Sheriff Joe Lead Obama ID Fraud Investigator In High Level Meetings In Washington DC (Stockman?)

As for elections butterdezillion, it has struck me how the Democrats run the postal vote fraud in each state.

1/ They register folks from the inner city areas for what ever one off inducement it takes. The Democrats prefer that the person is simply not interested in politics and would never bother to vote in person or by post.

2/ Vote for them on in the postal vote system.

As long as the original registration was legal according to state law, this allows the Democrats to build up a Database of Postal vote ID’s.

Turnout is 100%, even if Democrat workers fingers are raw from RSI.

If the State SOS is Democrat controlled, multiple names at the same address won't be challenged and the postal voters database will grow as they take Dead people's ID’s from the obituaries in newspapers or SSD death data and input those.

The reason I say this is that Postal vote manipulation has started in the UK where freakish postal vote turnouts routinely save Labour Party [UK’s left party] candidates from defeat at traditionally low turnout by-elections [UK “special elections.”]

I know for a fact that the Labour party copies techniques and tricks from the US Democrat party.

Its a simple trick that just needs patient, dedicated fanatics loyal to one power at any price.

What is really needed with Obama is for the guy to trip himself up in public while high on coke because one of his minders finally looses interest in keeping him on the rails, it has to be a live event where even his friendly media hangers on cannot hide the SNAFU.

Perhaps some low level member of staff will drop zero right in it. Maybe someone who overheard something they shouldn't have, and decides to let the arrogance of evil fall flat on its face.

“”””....apparently did not agree with your contention that there was a consensus that the candidate had to have been born in the United States.”””””

Maybe..... But They covered that in the resolution something to the effect that since the parents were assigned on a US Military base under USA jurisdiction while defending the country, it was the same as us soil.

Constitution 123, I don't believe more than a handful of founding fathers had ever heard of Vattel. A few had his book in their libraries. I don't think that many of them spent any time thinking about the exact parameters of the NBC provision. They were discussing big issues like what to do about slavery and how to protect little states from big states.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), Justice Scalia discussed what he views as the proper way to interpret constitutional terms:

"The Second Amendment provides: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that '[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.' United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931) ; see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation."

At the time of our founding, how many voters (regular folks) do you think were considering the difference between one or two citizen parents when it came to NBC? How many were even thinking about NBC at all?

“””” How many were even thinking about NBC at all?””””

ALL OF THEM!!!

You do not think that during the constitutional convention every word of this great document was examined with many eyes and debated before the final version was released??? They were very concerned that a son or daughter loyal to a foreign land could assume power and steer the new republic away from liberty. The new presidents as Commander and chiefs of our fighting forces could not have mixed loyalties!!! That is why they could not be sons or daughters of even one foreign parent especially the crown...

Well, there's your argument!

Now, you pitch that argument to the voters and their electors in 2016 because they're the ones who'll be ruling on qualifications, for the 58th time. ;-)

"""">>>>voters and their electors in 2016 because they're the ones who'll be ruling on qualifications, for the 58th time."""" You make no sense.... Citizens vote on competing ideas of candidates not on if they are qualified to run in the first place!!! People assume, as they should, that if a candidate is placed on a the ballot, He is qualified.....

No need to repley.... I am done

placemark.

Hetuck wrote:

“One needs to ask if we really know which side the Company is on.”

Hetuck,

Now THAT is something that gives me the creeps!

I always had my doubts about the State dept, but now these guys have gotten “turned” also?

:0

"Team Obama owns the scorekeeper. The game is rigged. Our “team” needs to include faithful law enforcement that won’t back down from enforcing the law."

"State voting laws are one place we the people can start."

Excellent point Butterdezillion. The IRS’s repeated harassment of Truethevote.org, over three years and no response about their 501.C3, while Obama's cousin, raising money for the Muslim Brotherhood, gets a 501.c3 status in two weeks. (check my times, since that statement is a month-old memory). Truethevote is one of the oldest, and absolutely nonpartisan organization that has worked to return us to a representative democracy for years, shows the real concerns of this regime. They know they are a minority and need to control the vote to keep their theocracy in power. This is the wrong thread, but the point is excellent.

We have, by design, no possible mechanism for auditing federal elections. The SEIU manages the machines and counts (or doesn't) the votes. What are the chances SEIU employees will blow the whistle on their commissars, who guarantee their wages and health-care and job security.

Your point about state elections (I'd include cities and counties) is right on. As Stalin explained, only who counts the votes matters, and we only know, as we only know about Obama’s origins, that we are not provided access to that information. We will have to obtain it, by some means, or our electoral process is myth, as it is in Venezuela, Egypt, Cuba, ...

"For example, when the Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes was asked to run for President, he declined because he was not a "natural born Citizen.""

Actually Kenny, it is worse than that. (Thanks to Sharon Rondeau and, if memory serves, Cindy Simplson), Evans Hughes did run against Woodrow Wilson in 1916. An attorney from Missouri, Breckenridge Long, wrote a thorough analysis, close to a brief, in Chicago Legal News, Vol 148 PP 220-223 explaining why Charles Evans Hughes was not a Natural Born Citizen, rather along the lines of the lengthy paper written by Professor Gabriel Chin of U of Arizona, explaining "WHY SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN CANNOT BE PRESIDENT: ELEVEN MONTHS AND A HUNDRED YARDS SHORT OF CITIZENSHIP"

The Chicago Legal Journal was the most widely read legal journal in the U.S. and Breckenridge Long went on to work at the State Department under FDR. His excellent paper doesn't cite Chief Justices Waite or Marshall, but gives example after example of court rulings that show how and why natural born citizens are treated differently by law than native-born citizens such as Evans Hughes and Obama.

One of the Operatives on this thread repeats that because hasn't been an issue some 57 times, it shouldn't be now, and shouldn't be an issue for Rubio or Cruz or Jindal or Haley. While he/she was simply supporting the misdirection pointed out by Kenny Bunk, it isn't at all true that no one raised the issue. The truth is that Chester Arthur used the same device Obama is using, pimping a problem with a birth certificate (which Chester always had, from Vermont, but hid and had burned just before his death). Chester had a confederate, a journalist who had served Chester in his mob days in New York, write a book claiming Chester was born in Ireland or Canada. Remember it was Hillary's Philadelphia campaign manager, Berg, who first swore that he had information about Obama's Kenyan birth.

As we see from the Chicago Legal News, Breckenridge Long was legally armed in case Hughes won the election. He would not have been seated without a challenge, and would most certainly have lost that challenge. Ironically, it was Hughes who wrote the decision in Perkins v. Elg in which Marie Elg's natural born citizenship, born to citizen parents on our soil, that affirmed Marie's right always to return to the US, since her citizenship was granted by God, by natural law, and could not be denied by Congress - by men. This was one of Breckenridge Long's examples, though not regarding Marie Elg, who hadn't yet been born.

Nothing prevents anyone from running for president. Roger Calero wasn't even a citizen and was on ballots in many states. The nature of the electoral college has changed over the centuries, with winner takes all rules in some states. Because both parties were complicit, with both McCain and Obama ineligible, whether it was a quid-pro-quo or whether McCain was controlled by Democrats, who, after all, tried to pass a law to cloud McCain's ineligiblity, though it needed to be an amendment to have validity. They filed the ‘‘Children of Military 5 Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’, sponsored by Obama and his campaign chair Clare McCaskill, SB 2678, Feb 2008, and when that failed to pass, a resolution, SR 511, McCaskill, Leahy, Menendez, Clinton, April 2008. The Democrats did most of the work to make McCain Obama's opponent. They all knew what natural born citizenship was. The Dems had been hammering McCain for eight years, but now he was useful. They even sponsored, through George Soros, the Kirkland & Ellis lawyer, a partner, to defend McCain from law suits challenging his eligibility.

While it is wild speculation, McCain may never have been intended to win. Suhail Khan was a Bush advisor and Grover Norquist, Suhail's sponsor, one of the most important king makers in the Republican party and McCain supporter, as well as a vociferous sponsor of everyone involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, including, of course, his Somali Muslim wife, even while campaigning for lower taxes. Suhail Kahn is a committed member of the Muslim Brotherhood, an honest promoter of Jihad to eventually make the U.S. a Sharia compliant nation, son of the founder of the Islamic Society of North America, and Obama appears to have been their candidate. Obama was sponsored from Occidental College, and probably before, by Alwaleed bin-Talal, according to a brilliant and careful black lawyer, Percy Sutton. Bin-Talal dontated twenty million dollars to Harvard to grease the path to Harvard Law. Percy Sutton was the principal lawyer for Malcolm X, Louis Farrakhan and the Muslim Brotherhood, while his old friend Don Warden/Khalid al-Mansour, a devotee of Malcom X, converted to Wahhabi Islam in the mid 1960s, and became a principal counsel to the Saudi Royal Family, reporting to bin-Talal in the mid 1970s. Don Warden/Al-Mansour was also old friends with Vernon Jarrett, who was a very old friend of Frank Marshall Davis. Jarrett wrote a puff piece in 1979 for the Chicago Tribune about Al-Mansour's program to provide Saudi money to educate promising black and Hispanic youths in the U.S. Since Al-Mansour managed the funding of most Wahhabi mosques in the U.S. we can guess at the required curriculum.

We have enormous financial interests working with left wing progressives and the fascistic Muslim Brotherhood to silence the legal certainty, because Obama told us he is a naturalized citizen, thet our president is not constitutionally legitimate. Neither would have been McCain. That is why the CPAC crew float only naturalized citizens. If they are exposed they are finished, as they should be. There may be grounds for election fraud, and since most are lawyers, officers of the court, they should be at least disbarred, as were Barry and Michelle. More US citizens are natural born citizens than not. Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Alan West, Suzanne Martinez, Louie Gohmert, Michelle Bachmann...

Someone provided a scan of the Breckenridge Long Chicago Legal News article. I have the file and would be happy to provide it, but, while I know the NSA and FBI know most everything about me, I'd rather keep my home and business IP addresses private, so I'll provide it, if I can, using FR mail; just send me a note. It has been encapsulated in a PDF file. Unlike the left, who often deliberately hide or obscure the truth, and which hid citations to Minor v. Happersett by corrupting documents at Justia.com, we need to share the truth.

The people are not Constitutional scholars, nor do they have access to critical documentation. They have believed that the system could never get away with such blatant crimes. Never dreamed that the Hawaii Department of Health, the Selective Service, and the DOS Passport Office would all fabricate and falsify official records. Most people mistakenly thought that candidates would be given a background check for the sake of national security and had no idea that we the people - who officially have no legal standing to see any documentation because we supposedly don’t have enough at stake - are the ONLY “security check” on the person who holds the nuclear football and has the power to get every federal agency, the military, and the Supreme Court to commit crimes on his behalf, to serve his own foreign masters and destroy the very people he blinded and/or threatened in order to effect the coup.

If you seriously think that the ONLY enforcement of the Constitution is supposed to be the voters who are this clueless and this deceived, then you have a death wish for this country. This is the reason we have a Constitution - to ensure that some things are more enduring than to be frittered away by a clueless 51% majority on a whim.

At this point what we KNOW disqualifies Obama is his perjury and fraud, and the only reason for him to have committed those crimes is if they were necessary for him to commit the treason of deliberately undermining the US Constitution that he supposedly swore to uphold.

Money is involved. Show me the records that prove any PROFIT is involved. What expenses has the posse incurred? Show me the records. Give me an estimate of how much it would cost to have this many investigators if they were not working pro bono. How much full-time work do you do pro bono - keeping you from having other income from work?

I could tell you some of the expenses involved, but for the sake of your own education, I suggest you contact your local sheriff’s office and ask for an estimate of how much in salaries, travel, and other expenses they would expect a 3-year investigation involving 50 states and witnesses who have been illegally spied on by the federal government, threatened, and/or killed to cost. Basically a 3-year RICO investigation where murders have been involved. How much would it cost? Get back to me when you have an estimate.

I am sick of know-nothings impugning the motives of Zullo and Arpaio. The couch potatoes acting like gnats flying around the eyes and slogging down the feet of those actually doing something. You have no idea what we have given or what it has cost us. Any of us. Until you’ve invested your own time and money into research with the full force of federal and state bureaucracies pushing against you, keep your forked tongue silent.

It almost happened at the 2008 DNC Convention in Denver. He had to be taken into a back room and drugged and/or hypnotized in order to get him to be able to give his speech. Kam Kuwata, the guy who witnessed it, is dead now - the young man who organized the DNC Convention and supposedly died of jetlag after opposing Obama’s CA AG pick, Kamala Harris, who then refused to investigate his death. Like Michael Hastings, he came to realize that Obama was bad news but unlike Michael Hastings, he told his friends what he knew before he died.

Once again Butter.... You nailed it.... I love reading your posts.... Thanks

The people are not Constitutional scholars, nor do they have access to critical documentation.

I understand your argument. You believe that only "Constitutional scholars" are equipped to evaluate the qualifications of presidential candidates or to understand their role as voters in presidential elections. In addition, you believe that the regular folks in this country are too ignorant to evaluate qualifications of candidates because they don't have enough "access to critical documentation."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

If you seriously think that the ONLY enforcement of the Constitution is supposed to be the voters who are this clueless and this deceived, then you have a death wish for this country. This is the reason we have a Constitution - to ensure that some things are more enduring than to be frittered away by a clueless 51% majority on a whim.

You believe that our citizens are "clueless," easily "deceived," cavalier and whimsical. How can we trust them to choose our presidents without direction and supervision?

All I can say is that our Constitution provides that voters and their electors are entrusted to select our presidents. Aside from the occasional case of an election being made by the House (1824) (where no candidate secures a majority of electoral votes), the selection of our presidents have always been made exclusively by the people and their electors.

You are, of course, free to propose a new and different procedure for selecting presidents that doesn't place so much trust in voters/electors. However, it's not likely to be easy to convince the American public that their role should be reduced or diminished.

So, as they say, good luck with that.

The power to elect a President has been specifically given to the STATES. And even at that, the Twentieth Amendment provides for the event that someone may be duly elected as President through the electoral process and STILL not have CONSTITUTIONALLY “qualified” by the beginning of the term. So you’re wrong all the way around. The Constitution gives the power to the states collectively, and specifically recognizes that they may botch it and elect somebody who hasn’t qualified - in which case that person is not Constitutionally allowed to ACT AS PRESIDENT.

As to whether the public is easily deceived - anybody who claims otherwise has ignored the ramifications of all the “scandals” that have broken. It wasn’t that long ago that some were calling me crazy for suggesting that my computer was being monitored and interfered with. Now that Sharyl Attkisson has come out with the same kinds of stuff and we’ve found out that the NSA can snoop in whatever they want on our computers - including watching as we type - what a thinking person realizes is that the people who considered me “crazy” are woefully ignorant about their own government. Deceived. Those who questioned some of the Clinton deaths are now being vindicated as it is revealed in the Michael Hastings situation that the government can take control of the car of someone they want dead. “Crazy conspiracy” stuff? To the ignorant masses, yes. To those who are not deceived, it’s just reality. Which description fits most voters? Surely you are aware of the “man on the street” interviews of voters - done by folks like Sean Hannity and Howard Stern. These people don’t know anything about our government or the issues. Their ignorance is a lethal threat to our national security.

And my point was that in regards to legal eligibility even the conscientious patriots are not ALLOWED to be “informed”. We are not legally allowed access to the records that would tell us whether Obama is even here legally. It’s supposedly none of our business.

Your view of things would leave the security of this country in the hands of crack-heads and those who care about nothing but which celebrity had the latest crotch-shot. Should those people be voting on whether to press the red button? It’s a serious question because in your view those are the people who HIRE the person who can press the red button. The Constitution knows better than that. Even if 100% of the voters wanted an ineligible President, the Constitution would require them to FIRST amend the Constitution before that elected person could ever ACT as President. If 100% of the voters wanted a President who was eligible but that elected person refused to take the oath of office, that person could not ACT as President. There are requirements over and above simply getting elected - because the existence of this country is not intended to be at the mercy of the whims of crack-heads and ignoramuses.

From my profile page - this is exactly why this criminal atmosphere culminating in the coup that no one will address is vital to pound on or we are a nation are OVER:

“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.”

― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956

(And btw your comments are among the most very valuable on FR.

Too late? What’s wrong with you?

Does Biden, Reid, & Pelosi get arrested with Zippo?

Co-conspirators, before and/or after the fact. The list is a lot longer, though. I hope there are some with principles and guts making lists right now.

Defeatism is nasty. Why do people like you sow defeatism?

You like losing? You think you’re cool? You want the bad guys to win?