FEDS GRANT EMINENT DOMAIN AS COLLATERAL TO CHINA FOR U.S. DEBTS!
* Posted by Roy Sampley on February 26, 2009 at 8:12pm
* View Roy Sampley's blog
February 26, 2009
FEDS GRANT EMINENT DOMAIN AS COLLATERAL TO CHINA FOR U.S. DEBTS!
Beijing, China -- Sources at the United States Embassy in Beijing China have just CONFIRMED to me that the United States of America has tendered to China a written agreement which grants to the People's Republic of China, an option to exercise Eminent Domain within the USA, as collateral for China's continued purchase of US Treasury Notes and existing US Currency reserves!
The written agreement was brought to Beijing by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and was formalized and agreed-to during her recent trip to China.
This means that in the event the US Government defaults on its financial obligations to China, the Communist Government of China would be permitted to physically take -- inside the USA -- land, buildings, factories, perhaps even entire cities - to satisfy the financial obligations of the US government.
Put simply, the feds have now actually mortgaged the physical land and property of all citizens and businesses in the United States. They have given to a foreign power, their Constitutional power to "take" all of our property, as actual collateral for continued Chinese funding of US deficit spending and the continued carrying of US national debt.
This is an unimaginable betrayal of every man, woman and child in the USA. An outrage worthy of violent overthrow.
I am endeavoring to obtain images or copies of the actual document but in the interim, several different sources both in the US and in China have CONFIRMED this to me.
More details as they become available. . . . . spread the word ASAP.
-------------- UPDATE 1:40 pm EST
Eminent Domain is the power of government to TAKE private property for public use without the consent of the property owner. Under our Constitution, the government can only "take" when providing "just compensation" for what they've taken.
Who decides what constitutes "just compensation?" The government!
Homeowners who felt the government was not paying them enough for property in past "takings" have filed lawsuits. In absolutely every such case, the value placed upon the property by the government was upheld by the courts.
Our federal government has now granted to China, this power to "take"our homes and businesses in the event the US Gov't defaults on its debts. Let's play this out as a worst case scenario. . . . . .
The US Gov't goes belly-up and China comes in and says, "they owed us $2 Trillion in Treasury Notes and another $2 Trillion in actual cash money which is now worthless. We are taking the entire state of Hawaii and the entire state of California in lieu of this bad debt. "
With the stroke of a Chinese chop stick, Hawaii and California -- all the land and buildings in those states -- are now owned by China.
The "taking" would be a "valid public use" because it was "taken" in payment of the public debt!!!!
China could then turn around and declare the value of all that land to be worth. . . . . I dunno, ten cents on a dollar?
For your $200,000 house, you get a Chinese check for $20,000.
Needless to say, the property owners would go ballistic and demand "just compensation" for what was taken. Who gets to decide what is "just?" China! Don't think you got a fair price for what they took? No problem, sue China.
You'll lose.
People who live in those states and own their land outright, might be able to negotiate with China to "rent" back their own property, as long as the property owner continued to pay all his taxes; but the land and buildings would belong to China!
This is what our own Government has just done to us and it is the single most vile act of betrayal in the history of human existence.
------------- SECOND UPDATE 3:48 PM
In early February nine U.S. States began the process of re-asserting their Sovereignty pursuant to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution; declaring null and void any actions by Congress that violated the Constitution.
At the time, I wrote about those state efforts (Here) and wondered why so many states were taking-up such an arcane issue in such a seemingly urgent fashion. I guess now, we know why.
The states were obviously privy to what the feds were planning to do with granting Eminent Domain to China. The states took action to make certain the feds couldn't give away cities or the states themselves!
This situation is going to get VERY ugly, VERY fast as one sovereign power (the feds) try to literally give away the land of other sovereign powers, (the states). This is the type of thing that starts Civil War.
Our present federal government makes the treachery and betrayal of Benedict Arnold look like child's play. Does anyone have any information on this?
Friday, February 27, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
World financial system
World Financial System In A State Of Insolvency
Bob Chapman
The International Forecaster
February 23, 2009
The tenor of the gold market has changed. Gold has decoupled from the dollar and at the moment it is not driven by fear of inflation or hyperinflation, but by a flight to quality. What else can be expected when the media reports that governments are deliberately creating inflation to offset deflation? Jewelry demand that normally makes up 80% of gold demand has dropped and investment demand is what is now driving buying. SPDR Gold Trust, the ETF GLD, has added 200 tons of gold over the past six weeks and 62,000 ounces last week alone. We are very skeptical regarding GLD’s gold purchases due to a tight market and no reports of their purchases. They may be using derivatives illegally and if they are and the derivatives fail the owners of the fund will be left with little of their investment.
featured-stories - World Financial System In A State Of Insolvency
Obama
President Barack Obama’s new foreclosure-prevention plan is already sparking outrage from some Americans who won’t qualify for federal aid — and from those who resent having to foot the bill for those who do
The US dollar is no longer the premier safe haven, gold is. Gold is finally being recognized as wealth insurance. It has also decoupled from the influence of oil and other commodities. Even Russia in the face of terrible oil prices and one devaluation after another has purchased 90 tons of gold over the past 15 months.
Banks are being nationalized worldwide and people are becoming frightened and well they should be. The world is facing a major depression and banks are broke and being nationalized, and this is only the beginning.
The global financial system is in a tailspin and world leadership in Europe, china, Japan and the US act like the situation is some temporary breakdown. The system is beyond saving and the elitists planned it that way.
We have entered depression, which is stage 2 of the crisis and simultaneously stage 2 of the long bull market in gold and silver. As autumn comes the dollar will have broken to new lows versus other major currencies and gold and silver, as inflation rages. We could be looking at a dollar trading between 40 and 65 on the USDX, dollar index. In 2010 economic and financial distress will worsen. Some countries will slip into chaos. The fabric of society is going to be torn apart.
Today’s financial system is in a state of insolvency. The best example is the highly volatile combination of US dollars and dollar denominated assets and debt. Their problems are shared by most nations, their having copied what the US and England were doing.
These problems unfortunately have yet to be adequately addressed and that is why the situation gets progressively worse. Massive injections of liquidity were used in the 1930s with similar unsuccessful results. How can anyone believe that substituting public debt for toxic private debt is any solution? In the US $12 to $13 trillion has already been injected into the system, truly a mind-boggling amount and that is in just one year.
This exchange of debt is not only foolhardy but it assesses a hidden tax on the public via inflation, particularly on the poor and those who are retired. Minute by minute it steals their assets. The result is that this exponential increase of public debt is making US Treasuries as toxic as the private toxic waste taken in as collateral. It is a massive transfer of wealth from the people to banks, Wall Street, insurance companies and elitist corporations.
The nation depends on the dollar for financial stability and yet everyday it is being debauched. Every nation will suffer, but particularly the US and UK. The nations may be trying to replace disappearing assets, but it won’t work. It is just a temporary palliative and in the end the result will be the same. Moving debt and loss of assets from one place to another doesn’t make it go away.
Fortunately free trade, globalization, offshoring and outsourcing are dying an ignoble death. A death well deserved. There are few dangers of returning to protectionism. It has been a US government policy from 1800 to 1980 and it has been quite successful. You might say in time America will return to normality. We already see our president talking of buying American. British PM Gordon Brown is deliberately competitively devaluing the pound. Mr. Sarkozy in France is subsidizing the vehicle industry as is the US and Japan and just about everyone has a stimulus plan. This is extremely good news for Americans. Now we can again control our own destiny and not be at the mercy of transnational elitist conglomerates, who make 40% of their profits by manufacturing outside our country, importing those goods and then keeping their profits offshore to avoid 33% taxation.
This means WTO will have lost its teeth and NAFTA and CAFTA will die slow deaths. The G-20 meeting this summer will turn into a donnybrook as any pretense of free trade disappears as solutions to worldwide depression is short term. Unemployment by summer will be 20% in the US, 13% in Europe and in the second and third worlds much higher. It won’t be long and everyone will be a protectionist. All will be serving domestic markets to avoid collapse. All nations, some more than others, are facing a crisis of historic dominations. We see the eurozone and European Union breaking apart and there is even a possibility that the United States of America may no longer exist. You can’t imagine how nasty this is going to be.
The seeds have been planted. Mr. Sarkozy of France blames the Anglo-American business model, and wants to limit businesses’ relocation from country to country. Gordon Brown in England wants job priority for British workers ahead of foreigners, including EU citizens. The Chinese want out of the dollar as Mr. Obama prepares an offensive against China’s human rights and trade tactics. Russia blames the US for the crisis and rightly so.
The degenerative process in this phase of disintegration began in June of 2002. That was the point of no return when interest rates began to be lowered and when money and credit was expanded to smother deflation. This time the end of free trade will expedite the process over the next two years.
2009 should begin more accelerated disintegration of the international financial system. 2009 could be the big year of the crash, but it will take a little longer we believe – perhaps 2010 or 2011 – we’ll see.
We see wishful thinking in Europe and Canada. They expect to fare better than the US. That will not be the case European banks are as insolvent as US banks if not more so. Germany’s government, but not the people, wants the eurozone to stay together. More than 70% of Germans want out. They are sick and tired of supporting the rest of the zone, especially Italy, Spain and Ireland, which for all intents and purposes are broke. France stumbles along in an insular manner, while selling off its gold. Then there are the Eastern European debt problems, which Western Europe has to cover. The Swiss are not under pressure. They are concerned about the franc rising in value not falling in value. Canada ships 80% or more of exports to the US. The US is in depression and Canada and Mexico will soon follow. Worldwide trade is about to come to a virtual halt and that means all of the above are in serious trouble. The G7 and G20 talks might just as well be called off – it’s now everyone for himself. You must have 85% to 100% of assets in gold and silver related assets. If you have not done that do it now with gold close to $1,000 an ounce and silver close to $15.00. This is only the beginning of phase two of at least four phases upward in prices. The only way you can financially survive is with these two assets. Everything else will fall 60% to 95%. This depression will be far worse than the “Great Depression.” The fear of fiat paper money is spreading worldwide.
Europeans do not think the crisis will be over anytime soon. They see no visible hope of leadership from the G7 or G20, and only 12% believe the US has a solution. Over 85% believe their political leadership does not reflect their views, expectations, nor a grasp of the crisis at hand. Only 39% believe interest rates should be reduced further. The political and financial interests in Europe are no more responsive than they are in the US. That means eventually the public will be forced to do something about it. That means Europe and Canada will have the same problems as the US. No one is going to escape this one.
For those of you who missed it the Dow Jones removed all stocks in the industrial average priced under $10.00, effectively eliminating the crippled financial sector. Had they been left in the Dow would be lower and would have broken down below 7286. This is just more flagrant manipulation. Almost every day we see it in a number of markets. This week the Fed and the Treasury tried to push the stock market up and the commodities and gold and silver markets down but to no avail. Downside stock market volume has been some 65% of total volume and there are over 300 new lows almost every day.
President Barack Obama’s new foreclosure-prevention plan is already sparking outrage from some Americans who won’t qualify for federal aid — and from those who resent having to foot the bill for those who do…"The government isn’t out there to help people who obey the law and follow the rules."
Mr. Obama "told everybody, ‘I’m going to spread wealth around,’ and that’s what he’s going to do," Mr. Newton said.
The housing measures have also upset a range of homeowners who say they shouldn’t have to subsidize those who bought more than they could afford. "We’ve lived a conservative life," said Tim O’Brien, 61, a retired CPA from Los Angeles. "We’ve paid our house off and saved our money, so you kind of find yourself on this issue not agreeing with everything."
The 30-and-out retirement program persists — a sacred part of the inflated cost structure that makes it unprofitable for Detroit to make small cars in America. Another example: Every Detroit factory still has dozens of union committeemen — the bargaining committee, shop committee, health and safety committee, recreation committee, etc. — who actually are paid by the car companies. This is a "legacy cost" that the nonunion Japanese, German and Korean car factories in America don’t have to carry.
The union, though, shouldn’t bear the entire blame for Detroit’s disaster. It wasn’t the UAW that pushed GM into the home-mortgage market where it has incurred billions in losses over the last couple of years. Nor can the UAW be blamed for Saturn and Saab, two brands that never made money, as GM executives have recently acknowledged. What they haven’t explained is why their company would keep these money-losers around for nearly 20 years.
Southern California — with home prices now at 2002 levels and falling — is at the start of what is likely to be a long period of relatively affordable housing, economists and housing market analysts say.
Home prices are now below their historical average compared with incomes, putting them within reach of more people than they have been since about 2000, several studies show.
But that doesn’t mean prices will stop falling soon, especially if jobs continue to vanish at their current pace.
After soaring during this decade’s housing bubble, home prices recently fell back in line with what people earn — and then kept falling.
The January median sales price for Southern California homes fell to $250,000, a 40% drop from the same month a year prior, the San Diego real estate research firm MDA DataQuick reported Thursday. The price decline was accelerated by foreclosures, which accounted for 60% of sales last month.
Prices have now dipped below the level at which they’d be in line with the historical ratio of prices to incomes in California, said Christopher Thornberg, a Los Angeles economist who is principal of the consulting firm Beacon Economics.
Thornberg estimates the current median home value in California is $250,000. But wages are high enough — and interest rates low enough — that a median value of $290,000 would match historical norms, he said.
"If you’re looking for a long-run opportunity, real estate is getting to that point," said Thornberg, who was an early predictor of the housing crash.
But it’s not at that point yet.
Thornberg believes home prices have another 25% to 30% to drop. They may be historically low, but "in the past four or five months, unemployment has been through the roof," Thornberg said.
Fearing for their jobs, many potential home buyers are putting off a purchase. Others simply can’t buy anything because they are already out of work.
Thornberg forecasts that California home prices will fall until the middle of 2010, when they will begin to slowly creep up
Bob Chapman
The International Forecaster
February 23, 2009
The tenor of the gold market has changed. Gold has decoupled from the dollar and at the moment it is not driven by fear of inflation or hyperinflation, but by a flight to quality. What else can be expected when the media reports that governments are deliberately creating inflation to offset deflation? Jewelry demand that normally makes up 80% of gold demand has dropped and investment demand is what is now driving buying. SPDR Gold Trust, the ETF GLD, has added 200 tons of gold over the past six weeks and 62,000 ounces last week alone. We are very skeptical regarding GLD’s gold purchases due to a tight market and no reports of their purchases. They may be using derivatives illegally and if they are and the derivatives fail the owners of the fund will be left with little of their investment.
featured-stories - World Financial System In A State Of Insolvency
Obama
President Barack Obama’s new foreclosure-prevention plan is already sparking outrage from some Americans who won’t qualify for federal aid — and from those who resent having to foot the bill for those who do
The US dollar is no longer the premier safe haven, gold is. Gold is finally being recognized as wealth insurance. It has also decoupled from the influence of oil and other commodities. Even Russia in the face of terrible oil prices and one devaluation after another has purchased 90 tons of gold over the past 15 months.
Banks are being nationalized worldwide and people are becoming frightened and well they should be. The world is facing a major depression and banks are broke and being nationalized, and this is only the beginning.
The global financial system is in a tailspin and world leadership in Europe, china, Japan and the US act like the situation is some temporary breakdown. The system is beyond saving and the elitists planned it that way.
We have entered depression, which is stage 2 of the crisis and simultaneously stage 2 of the long bull market in gold and silver. As autumn comes the dollar will have broken to new lows versus other major currencies and gold and silver, as inflation rages. We could be looking at a dollar trading between 40 and 65 on the USDX, dollar index. In 2010 economic and financial distress will worsen. Some countries will slip into chaos. The fabric of society is going to be torn apart.
Today’s financial system is in a state of insolvency. The best example is the highly volatile combination of US dollars and dollar denominated assets and debt. Their problems are shared by most nations, their having copied what the US and England were doing.
These problems unfortunately have yet to be adequately addressed and that is why the situation gets progressively worse. Massive injections of liquidity were used in the 1930s with similar unsuccessful results. How can anyone believe that substituting public debt for toxic private debt is any solution? In the US $12 to $13 trillion has already been injected into the system, truly a mind-boggling amount and that is in just one year.
This exchange of debt is not only foolhardy but it assesses a hidden tax on the public via inflation, particularly on the poor and those who are retired. Minute by minute it steals their assets. The result is that this exponential increase of public debt is making US Treasuries as toxic as the private toxic waste taken in as collateral. It is a massive transfer of wealth from the people to banks, Wall Street, insurance companies and elitist corporations.
The nation depends on the dollar for financial stability and yet everyday it is being debauched. Every nation will suffer, but particularly the US and UK. The nations may be trying to replace disappearing assets, but it won’t work. It is just a temporary palliative and in the end the result will be the same. Moving debt and loss of assets from one place to another doesn’t make it go away.
Fortunately free trade, globalization, offshoring and outsourcing are dying an ignoble death. A death well deserved. There are few dangers of returning to protectionism. It has been a US government policy from 1800 to 1980 and it has been quite successful. You might say in time America will return to normality. We already see our president talking of buying American. British PM Gordon Brown is deliberately competitively devaluing the pound. Mr. Sarkozy in France is subsidizing the vehicle industry as is the US and Japan and just about everyone has a stimulus plan. This is extremely good news for Americans. Now we can again control our own destiny and not be at the mercy of transnational elitist conglomerates, who make 40% of their profits by manufacturing outside our country, importing those goods and then keeping their profits offshore to avoid 33% taxation.
This means WTO will have lost its teeth and NAFTA and CAFTA will die slow deaths. The G-20 meeting this summer will turn into a donnybrook as any pretense of free trade disappears as solutions to worldwide depression is short term. Unemployment by summer will be 20% in the US, 13% in Europe and in the second and third worlds much higher. It won’t be long and everyone will be a protectionist. All will be serving domestic markets to avoid collapse. All nations, some more than others, are facing a crisis of historic dominations. We see the eurozone and European Union breaking apart and there is even a possibility that the United States of America may no longer exist. You can’t imagine how nasty this is going to be.
The seeds have been planted. Mr. Sarkozy of France blames the Anglo-American business model, and wants to limit businesses’ relocation from country to country. Gordon Brown in England wants job priority for British workers ahead of foreigners, including EU citizens. The Chinese want out of the dollar as Mr. Obama prepares an offensive against China’s human rights and trade tactics. Russia blames the US for the crisis and rightly so.
The degenerative process in this phase of disintegration began in June of 2002. That was the point of no return when interest rates began to be lowered and when money and credit was expanded to smother deflation. This time the end of free trade will expedite the process over the next two years.
2009 should begin more accelerated disintegration of the international financial system. 2009 could be the big year of the crash, but it will take a little longer we believe – perhaps 2010 or 2011 – we’ll see.
We see wishful thinking in Europe and Canada. They expect to fare better than the US. That will not be the case European banks are as insolvent as US banks if not more so. Germany’s government, but not the people, wants the eurozone to stay together. More than 70% of Germans want out. They are sick and tired of supporting the rest of the zone, especially Italy, Spain and Ireland, which for all intents and purposes are broke. France stumbles along in an insular manner, while selling off its gold. Then there are the Eastern European debt problems, which Western Europe has to cover. The Swiss are not under pressure. They are concerned about the franc rising in value not falling in value. Canada ships 80% or more of exports to the US. The US is in depression and Canada and Mexico will soon follow. Worldwide trade is about to come to a virtual halt and that means all of the above are in serious trouble. The G7 and G20 talks might just as well be called off – it’s now everyone for himself. You must have 85% to 100% of assets in gold and silver related assets. If you have not done that do it now with gold close to $1,000 an ounce and silver close to $15.00. This is only the beginning of phase two of at least four phases upward in prices. The only way you can financially survive is with these two assets. Everything else will fall 60% to 95%. This depression will be far worse than the “Great Depression.” The fear of fiat paper money is spreading worldwide.
Europeans do not think the crisis will be over anytime soon. They see no visible hope of leadership from the G7 or G20, and only 12% believe the US has a solution. Over 85% believe their political leadership does not reflect their views, expectations, nor a grasp of the crisis at hand. Only 39% believe interest rates should be reduced further. The political and financial interests in Europe are no more responsive than they are in the US. That means eventually the public will be forced to do something about it. That means Europe and Canada will have the same problems as the US. No one is going to escape this one.
For those of you who missed it the Dow Jones removed all stocks in the industrial average priced under $10.00, effectively eliminating the crippled financial sector. Had they been left in the Dow would be lower and would have broken down below 7286. This is just more flagrant manipulation. Almost every day we see it in a number of markets. This week the Fed and the Treasury tried to push the stock market up and the commodities and gold and silver markets down but to no avail. Downside stock market volume has been some 65% of total volume and there are over 300 new lows almost every day.
President Barack Obama’s new foreclosure-prevention plan is already sparking outrage from some Americans who won’t qualify for federal aid — and from those who resent having to foot the bill for those who do…"The government isn’t out there to help people who obey the law and follow the rules."
Mr. Obama "told everybody, ‘I’m going to spread wealth around,’ and that’s what he’s going to do," Mr. Newton said.
The housing measures have also upset a range of homeowners who say they shouldn’t have to subsidize those who bought more than they could afford. "We’ve lived a conservative life," said Tim O’Brien, 61, a retired CPA from Los Angeles. "We’ve paid our house off and saved our money, so you kind of find yourself on this issue not agreeing with everything."
The 30-and-out retirement program persists — a sacred part of the inflated cost structure that makes it unprofitable for Detroit to make small cars in America. Another example: Every Detroit factory still has dozens of union committeemen — the bargaining committee, shop committee, health and safety committee, recreation committee, etc. — who actually are paid by the car companies. This is a "legacy cost" that the nonunion Japanese, German and Korean car factories in America don’t have to carry.
The union, though, shouldn’t bear the entire blame for Detroit’s disaster. It wasn’t the UAW that pushed GM into the home-mortgage market where it has incurred billions in losses over the last couple of years. Nor can the UAW be blamed for Saturn and Saab, two brands that never made money, as GM executives have recently acknowledged. What they haven’t explained is why their company would keep these money-losers around for nearly 20 years.
Southern California — with home prices now at 2002 levels and falling — is at the start of what is likely to be a long period of relatively affordable housing, economists and housing market analysts say.
Home prices are now below their historical average compared with incomes, putting them within reach of more people than they have been since about 2000, several studies show.
But that doesn’t mean prices will stop falling soon, especially if jobs continue to vanish at their current pace.
After soaring during this decade’s housing bubble, home prices recently fell back in line with what people earn — and then kept falling.
The January median sales price for Southern California homes fell to $250,000, a 40% drop from the same month a year prior, the San Diego real estate research firm MDA DataQuick reported Thursday. The price decline was accelerated by foreclosures, which accounted for 60% of sales last month.
Prices have now dipped below the level at which they’d be in line with the historical ratio of prices to incomes in California, said Christopher Thornberg, a Los Angeles economist who is principal of the consulting firm Beacon Economics.
Thornberg estimates the current median home value in California is $250,000. But wages are high enough — and interest rates low enough — that a median value of $290,000 would match historical norms, he said.
"If you’re looking for a long-run opportunity, real estate is getting to that point," said Thornberg, who was an early predictor of the housing crash.
But it’s not at that point yet.
Thornberg believes home prices have another 25% to 30% to drop. They may be historically low, but "in the past four or five months, unemployment has been through the roof," Thornberg said.
Fearing for their jobs, many potential home buyers are putting off a purchase. Others simply can’t buy anything because they are already out of work.
Thornberg forecasts that California home prices will fall until the middle of 2010, when they will begin to slowly creep up
Sunday, February 22, 2009
H.R. 17.. Your action is needed NOW!!
Loading
Welcome changethechange
Bills Senators Representatives Committees Industries Issues Forums Tools Blog
Text of H.R.17 as Introduced in House
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009
To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.
current 111st session of congress
Back to Bill Details
Version History
Loading Bill Text
HR 17 IHCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
111th CONGRESSCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
1st SessionCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
H. R. 17CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
2
To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
January 6, 2009CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Mr. BARTLETT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the JudiciaryCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
A BILLCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Citizens’ Self-Defense Act of 2009’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
1
The Congress finds the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: ‘[C]ourts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(C) The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals--or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(3) Law-abiding citizens, seeking only to provide for their families’ defense, are routinely prosecuted for brandishing or using a firearm in self-defense. For example:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(A) In 1986, Don Bennett of Oak Park, Illinois, was shot at by 2 men who had just stolen $1,200 in cash and jewelry from his suburban Chicago service station. The police arrested Bennett for violating Oak Park’s handgun ban. The police never caught the actual criminals.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(B) Ronald Biggs, a resident of Goldsboro, North Carolina, was arrested for shooting an intruder in 1990. Four men broke into Biggs’ residence one night, ransacked the home and then assaulted him with a baseball bat. When Biggs attempted to escape through the back door, the group chased him and Biggs turned and shot one of the assailants in the stomach. Biggs was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon--a felony. His assailants were charged with misdemeanors.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(C) Don Campbell of Port Huron, Michigan, was arrested, jailed, and criminally charged after he shot a criminal assailant in 1991. The thief had broken into Campbell’s store and attacked him. The prosecutor plea-bargained with the assailant and planned to use him to testify against Campbell for felonious use of a firearm. Only after intense community pressure did the prosecutor finally drop the charges.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
1
(4) The courts have granted immunity from prosecution to police officers who use firearms in the line of duty. Similarly, law-abiding citizens who use firearms to protect themselves, their families, and their homes against violent felons should not be subject to lawsuits by the violent felons who sought to victimize them.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3. RIGHT TO OBTAIN FIREARMS FOR SECURITY, AND TO USE FIREARMS IN DEFENSE OF SELF, FAMILY, OR HOME; ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Reaffirmation of Right- A person not prohibited from receiving a firearm by Section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, shall have the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) in defense of self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) in defense of self or family in the course of the commission by another person of a violent felony against the person or a member of the person’s family; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(3) in defense of the person’s home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) Firearm Defined- As used in subsection (a), the term ‘firearm’ means--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) a shotgun (as defined in section 921(a)(5) of title 18, United States Code);CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) a rifle (as defined in section 921(a)(7) of title 18, United States Code); orCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(3) a handgun (as defined in section 10 of Public Law 99-408).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(c) Enforcement of Right-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) IN GENERAL- A person whose right under subsection (a) is violated in any manner may bring an action in any United States district court against the United States, any State, or any person for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) AUTHORITY TO AWARD A REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEE- In an action brought under paragraph (1), the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(3) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS- An action may not be brought under paragraph (1) after the 5-year period that begins with the date the violation described in paragraph (1) is discovered.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
OpenCongress:
* Home
* Search
* RSS Feeds
* About Open Congress
* Login
* Help (FAQ)
Go to:
* Bills
* Senators
* Representatives
* Committees
* Industries
* Issues
Issue Areas by popularity:
* Firearms control
* Firearms
* Assault weapons
* Unemployment insurance
* Immigration
* Abortion
Most Viewed Bills:
* H.R.45
* H.R.1
* S.1
* H.R.17
* H.J.Res.5
* H.R.264
OpenCongress is a joint project of the Participatory Politics Foundation and the Sunlight Foundation. Questions? Comments? Contact Us
Data made available by:
Govtrack.US
Help Open Up Congress:
The OpenHouse Project
[close]
Welcome changethechange
Bills Senators Representatives Committees Industries Issues Forums Tools Blog
Text of H.R.17 as Introduced in House
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009
To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.
current 111st session of congress
Back to Bill Details
Version History
Loading Bill Text
HR 17 IHCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
111th CONGRESSCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
1st SessionCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
H. R. 17CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
2
To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
January 6, 2009CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Mr. BARTLETT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the JudiciaryCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
A BILLCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Citizens’ Self-Defense Act of 2009’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
1
The Congress finds the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: ‘[C]ourts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(C) The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals--or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(3) Law-abiding citizens, seeking only to provide for their families’ defense, are routinely prosecuted for brandishing or using a firearm in self-defense. For example:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(A) In 1986, Don Bennett of Oak Park, Illinois, was shot at by 2 men who had just stolen $1,200 in cash and jewelry from his suburban Chicago service station. The police arrested Bennett for violating Oak Park’s handgun ban. The police never caught the actual criminals.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(B) Ronald Biggs, a resident of Goldsboro, North Carolina, was arrested for shooting an intruder in 1990. Four men broke into Biggs’ residence one night, ransacked the home and then assaulted him with a baseball bat. When Biggs attempted to escape through the back door, the group chased him and Biggs turned and shot one of the assailants in the stomach. Biggs was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon--a felony. His assailants were charged with misdemeanors.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(C) Don Campbell of Port Huron, Michigan, was arrested, jailed, and criminally charged after he shot a criminal assailant in 1991. The thief had broken into Campbell’s store and attacked him. The prosecutor plea-bargained with the assailant and planned to use him to testify against Campbell for felonious use of a firearm. Only after intense community pressure did the prosecutor finally drop the charges.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
1
(4) The courts have granted immunity from prosecution to police officers who use firearms in the line of duty. Similarly, law-abiding citizens who use firearms to protect themselves, their families, and their homes against violent felons should not be subject to lawsuits by the violent felons who sought to victimize them.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3. RIGHT TO OBTAIN FIREARMS FOR SECURITY, AND TO USE FIREARMS IN DEFENSE OF SELF, FAMILY, OR HOME; ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Reaffirmation of Right- A person not prohibited from receiving a firearm by Section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, shall have the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) in defense of self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) in defense of self or family in the course of the commission by another person of a violent felony against the person or a member of the person’s family; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(3) in defense of the person’s home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) Firearm Defined- As used in subsection (a), the term ‘firearm’ means--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) a shotgun (as defined in section 921(a)(5) of title 18, United States Code);CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) a rifle (as defined in section 921(a)(7) of title 18, United States Code); orCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(3) a handgun (as defined in section 10 of Public Law 99-408).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(c) Enforcement of Right-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) IN GENERAL- A person whose right under subsection (a) is violated in any manner may bring an action in any United States district court against the United States, any State, or any person for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) AUTHORITY TO AWARD A REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEE- In an action brought under paragraph (1), the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(3) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS- An action may not be brought under paragraph (1) after the 5-year period that begins with the date the violation described in paragraph (1) is discovered.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
OpenCongress:
* Home
* Search
* RSS Feeds
* About Open Congress
* Login
* Help (FAQ)
Go to:
* Bills
* Senators
* Representatives
* Committees
* Industries
* Issues
Issue Areas by popularity:
* Firearms control
* Firearms
* Assault weapons
* Unemployment insurance
* Immigration
* Abortion
Most Viewed Bills:
* H.R.45
* H.R.1
* S.1
* H.R.17
* H.J.Res.5
* H.R.264
OpenCongress is a joint project of the Participatory Politics Foundation and the Sunlight Foundation. Questions? Comments? Contact Us
Data made available by:
Govtrack.US
Help Open Up Congress:
The OpenHouse Project
[close]
OBAMA an open Comunist,Something must be done
VIDEONETDAILY
Alan Keyes: Stop Obama or U.S. will cease to exist
Claims 'communist usurper' plunges country into chaos
Posted: February 21, 2009
10:00 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Alan Keyes
Alan Keyes, a 2008 presidential candidate who is also a plaintiff in one of the many lawsuits challenging Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, charged at a pro-life rally that unless Obama's social and economic policies are stopped, the United States as we know it is over.
Keyes' comments were part of an interview with a reporter from KHAS-TV at a fundraiser for the AAA Crisis Pregnancy Center in Hastings, Neb.
"Obama is a radical communist, and I think it is becoming clear. That is what I told people in Illinois and now everybody realizes it's true," said Keyes, who ran unsuccessfully against Obama for the state's open Senate seat in 2004. "He is going to destroy this country, and we are either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist."
Keyes also reasserted his belief that unless the question of Obama's eligibility to serve as president is answered definitively, America may face the startling crisis of an executive branch run by a "usurper."
"Is he president of the United States?" Keyes asked the reporter of Obama. "According to the Constitution, in order to be eligible for president you have to be a natural born citizen. He has refused to provide proof."
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 240,000 others and sign up now!
"I'm not sure he's even president of the United States," Keyes continued, "neither are many of our military people now who are now going to court to ask the question, 'Do we have to obey a man who is not qualified under the constitution?' We are in the midst of the greatest crisis this nation has ever seen, and if we don't stop laughing about it and deal with it, we're going to find ourselves in the midst of chaos, confusion and civil war."
Keyes, who stated he refuses even to refer to Obama as president, labeled the man in the Oval Office as "somebody who is kind of an alleged usurper, who is alleged to be someone who is occupying that office without constitutional warrant to do so."
Video of the interview can be seen below:
(Story continues below)
Keyes' comments included harsh criticism of Obama's policies on immigration, abortion, and the mortgage crisis. He concluded the interview by railing against the president's push for hundreds of billions of dollars in government economic stimulus spending.
"We are claiming that a bankrupt
government can save a bankrupt banking system," Keyes said. "The fact that we have just elected an individual – who may or may not be qualified – and he presents silly ideas like this and says, 'Let's move forward now,' and we're all acting like the laws of economics have been repealed and we can actually afford to foot the bill with money nobody's got, this is insane.
"It's got to lead to the collapse of our economy," Keys declared, "and it's going to."
WND has reported on multiple legal challenges, including Keyes' case, that have alleged Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some claim he was not born in Hawaii, as he insists, but in Kenya. Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
The Keyes case is being handled largely by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, but others playing a key role in the legal actions include Orly Taitz of California as well as Philip Berg, both of whom already have had their arguments rejected as not worthy of hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:
* New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
* Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Berg's latest appeal, requesting an injunction to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, was denied.
* Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
* Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
* Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
* Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
* Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
* In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
* In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
* In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
* California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.
In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:
* In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
* In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
* In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
* In Washington, L. Charles vs. Obama.
* In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.
WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.
The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii, which the state's procedures allowed at the time?
Alan Keyes: Stop Obama or U.S. will cease to exist
Claims 'communist usurper' plunges country into chaos
Posted: February 21, 2009
10:00 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Alan Keyes
Alan Keyes, a 2008 presidential candidate who is also a plaintiff in one of the many lawsuits challenging Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, charged at a pro-life rally that unless Obama's social and economic policies are stopped, the United States as we know it is over.
Keyes' comments were part of an interview with a reporter from KHAS-TV at a fundraiser for the AAA Crisis Pregnancy Center in Hastings, Neb.
"Obama is a radical communist, and I think it is becoming clear. That is what I told people in Illinois and now everybody realizes it's true," said Keyes, who ran unsuccessfully against Obama for the state's open Senate seat in 2004. "He is going to destroy this country, and we are either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist."
Keyes also reasserted his belief that unless the question of Obama's eligibility to serve as president is answered definitively, America may face the startling crisis of an executive branch run by a "usurper."
"Is he president of the United States?" Keyes asked the reporter of Obama. "According to the Constitution, in order to be eligible for president you have to be a natural born citizen. He has refused to provide proof."
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 240,000 others and sign up now!
"I'm not sure he's even president of the United States," Keyes continued, "neither are many of our military people now who are now going to court to ask the question, 'Do we have to obey a man who is not qualified under the constitution?' We are in the midst of the greatest crisis this nation has ever seen, and if we don't stop laughing about it and deal with it, we're going to find ourselves in the midst of chaos, confusion and civil war."
Keyes, who stated he refuses even to refer to Obama as president, labeled the man in the Oval Office as "somebody who is kind of an alleged usurper, who is alleged to be someone who is occupying that office without constitutional warrant to do so."
Video of the interview can be seen below:
(Story continues below)
Keyes' comments included harsh criticism of Obama's policies on immigration, abortion, and the mortgage crisis. He concluded the interview by railing against the president's push for hundreds of billions of dollars in government economic stimulus spending.
"We are claiming that a bankrupt
government can save a bankrupt banking system," Keyes said. "The fact that we have just elected an individual – who may or may not be qualified – and he presents silly ideas like this and says, 'Let's move forward now,' and we're all acting like the laws of economics have been repealed and we can actually afford to foot the bill with money nobody's got, this is insane.
"It's got to lead to the collapse of our economy," Keys declared, "and it's going to."
WND has reported on multiple legal challenges, including Keyes' case, that have alleged Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some claim he was not born in Hawaii, as he insists, but in Kenya. Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
The Keyes case is being handled largely by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, but others playing a key role in the legal actions include Orly Taitz of California as well as Philip Berg, both of whom already have had their arguments rejected as not worthy of hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:
* New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
* Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Berg's latest appeal, requesting an injunction to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, was denied.
* Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
* Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
* Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
* Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
* Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
* In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
* In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
* In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
* California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.
In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:
* In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
* In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
* In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
* In Washington, L. Charles vs. Obama.
* In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.
WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.
The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii, which the state's procedures allowed at the time?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
