all see the following sites:

America’sRight CitizenWells ObamaCrimes Andy Martin

TexasDarlin ZachJonesIsHome Larry Sinclair

Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.
George Washington

Thank You, Zach