More Obama Legitimacy News

Barack Hussein Obama has been sworn into the Office of President of the United States of America. Before that January 20th date there was marginal coverage of President Obama’s obvious cover-up pertaining to his eligibility for the Office of President.

The thing that Conspiracy Theorists should be hopping mad about is that the vale of darkness is not coming from what BHO has some control over. Nay friends, the Federal and State Judiciary, State Secretaries of State, a Hawaiian Governor, Hospitals and related universities are ALL part of a cover-up that by virtue of inaction calls into question President Obama’s legitimacy to his elected Office.

After January 20th the Mainstream Media coverage of the question of BHO status as a Natural Born Citizen has equally vanished adding the mystery of cover-up.

Now it seems only a few stalwart blogs which have a specific reading constituency and a few out of the Mainstream Media keep plugging along trying to get a Court – indeed – the Supreme Court of the United States to hear their voice.

Of course those who are still pursuing BHO’s legitimacy have an agenda to cause a Constitutional crisis in which the end result is the defrocking of President Obama of his Office. I can join that club; however the real issue is simply affording the American public honest answers to LEGITIMATE questions.

No matter if the answers are favorable or unfavorable for Barack Hussein Obama; the actual litmus test is the authority and viability of the U.S. Constitution as the frame work for the rule of law in America.

This multi-level of private, academic institutional, hospital, State and Federal government cover-up raises an implication that everyone’s hoped for Obamasiah is a man that does not honor his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

If President Obama does not honor his oath, what does that say about his intentions to transform America to the Left no matter the opposition as well as his commitment to America’s National Security at home and abroad?

WorldNetDaily (WND) is one of those out of the Mainstream Media outlets that are definitely not respected by Leftist and there are a significant amount of centrists and Conservatives that question WND’s quality of information. I for one trust the angle of WND and I certainly doubt this media outlet does any worse on the political Right then say the New York Times does on the political Left. There is an old saying about processing information: Be at least as smart as a cow; eat the hay and spit out the sticks. I suspect that is an axiom that could be applied to the entire political spectrum. One stick you should spit out immediately is that any form of media is unbiased. Those days are gone.

Even Fox News that bills itself as “fair and balanced” is obviously leaning toward the Right. Thank God they do. At least there is another MSM angle for people to find some good hay to eat to distinguish form the sticks in most of the Slanted Left MSM.

Anyway … Getting back to BHO’s legitimacy to be President; I read a WND article of the latest efforts to discover that legitimacy.

Evidently a gal lawyer from the State of California managed to get into a lecture given by Chief Justice John Roberts at the University of Idaho. Attorney Orly Taitz pressed the Chief Justice about the BHO eligibility to be President. She got a promise from the Chief Justice in front of witnesses that included people of State and Academic stature to look into the Obama mystery.

Take a moment and read the WND REPORT.

JRH 3/18/09

Group to 'Truth Boat' Hillary ...

Here is a question that should be considered by the whole (honest) political spectrum swinging from Left to Right in America: Does America want a President whose family (husband & wife, err Bonnie and Clyde) has a long history of evading felonious charges and civil suits? It is true there has never been a conviction, however Jesse James was never convicted either. Was the old Southern sympathizer of a lost civil war who robbed banks for a living an innocent man?

Okay I know I am stretching the comparison, Jesse never was caught to stand trial; nonetheless America’s political spectrum needs to consider the huge amount of times the Clintons have been looked at for criminal crimes and civil lawsuits. The Clinton past makes Tricky Dick Nixon look like an amateur. One can also observe a dubious reputation to a string of Conspiracy Theory accusations based on attempting to connect the dots yet a glaring absence of physical evidence.

JRH 8/16/07
************************************

Group to 'Truth Boat' Hillary

Chastises media for ignoring fraud suit, felony allegations

By Art Moore

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Posted: August 16, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern

Evoking the Vietnam Navy veterans who helped sink Sen. John Kerry's presidential bid in 2004, a newly formed foundation has launched a campaign to "Truth Boat" Sen. Hillary Clinton, claiming the mainstream media have protected her from incontrovertible evidence of illegal conduct.

Wall Street whistleblower Jim Nesfield's Equal Justice Foundation features Peter Franklin Paul's fraud suit against the Clintons and the accompanying allegations against the New York senator.

"It's the No. 1 civil case in the country exposing an unprecedented array of frauds and obstruction of justice by the Clintons that the media refuses to report," Nesfield told WND.

In a year-long effort coinciding with the presidential campaign, Nesfield will try to mobilize a consortium of bloggers to "crash through" what he calls "the information blockade" created by U.S. media. His aim, he says, is to "help educate the public about the facts of Hillary Clinton's misconduct as presented in Paul v. Clinton."

As WND reported, a California appeals court has set oral arguments for an appeal of Sen. Clinton's dismissal from a $17 million fraud case in which her husband already is a defendant.

Along with ruling whether the New York Democrat should also be a defendant in the case, the court will be asked to decide whether she committed a felony by soliciting campaign contributions of more than $1.2 million.

As WND has reported, Paul claims the former president destroyed his entertainment company – Stan Lee Media – to get out of a $17 million deal in which Clinton promised to promote the firm in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife's 2000 campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to foot the bill for a lavish Hollywood gala and fundraiser prior to the 2000 election that eventually cost him nearly $2 million.

Nesfield, a former Wall Street trader, drew wide attention when he assisted then-New York Attorney General Elliott Spitzer in an investigation of a mutual fund scandal in 2004 that cost investors more than $1 trillion.

Nesfield developed an interest in Paul's case after becoming an investor in Stan Lee Media in 2000. He recently brought together a group of former investors in the company to reconstitute it for the purpose of exposing actions that led to the company's downfall. The company, under Nesfield's leadership, has filed a $5 billion suit on behalf of the investors against Marvel Entertainment, claiming Stan Lee Media co-owns Marvel's superhero characters, including Spider-Man, X-Men and the Incredible Hulk. He also alleges fraud by company officials who, he believes, made Paul a scapegoat.

Paul is awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to a 10(b)5 violation of the Securities and Exchange Commission for not publicly disclosing his control of Merrill Lynch margin accounts that held Stan Lee Media stocks. He also was cited for certain transactions in mid-November 2000 to keep the stock from losing value. Nesfield asserts after his examination of the case that federal prosecutors never should have proffered charges against Paul. He contends Paul's actions were done only to save the company from collapse.

Self-financed

Nesfield says his new foundation is self-financed, with no support from outside sources, including the Republican Party.

The father of seven children, he describes himself as a traditional Catholic from a family of left-leaning union organizers. He says he has voted only once, choosing President Bush in the 2004 campaign.

His foundation also is sponsoring the first-ever documentary on Sen. Clinton, "Hillary Exposed: The Case of Paul v Clinton," which uses more than five hours of exclusive home videos of the Clintons made by Paul. The foundation website features a trailer for the upcoming film.

Nesfield says the filing of a third fraudulent Federal Election Commission report related to the Hollywood gala is the most damning evidence against Clinton, followed by her use of California's anti-SLAPP law to remove herself from Paul's case.

As WND reported, the FEC fined a committee that helped fund Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign for filing reports that failed to account for Paul's massive donations.

Clinton was dismissed from Paul's fraud suit April 7, 2006, by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz on the basis of the state's anti-SLAPP law, which, under the First Amendment, protects politicians from frivolous lawsuits during their election campaigns. Paul's legal team argues Sen. Clinton violated the federal code and, therefore, according to the law, would not be covered by the anti-SLAPP statute.

Nesfield contends that as a presidential candidate, Clinton should subject herself to the rule of law and publicly declare she doesn't fear the case, rather than invoking the anti-SLAPP statute and leaving an air of doubt.

"Why avail yourself of that if you were not guilty," Nesfield asked. "If you're not guilty, let him bring all the charges; if there's no merit, you don't need any escape provisions."
_______________________

Group to 'Truth Boat' Hillary

Art Moore is a news editor with WorldNetDaily.com.

Copyright 1997-2007 All Rights Reserved. WorldNetDaily.com Inc.

Muslims Silence Critics

Has anyone noticed the exposé thread of anti-Jihadists in America and Britain lately? Theme seems to be to let everyone know that Jihadists and Islamists are using Western Legal systems against Western Free Speech or Western reporting of Mohammedan suspicious behavior of the terrorist kind.

Maybe it is time to do a tit-for-tat in the legal system and begin utilizing civil suits against Mohammedan Charity Fronts for terrorists and wealthy Mohammedans reside in foreign nations. What is good for the goose is good for the gander as the cliché goes.

JRH 8/7/07
************************************

Muslims Silence Critics

By Robert Spencer

FrontPageMagazine.com 8/6/2007

After a police raid Friday at Your Black Muslim Bakery in Oakland, bakery employee Devaughndre Broussard admitted to murdering Chauncey Bailey, the editor of the Oakland Post. Bailey was writing a series of investigative articles about the Bakery – and that’s why, according to police, Broussard killed him.

Your Black Muslim Bakery is an outpost of the Nation of Islam, not of any orthodox Islamic sect, but in this murder Devaughndre Broussard has followed a pattern that some orthodox Muslims have also followed. Violent reprisal has long been an occupational hazard of those who dare to question or investigate Islamic groups or criticize Islamic practices. Filmmaker Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered in November 2004 by a Muslim who took exception to his criticism of the oppression of women in Islamic societies. In 1947, the Iranian lawyer Ahmad Kasravi was murdered in court by Islamic jihadists; Kasravi was there to defend himself against charges that he had attacked Islam.

Four years later, members of the same radical Muslim group, Fadayan-e Islam, assassinated Iranian Prime Minister Haji-Ali Razmara after a group of Muslim clerics issued a fatwa calling for his death. In 1992, the Egyptian writer Faraj Foda was murdered by Muslims enraged at his “apostasy” from Islam — another offense for which traditional Islamic law prescribes the death penalty. Foda’s countryman, the Nobel Prizewinning novelist Naguib Mahfouz, was stabbed in 1994 after accusations of blasphemy. And of course, there is the Iranian regime’s notorious death fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

Chauncey Bailey, moreover, is not the first person in the United States to have been murdered by a Muslim who didn’t like what he said. That distinction may belong to Rashad Khalifa, an unorthodox interpreter of the Qur’an who was murdered in Tucson, Arizona, in January 1990 – probably by a member of the jihadist group Jamaat al-Fuqra. But Bailey’s is still a singular case. Much more common has been the practice of trying to intimidate critics into silence through legal threats.

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has had great success with this over the years, although lately the tactic appears to be faltering. CAIR was unsuccessful in bullying the Young America’s Foundation into canceling a talk by me last week: the address went on as scheduled on Thursday. In 2006, CAIR dropped a lawsuit against Andrew Whitehead of Anti-CAIR after Mr. Whitehead’s attorney asked a series of probing questions during the discovery process. But before that, CAIR successfully cowed National Review magazine, Fox’s 24, and others into muting in various ways their criticism of Islamic violence and extremism.

Nor is CAIR alone among Muslims in its efforts at legal intimidation. Billionaire Saudi financier Khalid bin Mahfouz has sued journalist Rachel Ehrenfeld and others for libel in the U.K., where the libel laws favor plaintiffs. Ehrenfeld’s offense? In her book Funding Evil, she wrote that bin Mahfouz was involved in funding Hamas and al Qaeda. Bin Mahfouz denied that he had knowingly given any money to either. And Cambridge University Press has, in response to another libel suit filed by bin Mahfouz, just removed from circulation and destroyed all unsold copies of Alms for Jihad by Robert Collins and J. Millard Burr, because the book made essentially the same allegations. But France’s foreign intelligence agency has recently revealed that as long ago as 1996 Mr. bin Mahfouz was known as one of the architects of a banking scheme constructed for the benefit of Osama bin Laden – and that both U.S. and British intelligence services knew this.

The most notorious attempt at legal intimidation of all may be the Flying Imams case, in which six imams are suing US Airways because they were removed from a flight for suspicious behavior. They also attempted to sue the passengers who reported them, although this attempt has apparently been stymied by the retroactive immunity of the Peter King amendment to the Homeland Security bill. If the suit against the passengers had succeeded, imagine the effect: no one would dare report suspicious behavior in an airport or airplane, for fear of being sued. And jihad terrorists would have a free hand.

The lawyer for the Flying Imams is Omar T. Mohammedi, who as of 2006 was president of CAIR’s New York chapter.

The murder of Chauncey Bailey should provide renewed impetus to call upon the American Muslim community to take genuine action against the deeply ingrained culture of violence that provides the context in which such things happen. And the pattern of legal intimidation has been followed so many times now that Americans are becoming increasingly aware of how it works and how it can and must be resisted. For if this intimidation – both violent and nonviolent – is not resisted, those who are doing the intimidating will eventually succeed in establishing a protected class in America, an ideology that cannot be questioned or rejected. And that, more than anything else, will be the end of any semblance of Constitutional government.
________________________________

Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of six books, seven monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World’s Fastest Growing Faith and the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad.

Copyright©2007 FrontPageMagazine.com