Axelrod re: Afghanistan & terrorists being tried in NYC

November 16, 2009

Are you aware that David Axelrod sits in the discussions about Afghanistan?

David Axelrod the WH’s resident lobbyist discussed Gitmo closure, Afghanistan decison and KSM being tried in NYC on State of the Union with John King (Lou Dobbs new replacement). Axelrod sets up Holder as the one responsible – barry was informed of the decision and the reasoning behind it. Axelrod admitted Gitmo won’t be closed completely, but wouldn’t give a deadline. He said they are going to “substantially meet the deadline”. barry said it would be closed. He ran on that and people voted for him because of it. Once the deadline passes – barry’s lies will be 100% complete and he will have been proven to be a complete fraud.

TRANSCRIPT

KING: Let’s begin with the controversial decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 alleged conspirators in the federal courts in New York City, just a short walk from the site of the twin towers collapsing….This is Jim Webb, Democratic senator from Virginia who says, “they do not belong in our country, they do not belong in our courts, and they do not belong in our prisons.”

Why, David Axelrod, did the administration decide to take this step?

AXELROD:

Well, I think for the same reason that Mayor Bloomberg and others felt strongly that we should. We believe that these folks should be tried in New York City, as you say, near where their heinous acts were conducted, in full view in our court system, which we believe in.

Translation: barry wants to make an impression on the world – 9-11 family members be damned. Just like 9-11 anniversary – neither POTUS or FLOTUS went to NYC and they named Sept 11 day of service – like it needed naming. No reason why Michelle couldn’t have been there. And who are the “others”? And the heinous acts were an act of terrorism that resulted in the deaths of 2974 innocent people.

AXELROD: We’ve had, you know, since 2001, have had 195 terrorism cases in the courts, and we’ve been successful 91 percent of the time. We’re very confident about these cases, and we believe this is the appropriate thing to do.

And what if this trial ends in that 9%?

They’re relying on the jury to convict and totally ignoring the judge and whether the confession will be allowed. In civil court, torture obtained confessions are inadmissible. Period. It will come down to whether a terrorist, who has no rights under the Geneva Convention, and who carried out an unprovoked on American soil was read his rights.

AXELROD: This is a judgment the attorney general made in concert with the secretary of defense. As you know, there were five other cases that were sent to military commissions, but we feel strongly that justice will be done here.

And frankly it’s been a long time in coming. A lot of these cases have been delayed for many, many years. And now, the people who suffered so much in that attack will get the justice they deserve.

Did he ask them what they wanted?

A daily reminder? Having to look at the murderers face in the papers and in TV and all over the internet?

KING: We will have later in the program the former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who of course was the mayor when the horrible tragedy of 9/11 took place. And he is among those who say, to him, this reflects returning to a pre-9/11 mentality of treating terrorism as a crime, not an act of war. How would you answer that?

AXELROD: You know, it is odd, because when the 20th 9/11 bomber was tried in Virginia, in a civilian court, and convicted, Mayor Giuliani testified in that case and he heralded the outcome. So he may have changed his view, but we haven’t changed ours.

It may have had something to do with the muslim murderer in Texas.

KING: You mentioned this was the attorney general’s decision. How involved was the president of the United States?

AXELROD: Well, the president was informed of the attorney general’s decision and his reasoning for the decision. This was a decision for the attorney general to make, in concert with the secretary of defense.

Translation: Doesn’t go well, it’s Holder’s head.

KING: It is a reminder bringing these terrorists to New York City for trial, alleged terrorists, a reminder of the controversy about Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We are just now two months and one week away from this promise from the president of the United States.

KING: If you talk, David Axelrod, to top officials at the Pentagon, top officials at the building you work at, in the White House, they say now it is a near impossibility that that deadline will be kept. When will Gitmo be closed?

AXELROD: We believe we are going to substantially meet the deadline. We may not hit it on the date, but we will close Guantanamo. And we are making good progress toward doing that.

“Substantially”?

Open – close are absolutes and barry said one year.

KING: Any idea? Two months, four months, six months more?

AXELROD: I‘m not going to put a deadline on it, John. But we are going to get it done. We are moving toward getting it done in all the different dimensions that are necessary to get it done. The president believes it is important to get it done and to end this chapter in our history. And we are going to get it done.

Too late you already have a deadline. And again, barry’s words mean nothing.

KING: Part of this chapter in our history is the 9/11 attacks, which, of course, were hatched in Afghanistan. And the president is closer to making this big decision he has to make about how many troops. When he makes that decision, will he lay out for the American people not only the rationale for the decision he has made, but an exit strategy for Afghanistan? If you travel the country as I do all the time, people keep saying, eight years later, how long is it going to take? How much is it going to cost? How many lives will be lost? Will the president give us an exit strategy?

AXELROD: Well, I think that is a concern. And it is obviously one of the factors the president is thinking through. We have been there for eight years; it is a long, long time. And we have to keep focused on what our purpose was in the first place. Our purpose was to disrupt and dismantle and destroy Al Qaeda. That remains our purpose.

But obviously we can not make an open-ended commitment. And we want to do this in a way that maximizes our efforts against Al Qaeda, but within the framework of bringing out troops home at some point. And the president has made that clear in all these discussions. There has to be a framework to this decision.

But we are getting close. It has been a good process.

And how many Americans have been killed? How many undeployed soldiers killed themselves so they wouldn’t have to go? He’s not going to make his decision until after the new year.

KING: As you know, conservatives have been critical of the president’s policy review, saying, why is it taking so long? The former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney gave a speech this weekend in which he said, not only why is it taking so long for the president to decide, but he also said, why is David Axelrod, his top political adviser, involved in these deliberations? Let’s listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIT ROMNEY, (R-MA,) FMR. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I find it incomprehensible and inexcusable that this president invites David Axelrod into national security meetings. Polls and politics have no place at that table. He is the commander in chief. What has he been doing? Do you realize he carried out more than 30 campaign visits in this last season, for various Democrats? While he can’t make up his mind on Afghanistan, or have enough time to meet with generals, he is out there campaigning.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Let’s take them in order. Why does David Axelrod deserve a seat at that table? And why is it taking so long?

AXELROD: Well, first of all, let’s be clear. David Axelrod does not have a seat at that table. I have observed these discussions because, as I am today, I have to help communicate the message of the administration. And so it is helpful for me to hear. I have not said a word in any of those meetings.

Now let’s take the second part. Governor Romney has to choose one argument or another. Either he has to say he is not paying attention or he has to say he is taking too long because he has been involved in a rigorous review.

The president has had hours and hours and hours of meetings with his military commanders, with his national security team, to run through every aspect of this, in order to get it right. And we’ve seen in the past what happens when we don’t do that; when we don’t do the necessary preparations. And he is determined to get Afghanistan right. It is something that Secretary Gates supports. It is something that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff supports. General McChrystal has been supportive of this process.

And, you know, I know that Governor Romney has never had responsibility for any decision akin to this, and so he just may not be familiar with all that it entails. But I think the American people are being well served by a process that is assiduous and in which every aspect of this is considered. Because, after all, lives of American servicemen are involved here. An enormous investment on the part of the American people. We ought to get it right.

He’s Philosopher in Chief not Commander in Chief. Gen McCrystal had to force barry’s hand. It’s clear what he wants.

And why is Axelrod cleared to “observe”?

Who else is in there?

Tags: 9-11 murderers, 9-11 terror attacks, barry soetoro, GUANTANAMO BAY CLOSURE, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, , president obama, september 11 attacks, state of the union,

Mr Atty General, will you keep your word?

April 22, 2009

Good evening , Sir:

I just read a quote of yours and wonder if in fact you are a man of your word.

Here are your words:

We are going to follow the evidence, follow the law and take that where it leads.

No one is above the law.

By no one I take it you mean everyone is punishable under the law?

If so, what are you doing about the investigation in Barack Obama/barry soetoro’s birth certificate or lack there of?

Are you following the evidence?

Have you even looked at the Quo Warranto filing?

It’s not going away. It will always remain until someone decides to talk - and you know how many there are.

Who do you think it will be?

Another presidential tax cheat? Someone from his campaign? His cabinet?

You?

Mr Atty General, will you keep your word?

April 22, 2009

Good evening , Sir:

I just read a quote of yours and wonder if in fact you are a man of your word.

Here are your words:

We are going to follow the evidence, follow the law and take that where it leads.

No one is above the law.

By no one I take it you mean everyone is punishable under the law?

If so, what are you doing about the investigation in Barack Obama/barry soetoro’s birth certificate or lack there of?

Are you following the evidence?

Have you even looked at the Quo Warranto filing?

It’s not going away. It will always remain until someone decides to talk - and you know how many there are.

Who do you think it will be?

Another presidential tax cheat? Someone from his campaign? His cabinet?

You?

Taitz: Letter to the General Counsel of Admiral Mullen By mattie14

April 23, 2009

I can’t believe this. A legal document sent from Orly Taitz actually looks and sounds like a legal document - proofread with correct verb tenses, unemotional text, a concise summary and proper spacing. Kudos to the preparer of the letter. Now if they could organize the Dossiers. They are all different font and colors and have areas of white space that seems haphazard and sloppy. There should be a short summary of the evidence preceding the actual documents.

If one thinks about what these documents represent it’s clear why they need to be impeccable.

ORLY TAITZ WEBSITE

Letter to the General Counsel of Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

April 22nd, 2009
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
26302 La Paz ste 211
Mission Viejo CA92691
Phone 949-683-5411
Fax 949-586-2082

OrlyTaitzESQ.com
dr_taitz@yahoo.com

April 21, 2009

Attn: Captain James Crawford
Legal Counsel for Admiral Mullen
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Pentagon
Room 2D 938
Washington DC 20318-9999
Phone 703-697-1137

Dear Captain Crawford:

Enclosed are follow-up documents to our prior communication.

If you recall, I currently represent 160 plaintiffs, who include members of the US military with ranks as high as Major General. Some of these plaintiffs are also current State Representatives in their respective state legislatures.

This packet includes the following documents:

1. Verified Quo Warranto Complaint, which was filed by these US military plaintiffs and served on Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, demanding that Quo Warranto proceedings be instituted to prove that Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama is eligible for the position of the US President.

1. Verified Quo Warranto Complaint served on US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeffrey Taylor, demanding commencement of Quo Warranto proceedings for Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama to prove his eligibility for the position of the US President.

1. Dossiers 1 – 6, forwarded to US Attorney General Eric Holder, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Director of the Secret Service Mark Sullivan, and Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as to all of the Supreme Court associate justices. The dossiers include the following items:

a. Statement of federal agent Steven Coffman, presenting evidence that Barack Hussein Obama’s Selective Service certificate was forged and backdated. This evidence shows that Obama’s Selective Service certificate was prepared in 2008 and backdated to appear as if it was prepared in 1980. Failure to fill out a timely certification for selective service makes one ineligible for work in the executive branch of the US government, which understandably includes the presidency as the top position in the government.

b. Statement of Sandra Ramsey Lines, a forensic document examiner, explaining why the Certification of Live Birth, which was posted by Barack Obama on the internet, cannot be considered to be a genuine document and the reasons for the need to review the original vault copy of this document.

c. Statement of Jorje Baro, licensed private investigator, showing evidence of forgery in the Certification of Live Birth, which was posted on the internet by Barack Hussein Obama.

d. Statement of Neil Sankey, a licensed private investigator, identifying 100 addresses, located all over the US, for Barack and Michelle Obama. Since most of these addresses are connected to different social security numbers, this may constitute evidence of identity theft, social security fraud, tax evasion fraud, campaign contributions fraud, charitable organizations fraud and other related crimes.

e. School registration records from Indonesia showing that Barack Obama was legally registered under the name of Barry Soetoro (last name of his stepfather).

f. Barack Obama’s Illinois state bar registration, which he had to fill out in order to be licensed as an attorney in Illinois. In this document, Mr. Obama swears under oath that he did not have and never had any other prior names. In light of the Indonesian school registration records, itemized in 3 (e) above, this bar registration is evidence that Mr. Obama committed perjury.

g. Database of 130 current job positions for Barack H Obama, Barry Obama and Michelle Obama, which may be evidence of campaign contributions fraud, where contributions over the allowable amounts were documented as job positions. This may account for $300 million in unexplained campaign contributions.

h. Evidence of a cyber space campaign of character assassination, harassment and intimidations against my client, active duty officer Scott Easterling, and myself, as well as other cyber crimes.

As of today’s date, there has been no response to the receipt of these documents from Mr. Mueller, Mr. Sullivan or Mr. Taylor. A verbal response from the Justice Department was received, indicating that these documents were forwarded to Solicitor General Elena Kagan. The Department of Justice also sent another response, indicating that these documents were sent to its criminal division.

Meanwhile hundreds of US military personnel have filed Article 138 grievances under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, seeking verification of Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility for the position of Commander-in-Chief. These grievances are based on the fact that Barack Obama has held a foreign citizenship status from birth, which makes him ineligible to comply with the Natural Born Citizen requirement in Article II, Section 1 [5] of the US Constitution, regardless of the actual physical location of his birth. Although Mr. Obama has consistently refused to produce a long form copy of his birth certificate to prove his claims that he was born in Hawaii, that document is basically irrelevant. Mr. Obama is Constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of US President because his parents conveyed dual US/UK citizenship to him at birth. Any foreign citizenship automatically eradicates a “natural born” status. His father’s United Kingdom citizenship was automatically conferred on all of his father’s children, including Barack Hussein Obama, at the moment of birth. Mr. Obama has openly acknowledged that he held this dual citizenship and that he became a citizen of Kenya at age two, when Kenya gained its independence from the UK. At approximately age 5, Mr. Obama became a citizen of Indonesia and his legal name was changed to Barry Soetoro. There is no evidence that his name was ever legally changed after that point in time.

When Scott Easterling, one of the military officers who instituted the Quo Warranto action, first questioned Mr. Obama’s eligibility, an investigation was launched against Lt. Easterling instead of investigating the questions surrounding Mr. Obama’s eligibility. Article 138 of the UCMJ gives each and every member of the US military the right to obtain a resolution for his grievances against a commanding officer without any negative repercussions to himself. Please provide a speedy response to the UCMJ Article 138 investigation request to verify Barack Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to be a US president.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Yours very truly,
Orly Taitz

Defend Our Freedoms Petition

March 31, 2009

Orly Taitz's site Defend our Freedoms' petition. Not sure why they are lumped together - especially Tim Geithner. He a whole separate problem. Why should he be indicted? Tax fraud? Harboring an illegal alien? barry's doing the same thing with his Inauguration attending illegal alien auntie. Another post that never got posted. Treason is going a tad far.

There's a site dedicated to petitions - ipetitions - had no idea.

PETITION

We will be running petitions and giving you a voice. We will tally the numbers.

Redress of grievances-Petition for indictment of Timothy Geitner, Barack Obama, Supreme Court clerk for stays Danny Bickel, Judges that refuse to uphold Constitution and hear the cases of Obama's ineligibility on the merits and members of Congress and Senate, that refuse to hold Judicial hearings and sign subpoenas for all of Obama's vital records.

Do you think Timothy Geitner should be indicted? Why yes and why not?

Should Obama be indicted for massive fraud of American people and treason?

Should the judges be indicted for not upholding constitution and not hearing the cases of Obama's lack of eligibility?

Should clerk Danny Bickel be indicted for interfering with the justice system?

Should attorney general Eric Holder be indicted for not investigating all of Obama's illegal acts?

Should the Congressmen and Senators be indicted for not holding judicial committee hearings on BO's illegitimacy for presidency?

Orly Taitz letter to Chief Justice Roberts (3-26)

March 28, 2009

Orly Taitz's follow up letter to Chief Justice Roberts after ambushing him at University of Idaho on March 13th. [See links after her letter.] I wish someone would proofread it for her. He should at least receive a greeting and a thank you for accepting her question and her papers when he was under no obligation to do so. And the facts should be presented neutrally and for sure no ultimatum should be given before he has a chance to respond. He is the highest Justice in the land and should be afforded the respect his position demands - no matter the frustration.

How is this helping?

Your Justices having no clue about any of Obama ineligibility cases, that they supposedly heard in conference five times.

Now is not the time to blow it. A simple status cover letter and then a listing of the facts on a separate sheet would have been better. I know the facts, and this was overwhelming, disjointed and in your face. A lawyer, if nothing else, has to build his/her case logically, and in order to believe the case, Justice Roberts first has to believe the person presenting it.

His first impression reading this is not going to entice him to read more. There have to be citizens willing to proofread the letter and respond immediately with an edited version. Please use them.

Anyone over at Defend our Freedoms Foundation - now is the time to be professional and patient. Yes, it has been frustrating, and it's hard to believe people still think this is a joke or vendetta or a bunch of crazy sore losers - but you have his attention. Give him some time to review everything. Eric Holder just got sworn in. The truth is coming - please give it time and please be courteous. Justice Roberts was caught on tape saying he would review it - he can't back down. And in case anyone needs reminding, men in positions of power are not too fond of women getting in their faces.

Letter is as written - spacing added.

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

Counsel for the Petitioners in Lightfoot v Bowen
Counsel for the Petitioners in Easterling et al v Obama et al

Chief Justice John J. Roberts
Supreme Court of the United States

This is to remind you that on 03.13.09. I have presented you with the motion for reconsideration in Lightfoot v Bowen, Quo Warranto in Easterling et al v Obama et al and a 164 page dossier of suspected illegal and criminal activity surrounding Mr. Obama and his supporters, that was written on 03.01.09 and sent on Attorney general Holder on 03.03.09. In front of 1200 students and faculty of the University of Moscow, Idaho you agreed to review those documents. This is a matter of National Security and National urgency and as of yet there was no response from you or Attorney General Holder, nor Robert Mueller, Director of FBI, that was copied on this dossier.

On 03.25.09. I arrived to the Washington DC and personally had delivered copies of the above documents to both the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice.
I have received a letter from your clerk William K Suter, that relates to the pleadings received on the 23rd and does not mention any documents submitted on the 13th, and I am not sure you are aware of this letter, as you didn't seem to be aware of other matters in the Supreme Court. Mr. Suter stated, that Quo Warranto and Writ of Mandamus don't comply with the rules and I can file a petition for exraordinary writ of MANDAMUS, and I have to file it with the court. He didn't specify what rules he is talking about and this statement seems to be incorrect, since I have filed Quo Warranto as an original jurisdiction case, which doesn't need to be in the form of extraordinary writ of Mandamus. Mr. Suter also stated that the Rules of this Court make no provision for the Motion for Reconsideration of an application, however the rules of this court make no provision for many other out of the ordinary acts, that happened on your watch, including and not limited to:

1. Justices of the Supreme Court meeting behind close doors with Obama, who is a person of interest and subject of litigation of my petition, that was scheduled to be heard only a few days later.

2. Any mention of my case, stating that Mr. Obama is ineligible for US presidency, being erased from the External docket of the Supreme Court right after the inauguration and two days before the case was supposed to be heard.

3. Your clerks lying to the citizens and defaming me by claiming that the above events didn't happen, even though hundreds of citizens saw it and are prepared to testify in court in regards to such events.

4. Clerk Danny Bickel on his own accord refusing to file one of two supplemental briefs I've submitted.

5. Your Justices having no clue about any of Obama ineligibility cases, that they supposedly heard in conference five times.

6. Supreme Court Justice getting all of this information and doing nothing about, while under an obligation to act and correct the wrong.

7. Supreme Court Justices getting information in regarding to criminal activity and not reporting it for further investigation by law enforcement.

8. Supreme Court Justices deciding not to hear on the merits any and all cases in regards to president's ineligibility, while finding more value in a case deling with the rights of smokers of light cigarettes to sue tobacco. It appears the right of a few trial lawyers to make millions of dollars of such litigation was more important then the right of 305 million Americans to have a legitimate president.

9. Yesterday, on 03.25.09. I was able to meet with the National Selective Service Director, Mr. Chatfield, who could not explain any inconsistencies and suspected signs of forgery in the Selective Service Certificate presented to the public by Mr. Obama. For example, according to the retired federal agent Coffman, the serial number of the certificate on the top shows first two numbers to be 08, meaning it was created in 2008, while on the bottom an extra 8 was added, to make it look like it was created in 1980. Similarly, National Director was clueless and provided no explanation to the wrong seal, wrong dates and wrong form number.

9. Recently I have read the book "Making your Case", that Justice Scalia autographed for me. On page 77 it states " Another factor distinctive to petitions for certiorari is that the judges don't like to spend a lot of time deciding what to decide. Indeed in most courts they won't even read the brief in support of your petition but will rely on summaries (or on selection of particular briefs) by law clerks'. When you have unscrupulous clerks and the issue is National Security this is inconceivable.

One of old maxims in legal practice, is that the substance trumps form. The substance dictates, that under such conditions, it is your obligation to uphold the constitution of the United States and to issue a stay to Mr. Obama's functioning in the capacity of the president and commander in Chief and give him a reasonable time of 24 hours or 48 hours to present all of his vital records or sign a consent for release of such records. If he is not willing to do so, then per the 20th amendment, Mr. Biden becomes a temporary president for two or three months, until a new president and be chosen in a special election.

Justice Roberts, if you are unwilling to do so, it is your constitutional and moral duty to resign and let another Justice uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

Respectfully submitted. and is being hand delivered on my way to the airport, flying back to California,

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
Counsel for the Petitioners.
***

(3-28) Updated list or Orly Taitz posts
(3-13) Orly Taitz delivers documents to Chief Justice Roberts
(3-13) AP reporter’s take on Taitz - Justice Roberts interaction
(3-16) Orly Taitz shout out to Mr Richard Holley in Moscow Idaho for his assistance
(3-16) Orly Taitz questions Chief Justice Roberts (audio/text)
(3-21) Orly Taitz questions Chief Justice Roberts (video)
(3-17) Orly Taitz outs Danny Bickell to Justice Roberts
(3-18) Explanation: Danny Bickell
(3-18) Leo Donofrio vs Danny boy Bickell (Nov 13th)
(3-24) Leo Donofrio vs Danny boy Bickell (Nov 12th)
(3-3) Taitz: Pre-Litigation Quo Warranto Letter to Atty Gen Holder
(3-6) Orly Taitz’s military & office holding plaintiffs
(3-25) Orly Taitz: Documents present and accounted for at DOJ & SCOTUS

barry re: Holder’s “nation of cowards”

March 7, 2009

I find this hysterical. Mr Transcender of Race decided to come forward and pretend he really intended to Unite! As usual, he waited to see the fallout before he commented.

Was there a poll re: Holder’s comments?

barry appointee Atty General Eric–I forgot to mention I dealt with impeached governor Rod Blagojevich–Holder made his thoughts known that “in things racial we have always been and we, I believe, continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.”

He was speaking to a rapt audience at the Department of Justice marking Black History Month.

He had the barry obamanating thing going on though: I believe…too many ways…essentially. He didn’t even have the moral fortitude to come right out and say: ‘I believe we have always been and still are a nation of cowards.’

Then he could at least garner some respect.

As was - he covered his bases, saying what was expected, while leaving himself some qualifiers.

That was February 19th.

My post then (with video).

March 6th is when barry decides to speak out and only because he was with Holder in Ohio.

What is going to happen to those officers when the money runs out next year? Will he go back to take credit for that, too?

And haven’t we had enough of these made-for-documentary campaign moments?

Anyway. CNN:

BARRY: I think it’s fair to say that if I had been advising my attorney general, we would have used different language.

I think..it’s fair to say…if I had been…attorney general. Never any definitive statements and he made sure not to mention Holder’s name.

I think the point that he was making is that we’re oftentimes uncomfortable with talking about race until there’s some sort of racial flare-up or conflict, and that we could probably be more constructive in facing up to the painful legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and discrimination.

And I’m not somebody who believes that constantly talking about race somehow solves racial tensions.

Only when he needs the votes.

I think what solves racial tensions is fixing the economy, putting people to work, making sure that people have health care, ensuring that every kid is learning out here.

I think if we do that, then we’ll probably have more fruitful conversations.

We’ve made enormous progress and we shouldn’t lose sight of that.

So much so, 8 million eligible black voters couldn’t be bothered to register to vote for barry.

***

Rev Lowery: “When white will embrace what’s right”

John Ridley: “Are you black enough to be part of all this?”

DL Hughley: “The Republican Convention looked like Nazi Germany”

Taitz: Pre-Litigation Quo Warranto Letter to Atty Gen Holde

March 3, 2009

barry nemesis Orly Taitz isn’t one of those cowards in Att General Eric Holder’s “nation of cowards“. Here is her pre-litigation quo warranto letter to him.

As I understand it - the Att General would be the one to handle the quo warranto od federal office holders - barry - but there’s an obviosu conflict of interest.

barry did not show prima facie evidence before the election - the electors didn’t ask for it - Hawaii’s privacy laws withholding barry’s long form birth certificate prevented them from doing it. And the Relator’s [servicemembers] oath of office grants them “standing” to pursue the matter.

Taitz wants:

• Holder to recuse himself.
• Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to look into it.
• To be allowed in on it herself.
• Patrick Fitzgerald be brought in on it.
• Holder make a decision as to the special prosecutor within a week.

And if he doesn’t she will proceed.

I’m not sure what type of relationship she has with Patrick Fitzgerald, who I’m sure has preordered blago’s book. Does he want in on it or is it because he has all the info via blago and Rezko et al? I must have missed this connection somewhere.

[emphasis added]

***
Attorney General, Eric H. Holder Jr.
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001 USA

March 1, 2009

Honorable Attorney General Holder

Re: Request a Special Assistant for the United States to relate Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama, II to Test His Title to President before the Supreme Court

Relators, Major General Carroll Childers, Ret; Lt. Col Dr. David Earl-Graef; Navy and Police officer Mr. Clinton Grimes; Lt. Scott Easterling, currently serving in Iraq; Major James Cannon, US Marine Corps, Ret; New Hampshire State Representative Mr. Timothy Comerford; Tennessee State Representative Mr. Frank Nicely, State of Alabama 2008 electoral college elector Mr. Robert Cusanelli bring information for Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama, II, testing his title to President per attached relation.

Relators include:

Robert Cusanelli, Elector for 7th District, State of Alabama, in the 2008 Electoral College;

Frank Nicely, State Representative of Tennessee in his official capacity;

Timothy Comerford, State Representative of New Hampshire in his official capacity;

Major General Carroll Childers, 29th Infantry Div VA retired, lifetime subject to recall; Numerous decorations

1st Lt. Scott R. Easterling OD LG US Army on active duty in Iraq;

Clint Grimes, Sergeant Long Beach Police Officer & CDR/0-5 US Navy (Active Reserve). Numerous decorations, including two National defense medals, two Navy commendation medals

Dr. David Earl-Graef, Lieutenant Colonel Air Force MC, Military Surgeon- Active Reserve. Numerous decorations including Air Force outstanding unit with valor.

James Cannon Major US Marine Corps, Ret, lifetime subject to recall. Numerous awards, including Bronze Star with combat V and two Purple Hearts.

Relator’s oath of office grants standing. Relators are affected by actions of Respondent Obama and the outcome of this Quo Warranto, and thus have interest above citizens.

Information on Quo Warranto against a Federal Officer is normally related to the Attorney General to raise on behalf of the United States in U.S. District court of the District of Columbia per DC Code 16-3502. However, the Attorney General defends the office of President and is appointed by the President. For the Attorney General to bring Quo Warranto on the President raises an intrinsic conflict of interest. USAM 3-2.170 Historically, a Special Prosecutor or Independent Counsel was appointed to eliminate such conflicts of interest, e.g., Attorney General Elliot Richardson appointed Archibald Cox as the Watergate Special Prosecutor over issues touching on President Nixon.

This information on Quo Warranto includes action between the United States ex rel. and the State of Hawaii over original birth records of Barack H. Obama II being withheld per Hawaii’s privacy laws. Hawaii’s action obstructs the constitutional duties of election officers to validate or evaluate President Election Obama qualifications to become President under U.S. CONST. art II - 1 and Amend. XX – 3.

As President Elect, Respondent Obama failed to submit prima facie evidence of his qualifications before January 20, 2009. Election officers failed to challenge, validate or evaluate his qualifications. Relators submit that as President Elect, Respondent Obama failed qualify per U.S. CONST. Amend. XX – 3.

Such negligence and misprision threaten to nullify these essential safeguards. Thus Relators request this Quo Warranto be related to the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction.

Enclosed is a summary motion for leave to file Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama II aka Barry Soetoro, with the Supreme Court. The list of Questions Presented is attached. A full brief supporting this motion is in preparation.

1) Relators respectfully pray that the Attorney General recuse himself over bringing this Quo Warranto for the United States on Barack H. Obama II, by reason of intrinsic conflict of interest.

2) Relators pray the Attorney General appoint a Special Assistant (prosecutor) of Archibald Cox’s reputation and expertise, to relate this Quo Warranto to the Supreme Court per 28 USC 543.

3) Relators request that their attorney, Orly Taitz, ESQ DDS, assist in relating this Quo Warranto, being recognized at bar before the Supreme Court.

4) Relators further request the assistance of Patrick Fitzgerald, United States Attorney General for the Northern District of Illinois, as having familiarity with issues involving Barack H. Obama II while Senator from Illinois and as President Elect.

5) Relators request guidance from the Attorney General, within one week of receipt of this information, regarding his decision on whether to appoint such a Special Assistant.

With respect, in absence of such guidance, Relators will proceed to request leave from the Supreme Court to relate information for this Quo Warranto on Mr. Obama to test his title.

Yours Sincerely,

Orly Taitz, ESQ

Attorney for Relators

Encl. Motion to Supreme Court for leave to relate Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama II, testing his title to the Federal office of President.

Taitz: Pre-Litigation Quo Warranto Letter to Atty Gen Holder

March 3, 2009

barry nemesis Orly Taitz isn't one of those cowards in Att General Eric Holder's "nation of cowards". Here is her pre-litigation quo warranto letter to him.

As I understand it - the Att General would be the one to handle the quo warranto od federal office holders - barry - but there's an obviosu conflict of interest.

barry did not show prima facie evidence before the election - the electors didn't ask for it - Hawaii's privacy laws withholding barry's long form birth certificate prevented them from doing it. And the Relator's [servicemembers] oath of office grants them "standing" to pursue the matter.

Taitz wants:

• Holder to recuse himself.
• Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to look into it.
• To be allowed in on it herself.
• Patrick Fitzgerald be brought in on it.
• Holder make a decision as to the special prosecutor within a week.

And if he doesn't she will proceed.

I'm not sure what type of relationship she has with Patrick Fitzgerald, who I'm sure has preordered blago's book. Does he want in on it or is it because he has all the info via blago and Rezko et al? I must have missed this connection somewhere.

[emphasis added]

***
Attorney General, Eric H. Holder Jr.
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001 USA

March 1, 2009

Honorable Attorney General Holder

Re: Request a Special Assistant for the United States to relate Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama, II to Test His Title to President before the Supreme Court

Relators, Major General Carroll Childers, Ret; Lt. Col Dr. David Earl-Graef; Navy and Police officer Mr. Clinton Grimes; Lt. Scott Easterling, currently serving in Iraq; Major James Cannon, US Marine Corps, Ret; New Hampshire State Representative Mr. Timothy Comerford; Tennessee State Representative Mr. Frank Nicely, State of Alabama 2008 electoral college elector Mr. Robert Cusanelli bring information for Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama, II, testing his title to President per attached relation.

Relators include:

Robert Cusanelli, Elector for 7th District, State of Alabama, in the 2008 Electoral College;

Frank Nicely, State Representative of Tennessee in his official capacity;

Timothy Comerford, State Representative of New Hampshire in his official capacity;

Major General Carroll Childers, 29th Infantry Div VA retired, lifetime subject to recall; Numerous decorations

1st Lt. Scott R. Easterling OD LG US Army on active duty in Iraq;

Clint Grimes, Sergeant Long Beach Police Officer & CDR/0-5 US Navy (Active Reserve). Numerous decorations, including two National defense medals, two Navy commendation medals

Dr. David Earl-Graef, Lieutenant Colonel Air Force MC, Military Surgeon- Active Reserve. Numerous decorations including Air Force outstanding unit with valor.

James Cannon Major US Marine Corps, Ret, lifetime subject to recall. Numerous awards, including Bronze Star with combat V and two Purple Hearts.

Relator's oath of office grants standing. Relators are affected by actions of Respondent Obama and the outcome of this Quo Warranto, and thus have interest above citizens.

Information on Quo Warranto against a Federal Officer is normally related to the Attorney General to raise on behalf of the United States in U.S. District court of the District of Columbia per DC Code 16-3502. However, the Attorney General defends the office of President and is appointed by the President. For the Attorney General to bring Quo Warranto on the President raises an intrinsic conflict of interest. USAM 3-2.170 Historically, a Special Prosecutor or Independent Counsel was appointed to eliminate such conflicts of interest, e.g., Attorney General Elliot Richardson appointed Archibald Cox as the Watergate Special Prosecutor over issues touching on President Nixon.

This information on Quo Warranto includes action between the United States ex rel. and the State of Hawaii over original birth records of Barack H. Obama II being withheld per Hawaii's privacy laws. Hawaii's action obstructs the constitutional duties of election officers to validate or evaluate President Election Obama qualifications to become President under U.S. CONST. art II - 1 and Amend. XX – 3.

As President Elect, Respondent Obama failed to submit prima facie evidence of his qualifications before January 20, 2009. Election officers failed to challenge, validate or evaluate his qualifications. Relators submit that as President Elect, Respondent Obama failed qualify per U.S. CONST. Amend. XX – 3.

Such negligence and misprision threaten to nullify these essential safeguards. Thus Relators request this Quo Warranto be related to the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction.

Enclosed is a summary motion for leave to file Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama II aka Barry Soetoro, with the Supreme Court. The list of Questions Presented is attached. A full brief supporting this motion is in preparation.

1) Relators respectfully pray that the Attorney General recuse himself over bringing this Quo Warranto for the United States on Barack H. Obama II, by reason of intrinsic conflict of interest.

2) Relators pray the Attorney General appoint a Special Assistant (prosecutor) of Archibald Cox's reputation and expertise, to relate this Quo Warranto to the Supreme Court per 28 USC 543.

3) Relators request that their attorney, Orly Taitz, ESQ DDS, assist in relating this Quo Warranto, being recognized at bar before the Supreme Court.

4) Relators further request the assistance of Patrick Fitzgerald, United States Attorney General for the Northern District of Illinois, as having familiarity with issues involving Barack H. Obama II while Senator from Illinois and as President Elect.

5) Relators request guidance from the Attorney General, within one week of receipt of this information, regarding his decision on whether to appoint such a Special Assistant.

With respect, in absence of such guidance, Relators will proceed to request leave from the Supreme Court to relate information for this Quo Warranto on Mr. Obama to test his title.

Yours Sincerely,

Orly Taitz, ESQ

Attorney for Relators

Encl. Motion to Supreme Court for leave to relate Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama II, testing his title to the Federal office of President.

Eric Holder gives a shoutout to "nation of cowards"

February 19, 2009

Just one more example of The Double Standard. It has reached a point of absolute hilarity. Stereotypical whitey jokes, redneck jokes, white trash jokes are told in great abundance in all sorts of affected voices by blacks and nothing gets said. But all hell breaks lose in the other direction.

There is an abundance of video, print and audio evidence of how barry used The Double Standard to get elected. He used the race card at every turn - the pro-barry press a more than willing advocate. He used it to get the black vote behind him in South Carolina and he kept using it to exploit white guilt. And when he got called out using the race card--it took three denials until he actually admitted to it--he accused McCain supporters of yelling "Kill him".

Mr Uniter left The American People he is always talking about but never to with that as the final thought in the final debate. He let The American People that he claimed to want to bring together believe that it was true when it was a complete and utter lie--proven by his own Secret Service--that could never be taken back.

And it is something that Mr Integrity has still never publicly apologized for.

Words clearly do not matter to barry.

He did not become president because blacks "came out in record numbers" to vote for Change! themselves - he is president because a nation of cowards voted for him.

A cartoon of a dead monkey calls for outrage - but a "Too Bad Hillary Didn't Marry OJ" t-shirt does not.

An effigy of barry is discovered and he gets a personal apology within hours. An effigy of Governor Palin with a noose around her neck and hands tied behind her back is allowed to hang for three weeks and is passed off as "art".

REV LOWERY: "when white will embrace what is right"

JOHN RIDLEY: “Are you black enough to be part of all this?"

Now it's Attorney General, Eric Holder's turn. A man whose family hails from Barbados, a man who was initially given a job by that evil racist President Clinton and a man who received an elite education is coming forward talking about frank discussions about race and the need for changes in the way American History is taught.

What is it he has been doing?

Why is he only know bringing this up?

He says he was inspired by barry's politically expedient speech.

So how meaningful are his words?

3rdworldinvasiom

HOLDER: To get to the heart of this country, one must examine its racial soul.

Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as a ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and we, I believe, continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.

...[Race] is an issue we have never been at ease with and given our nation's history this is in some ways understandable.

And yet, if we are to make progress in this area, we must feel comfortable enough with one another and tolerant enough of each other to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us.

And who exactly is to change our nation's history?

What's in it for the cowards?

Mr Holder has an American History and Law degree. He is arguably one of the most high profile Clinton Administration personnel. So, if this issue has been so pressing to him, what has he personally done since the Clinton Administration? How many curricula has he demanded be changed? How has he worked to bring about change--himself?

How much campaigning do you think he did for barry?

And how are--why are--cowards to "feel comfortable enough with one another and tolerant enough of each other to have frank conversations" when the one saying these words wasn't honest enough or comfortable enough or frank enough about his connections with newly impeached Gov Blagojevich?

Words don't matter?

What has Mr Transcender of Race done?

Gave one teleprompter race speech where he equated a raging, hate-spewing, anti-American racist "man of God" with his typical white person grandmother just to save his own skin - the white part of which he had refused to acknowledge until that day. Suddenly, when Mr Political Expedience needed the whiteys again, he became "biracial" not black.

And to offset the ignorant vitriol screamed by his spiritual mentor of 20 years - which whiteys can't understand because they haven't been to black churches - he told an uncorroboratable story about his typical white person grandmother. The selfless woman, who had raised him when his alcoholic polygamous father completely abandoned him as trash for Harvard and another white woman, the woman whose final birthday he could not stay to celebrate, the woman whose funeral he could not find time enough to attend, the woman whose coworkers were outraged by his insinuations that she was a racist he equated to a man who raged from the pulpit that Michelle Obama's predecessor "ain't never been called a nigger" and that the government was responsible for AIDS and the single greatest act of terrorism committed against American where 2973 innocent women, men, wifes, husbands, mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, sisters, brothers, Catholics, Jews, Hindis, Muslims, Christians, Americans and foreign nationals were murdered by savages, who were incited by a similar deranged man of hate similarly using the Word of God as his justification.

Forget politics - what does this say about barry as a human being?

As a father of two girls who are 1/4 white and who are that typical white person's great grandchildren?

As a son and grandson who was not at his mother's or grandmother's side when they died?

What does it say about him as a brother that he allowed his sister, who had cared for that typical white person who had raised him while he lived free of filial responsibility, to bury and mourn for his typical white person grandmother all by herself - with not support or caring hand - when he had more than the means to be by her side?

How many typical white persons have a biracial grandson as President of the United States?

How many typical white person cowards voted for the man who said that about his typical white person grandmother?

And how many typical non-white persons did not vote for barry?

8 MILLION eligible black voters could not be bothered to register to vote for the first biracial president.

8 MILLION - 1/3 of eligible black voters - did not even bother to help bring about Change!

And there was just a 3% increase in the black vote after 8 years of Bush and with barry in line to be president.

Cowards?

Whose job, responsibility, mandate or whatever is it to change the way history is taught?

The cowardly folks having frank discussions at the kitchen table and then not voting because they "didn't think a black man could win"?

Or the other cowards who got out there and voted?

If one wants change, one must take the first step by oneself and it sure the hell didn't happen this election.

That is the frank discussion that needs to happen.

How often did the black pundits who talked about race race race every day day day mention the lack of black voter turnout?

Plenty of whiteys are bitter racists who won't vote for a black man ranting...but when those bitter whiteys volunteered, registered, campaigned and voted for barry - there wasn't a single word about the blacks who did not volunteer, who did not campaign, who did not voter or the 8 million who couldn't find the time to vote for the first biracial president in history.

Why?

Because there would be no cowards to blame.

The smoothest transition ever!!!

January 19, 2009

Everything barry does is the best ever! He is getting rave reviews for the smoothest transition in history:

Despite his two top aides Valerie Jarrett (talked with SEIU) and Rahm Emanuel (talked with blago multiple times) and barry himself having to be interviewed by the Feds because of their involvement with Blagojevich.

Despite his pick to head the National Economic Council, Larry Summers, who thinks women's minds are innately defective and not geared to mathematics and the sciences and that it's ok for pollution to be exported to undeveloped countries because it's cheaper to treat their potential health hazards.

Despite his pick for Commerce Secretary, Bill Richardson being involved in a federal investigation with more proof at present than blago's own alleged pay-to-play scheme.

Despite his appointee for National Intelligence Admiral Blair's questionable involvement in Indonesia.

Despite his Treasury Secretary (who will head the IRS) Tim Geitner - not paying his taxes ("an innocent mistake") even after he was audited and oh by the way didn't know that his housekeeper was an illegal alien.

Despite his pick for Attorney General, Eric Holder "forgot" to mention his involvement with blagojevich.

Despite his pick to head the CIA Leon Panetta has no intelligence experience .

Despite his first choice for CIA John Brennan had to bow out because of his - however nebulous - involvement with Bush's policy on harsh interrogation.

I'm sure there are more. And then there are the lobbyists barry was going to root out! How blind are folks? And barry's famed reaching across the aisle that he has no personal history of doing? He's laying the load on Sen McCain should something fall through and of course he needs McCain in the Senate, since McCain has a proven track record of acting and making a deciding vote.

Everything barry does is politically expedient. The only way the proobamedia is going to see that is when he actually has to act. So far he has been consistently "redefining" his view on almost everything. Does anyone know his views on illegal immigration? What's his latest on Iraq? Taxes? Guantanamo Bay? And many many more.

Yes, he has sought McCain's counsel - but has he publicly apologized for his comment in the debate--the last thing the electorate heard--that McCain's supporters were yelling "kill him"? It was a complete falsehood. But how are people to know that when the MSM is ignorant of the facts - still. And did barry ever make a stand on Rep Lewis' comments comparing McCain to George Wallace? No.

Uniter?

Transcender of Race?

Mr Transparency?

Right. Who still is buying that? And the release of his birth certificate? A list of his donors? His school and medical records?

How is that anything but a typical barry obamanation?

What is it going to take folks?

Barry's first unilateral decision with consequences will be as Commander in Chief and may very well be at 3am on 1/21.

You ok with that?

Gitmo: what's barry saying lately?

January 17, 2009

What are the chances barry closes down Guantanamo Bay on day 1 like promised? What good is an executive order that never gets executed? Anyone think it will happen in his first term? And they sure better not be brought to the US and given rights afforded the people they have vowed (and have gone back) to kill. How many daily briefings is he going to need to figure it out?

(ADAM LEVINE/CNN)

(11-12-08) Washington Post

OBAMA ADVISOR: There is always a risk of acquittal, and there is a risk some people who are released will return to the battlefield. There is no risk-free option.

(1-11-09) This Week. Stephanopoulos asks if barry will close it in the first 100 days?

OBAMA: That's a challenge. I think it's going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do. But I don't want to be ambiguous about this. (??) We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our constitution.

(1-14-09) DENVER POST

61 of the 520 released detainees have returned to killing Americans. In March, 37. That's an increase from 7% - 11%.

How many innocent Americans can one suicide or car bomber kill? And all 61?

What about the ones who haven't died or been caught? The ones they have lost track of? It has to be much higher number than that. And then add in all the ones they will infect.

They should implant little GPS chips into them. Maybe an anti-detonation device. And then castrate them. Go ahead and sue me. There are a bunch of Yemeni savages who will go home and "marry" their 10 y/o cousins to create more hate and oppression.

Why such care and concern for human rights in a camp detaining criminals sworn to kill when there is none for the little girls whose souls they are killing every night?

How is waterboarding a vowing to continue to kill terrorist compare to the repeated raping of a 10 y/o child by a man 2-6 times her age?

Those cavemen choose their punishment - the little girls do not.

(1-15-09) CNN

Holder's confirmation hearing. A third group of inmates, Holder indicated, can't be tried "for a variety of reasons" but also can't be released because they are too dangerous. For that reason, the Obama administration won't be able to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility "as soon as we'd like."

(1-16-09) NewsOK

There's campaigning and there's governing. There's rhetoric and there's policy...Until Obama figures it all out, the grand pronouncements on Gitmo are just more political grandstanding.

(1-16-09) Washington Post: EU not yet asked to take Gitmo detainees

(11-20-08) English al-Jazeera spin on it

(11-7-08) Four reasons Obama won't close Gitmo soon.

(1-16-09) Excellent recap with barry's own words