The Chief Carnival Barker, Barrack Hussein Soetoro Soebarka Obama talks about what a distraction it is to focus on the fact that he has no legal identity in the United States. So much of a distraction it prevents him from completely annihilating our country as quickly as he wants to.
This classic video was re-released by the White House on March 1, 2012, the day Sheriff Joe Arapio’s law enforcement investigation proved what Carnival Barky has been afraid of all along:
- Obama cannot prove he was born in the United States because he can’t produce documents to prove it. Hence, we do not know his legal identity, nor can we say he ws born in the United States…
Hence, Obama’s nominating petition in each and every state is defective
- Obama was not born to citizen parents
Hence, Obama has not proven he is an Article II ‘natural born citizen’ because he has not proven place of birth and citizen parents.
- Obama is not eligible for the office of the president
In each and every county, and in each and every state, the papers that the Democrats are putting forward–and Obama is signing–that proffer him as the candidate of the Party are defective. The Democrats are committing fraud in each state right now. These are very simple points to hammer on, and now you have law enforcement to back you up. What about the Sheriffs in your county…do they have the courage to stand up for the Constitution and to actually live their oath of office?
Head on down to your local democrat party office with a few signs letting them know you know they are committing fraud. Write a few letters to the editor with these simple facts. Put out a flyer or postcard, a poster or road sign: its time to challenge them on every single corner of every street in this nation. If you can’t do that, support the Obama Ballot Challenge and the educational efforts of the Article II SuperPac. Yes, its been a long road, and yes, we’re asking again for your support.
Create the record so that all of history and time, and our Creator will know, that we opposed the usurpation of the United States Constitution by the jackals, jackasses, and carnival barkers of the left wing sociopathic communist new world
order odors of the 20th and 21st Centuries.
Update on Arizona Ballot Challenge
Plaintiff in the Pima County Ballot Challenge, Kenneth Allen, submitted a brief in opposition to the Arizona Democrat party’s motion to dismiss his challenge that is sure to make headlines and has already made the democrats steaming mad…so mad they have moved to strike the brief itself. While it is expected that the judge in the case will dismiss it as all others before him, it is worth reviewing the standard democrat arguments and Plaintiff Allen’s challenges to them so as to ‘try your hand’ at using these arguments yourself.
Plaintiff Allen’s introduction to his argument opposing defendant AZDems motion to dismiss:
Comes now Plaintiff Kenneth L. Allen in opposition to Defendant Arizona Democratic Party (“the Party”) Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that Defendant cannot guarantee to the Plaintiff nor the citizens of Pima County that it will not commit fraud as it certifies that candidate Barack H. Obama is constitutionally eligible for the office of President of the United States.
Typically, the democrats cite disparagingly the “49 cases that have been dismissed resolving forever the discussion the Obama’s eligibility:
Exhibit A (listing 49 federal cases and 3S state cases rejecting arguments made by “birthers” in one form or another. Motion to Dismiss, Az Democrats
Plaintiff Allen’s response:
VII. Defendants Erroneously Rely on Case Law that is Irrelevant to this Complaint.
Defendants, in a footnote (fn3 p 2), erroneously claim that candidate Obama’s eligibility for president has been addressed already by a series of cases across the country, cases which have never argued the merits of candidate Obama’s status as a natural born citizen, and cases which have never addressed specifically a ballot challenge. Defendants compare apples to oranges. Contrary to Defendants haughty claim, there is no legal authority or court in the country that has ruled on or definitively stated that candidate Obama meets the constitutional qualifications for the presidency
Defendants proffer Obama’s birth certificate released by the White House as proof positive of Obama’s birth in the United States, making it a central part of the case. Plaintiff Allen’s response:
VIII. Defendants “Make Up” a Definition of Natural Born Citizen that Conflicts with Existing Case Law, cannot be supported by the facts and Cite No legal authority for their Definition.
While erroneously relying on case law that does not address the merits of the definition of natural born citizen, Defendants make up a definition by stating that candidate Obama is a ‘natural born citizen’ because he was born in the United States (Hawaii) to an American citizen mother, that is, a single citizen parent (Defendants at 2, 1-7). Defendants proffer Exhibit A, a purported copy of candidate Obama’s birth certificate, as proof of his birth in the United States.
Plaintiff asks this Court to take judicial notice of the March 1, 2012 findings of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio which state that there is probable cause that the Hawaii birth certificate proffered as evidence that candidate Obama was born in the United States to a U.S. citizen mother is a forgery and thus a fraudulent document . Defendants cannot definitively state that candidate Obama was born anywhere in the United States, which is just one of the characteristics of a natural born citizen.
Defendants also erroneously interpret Minor v Happersett and include the Fourteenth Amendment as necessary to the discussion of the term natural born citizen (fn6 p 5). The Fourteenth Amendment is not relevant to the discussion of natural born citizen as it concerns only the requirements to be a citizen of the United States; did not refer to or modify Article II; and never once mentions ‘natural born citizen’.
The purported Birth Certificate of candidate Obama (Exhibit (A) has been proven to be fraudulent through investigation of Sheriff Joe Arapaio. Because the defendants have brought the argument about the birth certificate here they should provide all documents for inspection and have made this issue relevant in this case.
The Arizona Democrats step in the pile big time…making up out of thin air their own definition of natural born citizen, and relying on fraudulent documents to do so. They also erroneously try to use the case of Wong Kim Ark–long a standard bulwark of the flat-earth eligibility deniers–and the Fourteenth Amendment to argue for the illegitimate Carnival Barky:
XII. Defendants Erroneously suggest the Fourteenth Amendment grants ‘natural born citizen’ status to candidate Obama.
Defendant erroneously focuses on the case of Wong Kim Ark (69 U.S. 649 (1898)) and the term ‘citizen’, failing to recognize that the case is completely separate from and did not decide that Wong Kim Ark was a ‘natural born citizen’. Wong Kim Ark became a citizen, not a natural born citizen, of the United States. Defendants also claim that candidate Obama is a natural born citizen based on his birth in the United States, a statement that is now without merit in light of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arapio’s report (id note 2).
 Wong Kim Ark’s children would be natural born citizens of the United States if Wong Kim Ark married an American citizen.
Finishing the party off in grand style, Plaintiff Allen reasonably concludes:
Because Defendant cannot prove that candidate Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States as required by the Constitution, and cannot prove he was born in the United States, this case should proceed on the merits of the questions initially asked of this Court. Absent this case, Defendant is likely to commit fraud on this Plaintiff, the citizens of Pima County, state and county officials of Arizona, and the citizens of Arizona by failing to conclusively validate the Party’s candidate for the president.
It is important to note for this case, as probably in others, the Democrats argue that they have exclusive privilege to select their candidate for president–irrespective of whether that candidate is eligible or not. In this case, the Democrats argued that even with that right, the Plaintiff should bring in all other counties in Arizona to the dispute. Challenging their authority, the Plaintiff retorts:
IX. Defendants claim a right to choose the Party’s candidate—irrespective of qualifications—to place on the Arizona ballot.
Defendants ask this Court to dismiss this ballot challenge because it has the right to choose the Party’s candidate whether it has proof of the candidate’s eligibility or not. By stating this, the Party represents that it is representing candidate Obama’s efforts to secure a place on the Arizona ballot. Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s motion to dismiss because Plaintiff does not believe that the Party has a right to defraud the citizens of Arizona by putting forth a candidate that does not meet the qualifications of the office sought. Defendants have offered no proof of candidate Obama’s constitutional qualifications for the office, rely on patently fraudulent documentation (fn 5 p 5), and demonstrate disrespect of the Plaintiff and the voters of Arizona who have a right to vote for a constitutionally eligible candidate. Defendants also demonstrate spurious disrespect for Constitution of the United States (fn 3, 4 p 2).
What the Plaintiff is pointing out to all of us is how much information we have already and that we don’t need to be lawyers to start taking them on. This is a citizen complaint, written by ordinary citizens. Get copies of these documents from the Obama Ballot Challenge site, there is a lot of good material to use in your own letters and documents. You will be well-versed in how the democrats use smoke and mirrors to deceive, and how to break them into so many shards of glass.