From Conception...To Election

"Preventing an individual with plural loyalties, whether by biological, political or geographic origins, which may present lawful or perceptable doubt as to his allegiances thereof, other than one with the fullmost sovereignty of advanced citizenry, which is that of one who remains Natural-born from conception to election, from assuming the great power of this fragile office, was, without tolerance or vulnerability, the exaction of purpose of our fathers to induce the mandate of presidential eligibility upon our blood-ransomed Constitution..." Pen Johannson ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.

Thursday, April 12, 2012


DAMAGE CONTROL: A recent ballot challenge hearing in New Jersey exposes a desperate strategy by Obama to distance himself from his forged certificate and induce the contrived value of his transient political popularity as the only “legitimate qualification” needed to hold the office of the presidency.

Commentary by Dan Crosby

Updated 04/17/12

NEW YORK, NY – After a Maricopa County law enforcement agency conducted a six-month forensic examination which determined that the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth posted to a government website in April, 2011 is a digital fabrication and that it did not originate from a genuine paper document, arguments from an Obama eligibility lawyer during a recent New Jersey ballot challenge hearing reveals the image was not only a fabrication, but that it was likely part of a contrived plot by counterfeiters to endow Obama with mere political support while simultaneously making the image intentionally appear absurd and, therefore, invalid as evidence toward proving Obama’s ineligibility in a court of law.

Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, agreed with arguments that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.

Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate.

During the hearing, Hill's concession was showcased by the following exchange:

Judge Masin asked Hill, “I understand you have a general objection before we get to the question of what is his (Obama’s) qualifications?”

“Yes, I have an objection as to relevance,” replied Hill, as to the plaintiffs’ witness testimony regarding the authenticity of the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 'Certificate of Live Birth'.

Hill then attempted to have the judge declare that Obama was preeminently eligible without any legal responsibility to prove with documentation that he was, in fact, qualified to hold the office of the presidency.

“The objectors carry the burden of proof to show that a candidate is not eligible under New Jersey statutes,” Hill said.

Hill’s misunderstanding of administrative law reveals a strategy to defend Obama’s fraudulent election in which our legal system has reversed the legal assignment of burden of proof in order to equate eligibility with a legal definition of innocence of a crime for Obama.

Unfortunately for Obama, eligibility for political office does not fall under the precepts of criminalogical reasoning of "innocent until proven guilty", unless a charge is made that a crime has been committed, such as forgery or fraud, in order to deceive people about your identity or citizenship status. Obama's ineligibility, by itself, is not a crime...being fraudulently elected by deceiving voters is.

Simply put, Obama does not have a right to hold an office he is not eligible for and, therefore, he is not harmed by a lawful denial of an opportunity to hold the office he is not eligible for. Therefore, must prove he is eligible in order to avoid harming others by his illegitimate election.

Hill incorrectly argued that Obama is automatically eligible until proven ineligible, yet she sought to suppress the very evidence which shows that Obama’s eligibility has never actually been proven to begin with.

In doing so, Hill stated, “Photographs (of Obama’s alleged birth certificate) are not relevant as to the discussion of the law today.”

Then, shockingly, Hill went on to agree with widely publicized suspicions that the image of Obama’s alleged Certificate of Live Birth is, indeed, a fabrication. She conceding that the plaintiffs’ arguments against the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate were valid saying, “I understand that they have great arguments (that the internet image of Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery), but I don’t see how that is relevant in this case.”

Absurdly, Obama’s position, as contorted by Hill, is that his appearance on New Jersey's presidential ballot is not related to his actual eligibility to be president.

At the hearing, attorney for the plaintiffs, Mario Apuzzo, correctly argued that Obama, under the Constitution, has to be a “natural born Citizen” and that he has not met his burden of showing that he is eligible to be on the New Jersey primary ballot by showing that he is indeed a “natural born Citizen.” He argued that Obama has shown no authenticate evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State demonstrating who he is and that he was born in the United States. Apuzzo also argued that as a matter of law, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” because he was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen.

As Obama’s legal argument becomes more contorted, he is being forced to survive in an ever shrinking legal space, under an ever increasing weight, of his failure to meet constitutional eligibility requirements.

Hill, of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi Attorneys in Newark, made a desperate motion to dismiss the ballot objection arguing that Obama’s lack of natural-born citizenship status was not relevant to being placed on the New Jersey presidential ballot because no law exists in New Jersey which says that a candidate’s appearance on the ballot must be supported by evidence of natural born citizenship status. Only the U.S. constitution restricts eligibility to hold the office of president to natural born citizens.

Judge Masin denied the motion to dismiss and the case proceeded to trial.

“Sadly, regardless of her moral deficiency, Hill is legally justified,” says TDP Editor, Penbrook Johannson, “Obama's eligibility is a separate matter than the charges of forgery and fraud. Of course, we have evidence that he is not eligible. But, evidence of forgery by as yet unidentified counterfeiters working on behalf of Obama is not what legally excludes Obama from appearing on a ballot, by itself, until some authority is willing to consider this as evidence of forgery on its merit as an indication of actual ineligibility in a court of legal authority. Until some court of competent jurisdiction is willing to hear evidence of forgery and fraud, you can’t legally punish a political candidate for that crime which has not been proven that they committed. However, since Obama is not eligible because of a lack of authenticated evidence to the contrary, he could be held off the ballot for that reason.”

According to Johannson, there is an overwhelming level of moral certainty that Obama is a usurper, but until a court with jurisdiction considers this case, Obama’s status as a legitimate president is in limbo.

"He does not exist as a president except in the imagination of those who blindly support him. Whereas he is politically desired by a transient consensus, his legality is unresolved until a responsible court makes a determination. This is the essence of our crisis. Our nation exists in a state of non-authorized identity. Obama is just some guy calling himself a president and living in the White House without the confirmative authority to do so."

Obama’s document forgery and fraudulent presidency have now forced him to flee to a “strange twilight zone” between political popularity and legal legitimacy where poorly counterfeited records are apparently allowed to be published by Obama using government media resources for political purposes, yet those same records are held by the courts as irrelevant for determining Obama’s legal eligibility status because they are, according to judges, “so poorly forged” they are obviously meant to be satirical and not to be taken seriously as evidence.

Shockingly, parting from widespread public ignorance, Hill actually acknowledged two of the three necessary components of determining natural born citizenship as being place of birth and citizenship status of both parents. However, she argued that, “No law in New Jersey obligated him (Obama) to produce any such evidence in order to get on the primary ballot.”

The third component of natural born eligibility is maintenance of natural born citizenship status from birth to election without interruption, involuntarily or voluntarily, due to expatriation, extradition, renouncement or foreign adoption.

“Obama is mocking our constitution,” says Johannson, “His position is that he never claimed the image was an indication of his natural born status, just that it was information about his birth. Whether it is forged or authentic is irrelevant to Obama because plausible deniability affords him the security in knowing that no legal authority is willing to hang him with it.”

Of course, Johannson adds that it makes Obama look like a willing accomplice and a liar, but, he says, “…show me a politician who cares about being seen as a liar by the public. If people who support him want to vote for a person like that, it reveals more about the reprobate character of Obama supporters than competency of any legal determination about his lack of constitutional eligibility. Degenerates will vote for a degenerate while patriots will exhaust all civil means to remove him…until those civil means are exhausted. Then things get ugly for government.”

“However, Hill is also essentially admitting that Obama is not a legitimate president and that Obama believes that his illegitimacy does not matter to his legal ability to hold the office. Obama holds to a political tenet, not a legal one with respect to his views on his eligibility. That’s what corrupt, criminal politicians do. When the law convicts them, they run to public favorability for shelter with the hope that their supporters will apply pressure to disregard law in their case.”

Obama is now arguing that because he is politically popular, as he points to as being indicated by his so-called ‘election’, despite accusations of eligibility fraud and election fraud, the constitutional eligibility mandate is not relevant, in his view. Until a courageous authority is willing to disagree and hold Obama to an equally weighted legal standard, civil remedies for the Obama problem are limited.

Johannson adds that Obama is making the same argument on behalf of Obamacare.

“If he had the gall to actually tell the Supreme Court that they have no authority to determine the unconstitutionality of his illegitimate policies, what makes anyone think he believes they have the authority to disqualify him due to his lack of constitutional eligibility? Obama believes he holds preeminent power over all branches of government because of his delusions of political grandeur.”

He correctly points to a lifetime pattern of behavior and testimony by Obama which indicates a complete lack of regard for the U.S. Constitution when it restricts Obama’s political agenda and lust for power.

“This is a guy who illegally defaced public property when he scribed his aspirations to be ‘king’ in a concrete sidewalk at the age of ten, for God’s sake. Now, his ‘majesty’ wants to put his illegal ‘graffiti’ into American law books. However, his problem is that he has to face the fact that he is an abject failure in his capacity to meet any standard required by the 250-year-old U.S. Constitution, in everything he tries to do. The Constitution owns him and he can’t stand it. He hates it. Therefore, instead of admitting his lack of constitutionality, he simply breaks the rules and proceeds to illegally scribe his fake authority on everything until someone is willing to physically stop him. Obama is not just an illegitimate politician, he is a rogue outlaw without regard for the divine providence of American law.”

Apuzzo submitted that New Jersey law requires Obama to show evidence that he is qualified for the office he wishes to occupy and that includes showing that he is a “natural born Citizen,” which includes presenting evidence of who he is, where he was born, and that he was born to two U.S. citizen parents. Apuzzo added that the Secretary of State has a constitutional obligation not to place any ineligible candidates on the election ballot.

The account of the trial can be read at:


  1. A couple of things. Hill merely stipulated that the online image can not be used to prove anything. I think she might be right about the PRIMARY ballot. It's the general election ballot that he has to certify himself for.

    1. Justin,

      The online image was a representation of official record which was...

      A.) Chosen by an alleged president to be published in the form of an online image, not in paper form and;
      B.) Intended by Obama to provide evidentiary proof that he was born in the U.S., thus;
      C.) Serve as proof of natural-born citizenry, thus;
      D.) Serve as a legally represented version of an authentic original record from an official state agency that he is eligible to be president.

      Any judge or jury asked to consider the reasons for the image being posted would come to the same conclusions of its intended purpose. Then they would be provided with evidence from an official law enforcement investigation which shows that it is not authentic. Therefore...

      The fact that Ms. Hill, in representing Obama, admitted that such a form of this record cannot be used to prove these claims by Obama, she is admitting that the image is not a truthful representation of those claims. Therefore, it must be a false representation of those claims otherwise, why did Obama choose to publish this record if not to provide proof of his eligibility? Website decoration?

      It is time to stop forsaking the blood-ransomed Constitution just to protect this lying degenerate.

      Time to grow up.


    2. "she is admitting that the image is not a truthful representation of those claims."

      No she isn't. She merely stipulated that it can not be used as prima facie evidence. She made no claims, for or against, of it's authenticity. It's the same as if someone wanted to enter a photograph of some legal document into evidence. It wouldn't be accepted.

    3. She specifically agreed that the plaintiffs had "great arguments" toward showing forgery had been committed, but that it was not relevant in their objections to Obama's appearance on the ballot.

    4. No, she didn't. She said they MAY have great arguments. She pointed out that the law in New Jersey only allows ballot challenges to be made on certain points. The constitutional eligibility of the candidate is not one of those points. Nor should it be. President of the United States is a Federal office. And the Federal government, not the individual states, gets to decide who is eligible.

  2. After a Maricopa Nation police officers organization performed a six-month forensic evaluation which established that the picture of Obama’s alleged.

    auto accident attorney milwaukee

    1. gruber,

      My reply to Justin above applies to your post as well.

      Thank you for checking in.


  3. If people who support him want to vote for a person like that, it reveals more about the reprobate character of Obama supporters than competency of any legal determination about his lack of constitutional eligibility. Degenerates will vote for a degenerate while patriots will exhaust all civil means to remove him…until those civil means are exhausted. Then things get ugly for government.”

    1. More than repugnant, he is an offense to the blood ransom paid for generations to live under a Constitutional sovereignty, which was the result of 250 years of sacrifice of life, limb, welfare, sweat and blood. To violate it by usurping power of our government illegitimately is an affront to the honor and selflessness demonstrated by those who came before us who gave everything so I, and you, can have the opportunity to live in freedom and salvation.

    2. Anthony Pacifico and Penbrook. More than repugnant and vile are the Congressmen, both Dems, as well as GOP, who covered up Obama´s real ID and signed bills, laws and, inclusively authorized the bill that has given the imposter Dictatorial Powers. And what can one comment about the media cover up of all crimes committed, including the, reportedly, 40thousand to 100.000 of innocent victims caused by Obama´s ridiculously named "Humanitarian War", realized criminally by NATO. This, without mentioning the fact of this small nation having been left in ruins and in a current state of civil war?

  4. I think we need to make all of this stuff public knowledge and to hell with the birther label. If enough states take action will it eventually make it make it to the supreme court as did Obamacare. This is a MUST especially if this guy wins re-election.

    1. Its time for Obama to take responsibility for his crimes. Its time for an authority greater than what he thinks he has to convict him and end this nonsense.

  5. Great article, but Hill never admitted...or even suggested..that the BC was a forgery. She simply agreed that no proof of birth data had been submitted to the NJ SOS. She is correct because the BC hasn't been officially submitted. The claim that she agrees it's a forgery is a VERY big stretch.

    1. Kim,

      As amateur media, we feel the bigger stretch is that Ms. Hill, as well as any lawyer on the planet,if they are of the human species, would not be able to see the obvious crime committed by forgers of these images under the intent to deceive.

      Ms. Hill received her J.D. at Georgetown and is widely steeped in matters of document fraud and forgery. Despite her youth, we are confident she understands that if an image of a document which was intended by the highest levels of our government to represent an official, legal record of identification cannot be relied upon to provide evidentiary proof in a court of law, then the only available consideration toward defining the veracity of that record's authenticity is that the image of it is not an accurate representation of the person's identity. Therefore, it is a forgery.

      Whether a forgery is intended to deceive or be satirical can be determined by a jury.

      However, combining this fact with the conclusion that a constitutionally empowered law enforcement agency has determined through a criminal investigation that this image, as well as the image of Obama's Selective Service registration, are fabrications which were publicly displayed on an official government website, funded by taxpayers, for the intended purpose of deception, not corroboration or verification, of Obama's true identity, demonstrates nothing less than Hill's understanding of the fullest legal definition and awareness of forgery with regard to this image.

      There is no other reason for Hill to discount its purpose in the matter of Obama's eligibility to appear on any ballot. Unless, she believes it was posted for website decoration or satire.

      Thank you.

    2. Penbrook. And, exactly, what kind of law are the Forgers and imposters subject to? Caonsidering that Obama can´t deny that he kenw well that there existed no original.

  6. ....."because no law exists in New Jersey which says that a candidate’s appearance on the ballot must be supported by evidence of natural born citizenship status. Only the U.S. constitution restricts eligibility to hold the office of president to natural born citizens." I am not an attorney but I've always believed the entire United States was operating under the Constitution - or is it every state except New Jersey now? How much more ridiculous can anyone get over this most important issue?!

    1. purple,

      Obama and his political deceivers are going to learn that if the limits of law are unable to restrict you from a behavior, it is also unable to protect you from that behavior.

      Think about the precedent that Obama is setting by this deception. Do people realize what a lack of qualifications he has set for a candidate to authenticate his identity? The words of Revelation have taken new meaning because of this.

      Just because there is no law against something, does not mean you have moral permission to do it. There are consequences which range beyond the limited definitions of justice afforded by preclusive law in such cases. This is one of those cases.

      Thank you for reading.

  7. Obama's attorney agreed that no proof of birth data had been submitted to the NJ SOS yet, the judge finds that "Obama" is Obama, was born in the US, is a citizen, and is a natural born citizen.

    It's magic.

    It's simply magic.

    Article II is mandatory authority.

    The judge swore an oath to the Constitution, not to NJ statute. He ignores mandatory authority, overlooks the complete lack of substantiating evidence, declares person "x" to be "Obama", declares him to be a citizen, and declares him to be a natural born citizen.

    The judge mocks the law.

  8. Obama isnt the problem people. PEOPLE are the problem. He didnt elect himself.
    I am by no means defending him. I would prefer a lottery for political positions, over any politician we have today.
    But, the solution doesnt lie in railing against Obama...but against the legions of uneducated, socialist, liberal, and non citizen supporters he has. He wasnt elected because he was capable. He was elected because of his ethnicity. And unless things change drasticly ...i see him being re-elected. Everyone else is too busy attacking each other, for political gain. When the smoke clears, obama will likely be the last man standing. No matter the proof of his ineligibility. The constitution has been getting trampled on for years....the precedent has already been set.
    WE THE PEOPLE have forgotten that we are "the people"...we no longer elect school teachers, farmers, inventors, or businessmen. We dont select members of "the people ". We choose and elect professional con-men....liars, cheaters, adulterers, and so on. We make these choices...these decisions. WE elect these people. WE need to make the necessary changes....not just blow hot pointless internet discussions. Like what ive just done. I doubt one in ten readers had the attention span to make it even this far into my rant. :-)

    1. Slade. You are right about everything, but about the Internet discussions being pointless. Throughout history, the opinions, ideas and righteousness of ONE person, showed their power to change history. You are coherent, intelligent, informed and applauded for your comment.
      Silence is zero action.

  9. I want 3 hours of my life back! I just listened to the entire proceedings. The Obama lawyer never said anything about a fabrication! She never said anything about the on-line image being a forgery or that it wasn't taken from the original document. This article is bogus! Let me also say, I despise Obama and would not normally write anything in his favor.

    1. Booda,

      Thank you for taking time to read our little blog. However, I am constantly bewildered by how veracious individuals apply their passions to verify the facts stated by an irrelevant blog, yet refuse to verify the facts stated by the alleged PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.!

      Therefore, it may be worth considering that a more value expenditure of your time would have been to use that three hours and compose a series of letters to your representative authorities and demand that they investigate the facts of Obama's covert identity. Unless you are you one of those armchair protesters?

      If you "despise" Obama more than you hold validity for our blog, it only seems logical that spending three regretful hours corroborating our irrelevant opinion on the matter was a bad choice on your part. If you think we are wrong, find out what is right! Use your time better! Attack the one you despise. Fight for the truth where this lie began, with Obama! Fight for your right to a freedom of expression. Fight for a free press. Fight for your right to a redress of greivances. Fight for your fathers' blood ransom! You will find no greater support than with us here.


    2. I have serious doubts...No, I don't believe the birth certificate is real. I believe it is a poorly made forgery. I also think the President should be mandated to use executive power to release the birth certificate or Congress should demand the release themselves. The point I'm making is that fabricating a story only demeans the cause that I am active in. Your lies don't help. I don't feel the need to rise to meet your challange. I have probably done more than you in regards to lobbying for the truth.

    3. God Bless you in your superior efforts. We are not in competition for the truth and therefore humbly submit to your authority and expertise.

      Doubts over the birth certificate are not rooted in questions about whether it is real, but whether it is an accurate representation of the factual circumstances of Obama's birth. Of course it is real. It is not an illusion or a phantom.

      Therefore, our story here is that we interpret Ms. Hill's acknowledgement that the court does not have an accurate account of Obama's birth as being a concession that the real image which has been produced for ALL of the world by which to confirm Obama's natal history, including this particular judge, is an indication that she believes it must therefore be a forgery. There is no lie in this. This is our interpretation and we have a right to present that interpretation. Whether or not our readers choose to endow it with credibility is another matter.

      However, the more appropriate question is, is the image an authentic and accurate representation of Obama's natal record in its capacity to support his claim, not our claim, regarding his natural-born citizenship and thus, his eligibility to be president. The burden to comply with law and truth lies squarely upon Obama, not the citizens. An ineligible candidate is not harmed by being denied by the constitution the opportunity to run for President, however, the people are harmed if that ineligible candidate is fraudulently elected under the deception of being eligible. We are not running for office, Obama is. Obama is not harmed, we are!

      Apparently, and wrongly, this court is not inclined to accept the image as a valid form of evidence in order to make a declaration apart from the incorrect and derelict default position of previous failed judges which is that Obama is automatically eligible until someone proves he is not. This precedent is very, very dangerous for the future. What can therefore stop any candidate from declaring themselves eligible for the office in America without any opposition or burden of proof?

      Understand, everytime a U.S. judge makes this foul non-decision, it does not endow Obama with only diminishes the credibility of our legal system to a ridiculous laughing stock, just like Obama is. Like a drowning swimmer pulling down a once skilled lifeguard, Obama and his judges are destroying the credibility of our legal system. You can hear the twisted logic and delusional embrace of this judge in the way he contorts reasoning to arrive at his comical placation of the absurd. The muffled laughter of the observers only supports this fact.

      Therefore, since the image has been determined to be an inaccurate representation of a real birth record and a lawyer representing Obama has conceded that the court does not possess any other valid evidence, then the record which does exists must be a forgery. If it is not a forgery, then what is it?

      I was not aware of the competition in finding facts about Obama's eligibility for the purpose of honoring the blood ransom paid for our constitution. If "doing more than other truth seekers" is the standard, then we happily and humbly submit to your superior efforts and pray in Christ that God blesses you in this critical journey.

    4. Penbrook. Sheriff Arpaio´s Posse has proved, beyond reasonable dount, that Obama´s document is a forgery, and the man´s complete background is the same, so Hill´s wording is of no consequence. What is important now, is to take care, bacause Obama is like a wounded animal, but backed by powerful people, and a bill that has given him Dictatorial powers. It just might be possiboe for them to use Obama to promote their original ends.

  10. Pen:

    I've noted a few ephemeral comments by supporters/defenders of The Big O and it's nice to see they have flitted away no doubt to perch where they truly belong.

    It is illustrative to see that each and every court (including the Supreme Court and others in Kerchner v. Obama along with any number of other legal actions) have resorted to various manipulations, legal machinations, and/or mumbo jumo to sidestep any real court proceeding of viewing the briefs, the facts, the evidence, and making any true deliberation and ruling on the elibgibility issue. Surely no one is foolish enogh to think that Judge Masin in the instant action has done so.

    This means that it remains an issue that eventully must be addressed. The pretense by Judge Masin and others before him (and no doubt some others to follow) that "the law is not the law" flies in the face of his formal legal "education" and speaks loudly to the state of our educational system today. The Constitution is, indeed, the law and "natural born citizen" - the term of art at issue here - applies like a fog of reason over and above all federal and state laws and political party rules of procedure. This is the case whether those inferior writings mention it or not; in fact various of the players in this sad little drama have taken an Oath to obey, protect, and defend the Constitution thereby acknowledging its supremacy. To attempt the sham of pretemnding otherwise is merely more of the legalistic dissonance and shenanigans that all courts have displayed in this matter SO FAR!!

    Certainly that will not go on forever despite the hopes by many that it will continue. Such bad blood cannot and will not infect the entire country. At some point a court will stand up and insist upon a correct and proper submission of evidentiary information, legal reasoning as to its validity and effect and serious, reasoned delieration and rule accordingly with definitive legal precedent to backstop the decision. That is the sole manner in which Obama will come to be judged by history one way or the other.

    The playtime rulings by judges who actually refuse to do their real job but instead use the tactics du jour of saying "hey ... I KNOW the guy is OK and must have been born so that he must be a natural born citizen (even though I don't know what that means) and no court has ever made a definitive ruling otherwise (or at all) - who the hell needs to view evidence and laws?"

    There are growing mllions of citizens in this country who will stand for no less than a definitive legal resolution of the eligibility issue - no matter the outcome. These supposed "findings" so far seen by the differing kangaroo courts are patent nonsense and are being so recognized.

    And, oh yes, "the media" by and large along with all Congressmen of both parties are at fault here along with the judicial system. It is time for the people to speak more loudly - and more frequently.

    1. Jay,

      I have passed your comment along to Mr. Johannson who, undoubtedly, subsribes to your POV. Particularly, as for your statement: "At some point a court will stand up and insist upon a correct and proper submission of evidentiary information, legal reasoning as to its validity and effect and serious, reasoned delieration and rule accordingly with definitive legal precedent to backstop the decision. That is the sole manner in which Obama will come to be judged by history one way or the other."

      It has been, and will remain our desire only for that measure that a court will simply weigh the merits of evidence in a redress of the greivance. Plainly and simply. If this is done, we are confident Obama will be found wanton.

      Thanks for your continued support, again.


  11. the congress should be investigating but they are too weak in the knees to question our "black" or oreo president for fear of being labled racist. Clinton rewrote the definition of sexual relations and now we have another Democrat rewritting the US Constitution. Why am I not shocked that Obummer has sealed all personal records. What is he so afraid of people finding out? That it was Soros who paid for his education and not his "white" family? Or that he is totally ill prepared and constitutionally not qualified?

  12. This situation has nothing to do with race. It is very easy to build this case. Resorting to racial comments csuses people loose their credibility.

  13. As regards eligilibility: Both of Mitt Romney´s parents aren´t US citizen. What now?

    1. Ron Paul! That's what/who. We know that he is the only candidate that follows the constitution to protect we the people.

  14. I notice the article lacks a direct quotation from Ms Hill. That is no surprise since she said nothing of the kind at the hearing and the headline is a complete fabrication by the author.

  15. Kansas uses a different system than the states which ignore law

    d. Objections
    An objection is a method to review the validity of a candidate filing or nomination. It
    may occur at either of two points in the election process:
    (1) after the candidate files for office, or
    (2) after the candidate wins a party’s nomination. [KSA 25-208a, 25-308]
    An objection at the time the candidate files for office may occur in one of two ways:
    (1) a person other than the candidate files an objection, or
    (2) the candidate files an objection if the election officer determines the
    candidate’s filing to be invalid. [KSA 25-208a(c)]
    Any person may file an objection after the candidate is issued a certificate of nomination
    after the primary.
    The deadline for filing any objection is:
    (1) three days after the date of the candidate’s filing, or
    (2) three days after the determination of invalidity by the election officer, or
    (3) three days after the date of the issuance of the certificate of nomination after a
    Note: The date of issuance of the certificate of nomination varies by office. Certificates
    for local offices are issued after the county canvass. Certificates for national and state
    offices are issued after the state canvass several weeks later.
    [KSA 25-308(a)]
    Objections to nominations for national and state offices are filed with the Secretary of
    State. Objections to nominations for local offices are filed with the county election
    The grounds for filing an objection are the same as the grounds for contesting a general
    election in court:
    (1) the candidate is ineligible to hold the office
    (2) one or more eligible voters were deprived of the right to vote
    (3) illegal votes were received or legal votes were rejected
    (4) error or fraud occurred in computing the results of the election which could
    change the outcome of the election
    (5) the candidate bribed an election officer, or
    (6) any other cause showing that a different candidate should have won.
    [KSA 25-308(e), 25-1436]
    For national and state offices, objections are decided by the state objections board,
    consisting of the Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State and Attorney General. For
    county, township, city and school offices, objections are decided by the county objections
    board, consisting of the county election officer, county or district attorney and an elected
    county official whose position is not involved in the controversy. The latter official is
    designated by the county election officer. [KSA 25-308(c)] Kansas Election Standards
    IV - 8
    Results of objection—
    By their nature, objections are filed during the election process at a time when it is urgent
    that the matter be concluded and the process of printing ballots and preparing for election
    day continue without delay. According to the law, the objections board makes its decision
    by majority vote, and the decision is final. There is no provision in the law for appealing
    the decision except in extraordinary cases, which would involve quo warranto,
    mandamus or injunction. [KSA 25-308(c)] Courts have held that the objections board is a
    quasi-judicial body. This gives the objections board a more authoritative posture than a
    mere administrative body. It possesses broad powers to investigate facts, weigh evidence
    and draw conclusions as a basis for official action. The purpose is to decide cases as they
    arise and get on with the process of conducting the election.
    Office Sought Statutes Elector at National Offices
    U.S. President and Vice Presidents Governing statutes -U.S. Const. Article 2

  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

  17. I want to see Obama gone as much as everyone here, but this methodology and ensuing "propaganda" does our cause only harm.
    The 3hr video at no time shows Hill specifically stating the LFBC is forged, she says it is simply irrelevant according to NJ law. Which it is. Obama did not need to prove his Constitutional qualifications to the NJ secretary of state to run for office. Therefore trying to place a photocopy of a forged internet image into evidence was a moot point.
    We the people, and those who help spread the news of our fight, need take greater care to present factual information. And those who chose to bravely oppose this Obamanation in court need to be more diligent in studying state laws.

    1. Buckeye,

      Thank you for taking time to comment. We certainly appreciate the suggestion that we are a news group rather than a truth perspective.

      Our post here is truthful and right. It is a commentary on the implications made by Obama's lawyer in her statement that the petitioners' intended testimony, which was not allowed to be heard by Masin, that the internet image of Obama's alleged "Certificate of Live Birth" was a forgery.

      In agreeing with the arguments, Hill said, "I understand they have great arguments (that it is a forgery), but they are not relevant".

      This statement, in combination with the now obvious effort on the part of Obama to legally distance himself from the image, as we predicted he would months ago, was enough to warrant a commentary about what we believe is the truth...that Obama and is legal minions know, in fact, that the image is a counterfeit and that he is a fraud. There is nothing propagandized here. If you have a better interpretation of the phrase "great arguments", please let us know.

      The only harm being done is by the criminal fraud being committed by this ghost in the White House, not the citizenry. The only harm done in this saga is a failure on the part of our judicial and elected rejects to afford the American citizens the truth about this individual.

      We certainly appreciate your interest. Please try to keep in mind that we are not a news agency, nor do we claim to be. Our observations are made in line with what we believe should be said in the absence of what needs to be said by the liberal, corrupt, despicable American media.

      Thank you again. Continue the fight for truth.


  18. On Obama, the birth certificate is not the issue. The definition of a Natural Born Citizen required both parents to be born in the united States, which president Obama's father was born in Kenya. game, set, match.

    Great article.
    Insurance Bad Faith Attorney

  19. This is my very first time that I am visiting here and I’m truly pleasurable to see everything at one place.Joseph Tacopina

  20. Here at this site really the fastidious material collection so that everybody can enjoy a lot. John Bales

  21. Thankfulness to my dad who informed me relating to this blog, this website is really amazing. Lawyer