Posts Tagged ‘Obama Fraud’

Voter Fraud Trial May Demonstrate Obama Never Qualified In 2008

Barack ObamaQuestions will soon be answered as to whether or not Barack Hussein Obama actually qualified to be on the 2008 Presidential ballot as the trial gets underway for a former Democrat Party official and a Board of Elections worker who are accused of submitting illegitimate signatures on petitions that enabled both Obama and Hillary Clinton to qualify for the race in Indiana.
Former longtime St. Joseph County Democratic Party Chairman Butch Morgan Jr. faces multiple felony conspiracy counts to commit petition fraud, and former county Board of Elections worker Dustin Blythe is charged with nine felony forgery counts and one felony count of falsely making a petition of nomination. The proceedings began Monday in South Bend.
Morgan is accused of being the mastermind behind the plot, by allegedly ordering Democratic officials and workers to fake the names and signatures that Obama and Clinton needed to qualify for the presidential race. Blythe, then a Board of Elections employee and Democratic Party volunteer, has been accused of carrying out those orders by forging signatures on Obama’s petitions.
Two former Board of Elections officials have already pleaded guilty to charges related to the scheme and could testify against Morgan and Blythe.
Former board worker Beverly Shelton, who allegedly was assigned the task of forging the petitions for Hillary Clinton, pleaded guilty in March to charges of forgery and falsely making a petition. The board’s former Democratic head of voter registration, Pam Brunette, pleaded guilty in April to felony forgery, official misconduct, and falsifying a petition.
Under state law presidential candidates must obtain 500 signatures from each of the state’s nine congressional districts. In the Second Congressional District, which is St. Joseph County, Obama’s campaign only got 534 signatures, while campaign rival Hillary Clinton got 704.
Prosecutors in the case claim that nine of the petition pages of signatures for Obama were forged. Each of the pages contain ten names which makes it possible that up to 90 names were forged. This means Barack Obama would have been ineligible (not that he isn’t ineligible on other grounds) should he fall under the legal limit required to qualify. Clinton on the other hand still had a significant amount of petition signatures to meet the threshold of 500.
One Indiana State Police investigator, who investigated the petitions, said in court papers that “selected names at random from each of the petition pages and contacted those people directly. We found at least one person (and often multiple people) from each page who confirmed that they had not signed” petitions “or given consent for their name and/or signature to appear.”
If you recall, this is the very thing that tripped up Newt Gingrich up in the Republican primaries when he failed to get on the ballot in Virginia because authorities claimed that hundreds of signatures on his campaign’s petitions were fraudulent. One campaign worker pleaded guilty and another is still facing charges.

Read more:

Obama’s Law License

by David Emery

Viral text claims President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama surrendered their Illinois law licenses to escape criminal prosecution, or worse.Example:
Email text contributed by Wesley S., June 4, 2012:

Subject: Lawyers?

This was forwarded by an acquaintance. Very telling……………

I knew they had both lost their law license, but I didn’t know why until I read this.

This is 100% legit. I check it out at Stands for Illinois Attorney Registration And Disciplinary Committee. It’s the official arm of lawyer discipline in Illinois; and they are very strict and mean as hell. (Talk about irony.) Even I, at the advanced age of almost 65, maintain (at the cost of approximately $600/year) my law license that I worked so hard and long to earn.

Big surprise.

Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and U.S. President Makes Up Constitutional Quotes During State Of The Union (SOTU) Address.

Consider this:

1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a “lawyer”. He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application. A “Voluntary Surrender” is not something where you decide “Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?” and forget to renew your license. No, a “Voluntary Surrender” is something you do when you’ve been accused of something, and you ‘voluntarily surrender” your license five seconds before the state suspends you.

2 Michelle Obama “voluntarily surrendered” her law license in 1993. after a Federal Judge gave her the choice between surrendering her license or standing trial for Insurance fraud!

3. So, we have the first black President and First Lady – who don’t actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.


4. A senior lecturer is one thing, a fully ranked law professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago.

5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) “served as a professor” in the law school-but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.

6. “He did not hold the title of Professor of Law,” said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.


7. The former Constitutional Senior Lecturer (Obama) cited the U.S. Constitution the other night during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence … not the Constitution.

8. The B-Cast posted the video:

9. Free Republic: In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: “We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal.

10. Um, wrong citing, wrong founding document there Champ, I mean Mr. President. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?

When you are a phony it’s hard to keep facts straight.

Keep this moving — educate others.

Analysis: It’s true that neither Barack nor Michelle Obama currently has an active law license authorizing them to practice in the state of Illinois.

The Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission lists President Obama’s registration status as “voluntarily retired.”

It lists Michelle Obama’s status as “voluntarily inactive.”

It is not true based on any existing evidence, however, that either of them surrendered their law license to avoid disciplinary action or criminal prosecution. Nor is it true, contrary to what has been claimed on literally thousands of anti-Obama blogs and websites, that the Obamas were “disbarred” or had their law licenses “revoked” for any reason. Disbarred attorneys are listed in the ARDC database as “Not authorized to practice law due to discipline.” The Obamas are not so listed.

Moreover, neither the Illinois State Bar Association nor the ARDC lists any accusations of misconduct or disciplinary actions against the Obamas. According to a statement quoted by, ARDC deputy administrator and chief counsel James Grogan says the Obamas were “never the subject of any public disciplinary proceedings.”

Quite to the contrary, a notice on the website of the Illinois State Bar states that the Association is “proud” to retain Barack and Michelle Obama as honorary members.

Lastly, it’s not unusual for lawyers to go on inactive status if they have no immediate plans to practice law. According to the ARDC Annual Report fully 12% of Illinois’ 87,943 attorneys were registered as inactive in 2011.

‘Senior Lecturer’ vs. ‘Professor’

It’s true that although both President Obama and the University of Chicago have stated at various times that he was a “professor of law” or “professor of constitutional law” at the U.C. Law School, he never officially held that title. He was first a Lecturer (1992-1996) and then a Senior Lecturer (1996-2004) until elected to the Senate in 2004.

These distinctions are elucidated in a media release published on the U.C. Law School website, which nevertheless pointedly states that Barack Obama served as a professor there regardless of his official title.

‘Enshrined in our Constitution’

As to Obama’s statement that equal treatment under the law is a promise “enshrined in our Constitution” (State of the Union Address, Jan. 27, 2010), it’s true that the phrase “All men are created equal” originated in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, so one can argue that Obama cited the wrong document.

One can also argue that he cited the right document. The key word is enshrined, which is defined as follows on Oxford Dictionaries Online:

[To] preserve (a right, tradition, or idea) in a form that ensures it will be protected and respected

Now bear that definition in mind as you read Obama’s statement in context:

We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we’re all created equal; that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.

How Obama Bankrupted his Black Clients Before He Bankrupted America

by Daniel Greenfield

There are things that Obama doesn’t do well, like run a country. But there are things that he does well and first and foremost 0f those is taking care of Number One. The 1 percent of the 1 percent that is him.
The Daily Caller’s extended article on Obama’s loan discrimination lawsuits and their consequences show us once again the two faces of the left, the face of the social activist battling injustice and the other face of the professional con artist who exploits the greed of his marks to wreck their lives and extract money from the system.

President Barack Obama was a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble, and roughly half of the 186 African-American clients in his landmark 1995 mortgage discrimination lawsuit against Citibank have since gone bankrupt or received foreclosure notices.
Should Obama’s clients have gotten their loans or were they discriminated against? The track record is pretty hard to argue with.
Even before the 2007 crisis, at least 48 of Obama’s 186 African-American clients bankrupted or received foreclosure notices… The stalled economy was exacerbated by the Wall Street crash, and by July 2012, Obama’s 186 clients had received at least 188 bankruptcy and foreclosure notices.
At least 46 of Obama’s 186 clients have declared bankruptcy since 1996, often multiple times… There were 186 client-enrollees in Obama’s class-action lawsuit. Of those, at least 88 got foreclosure notices or went bankrupt. As few as 19 of the 98 remaining clients own homes today
And the consequences weren’t just limited to the unqualified borrowers on whose behalf the class action lawsuit was filed. The consequences of the “victory” rebounded on black communities and the city as a whole.
At least 55 of Obama’s 186 clients received foreclosure notices, likely costing the city taxpayers roughly $12.5 million.
Each foreclosure cost neighbors, most of whom are African-Americans, up to $220,000 in lost property value, according to a study of Chicago foreclosures in 2003 and 2004 by the left-of-center Homeownership Preservation Foundation.
That led to a rise in crime and the usual domino effect of declining neighborhoods. But Obama was always ahead of the game.
While the settlement provided $950,000 for the lawyers, it provided $20,000 for each of the three named plaintiffs, and $360,000 in benefits to be divided among the 183 other clients. The Chicago Sun-Times reported in 1998 that Obama claimed $23,000 in billable hours for his role in the lawsuit. That role was limited, partly because he was networking his way toward his 1996 election to the Illinois Senate. But he stayed with the firm until 2004, and it was his lawsuit.
Obama made more money off the lawsuit than the named plaintiffs did, forget the unnamed ones. Before too long the named and unnamed plaintiffs were all in trouble, but Obama had already used his participation in the lawsuit as a springboard to a political career. And that’s not a unique skill… this is a game that the left plays all the time. Their activists don’t help people, they exploit people.
And nationally the disaster spread.
Progressive activists’ ambition instead contributed greatly to a housing bubble that burst in 2007, crashed the nation’s economy in 2008, wiped out at least $4 trillion in equity, kept unemployment above 8 percent for four years, and damaged the intended beneficiaries of looser mortgage lending standards.
But it’s a given that once in office, Obama would do his utmost to worsen the disaster. And he has.
In the White House, Obama has continued to intensify regulatory pressure on banks to provide more risky loans to African-Americans and Latinos. He has used lawsuits to fund his allies. And taxpayers are now unwittingly contributing to a re-inflation of housing prices.


In an hour-long radio interview on presidential eligibility, an award-winning journalist and author declared Barack Obama could be at the center of the “biggest potential crime in all of American history.”

Diana West, a columnist known for her boldness and penchant for eliciting dropped jaws, was interviewed Saturday by Frank Gaffney, founder of the Center for Security Policy, on his Secure Freedom Radio.

Her column appears Fridays on WND’s commentary page.

According to the show’s promotion, “Despite the results of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Unit, which found that both Obama’s birth certificate and Selective Service Registration card had been forged, Obama’s behavior in the ’08 elections and the very words of the Constitution itself, the government has not allowed for a thorough and fair investigation into the issue of Obama’s eligibility.”

West contends Americans should be investigating exactly what is going on.

The nation is “looking at a great unsolved mystery, the greatest potential crime of all of American history,” she told Gaffney. “What we’re looking at is a president of the United States whose documentation has not been presented, vetted, corroborated,” she said.

Gaffney noted that the subject has become “irradiated.”

The issue has been raised in dozens of lawsuits and other legal challenges. Yet the courts and media have combined to make sure “this is a subject that does not make it into America’s living rooms and parlors,” West said.

“It’s not considered polite conversation.”

But according to documentation in some of the legal challenges, the potentially damaging consequences are unquantifiable. The issues that would arise should Obama be declared ineligible include the status of laws he has signed and the international agreements he has made.

West said determining Obama’s eligibility isn’t complicated; it’s a matter of the definition of “natural born citizen,” which is what the Constitution requires for presidents.

“This was a specific designation that was much discussed among the Founders in order to eliminate any possibility of divided loyalties in the commander of the American armed forces,” she said.

She cited a 19th century U.S. Supreme Court case that determined a “natural born citizen” is the offspring of two citizen parents. Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., was in the United States only as a student and never was a citizen.

West discussed a pending court case in Florida that raises the issue of the parentage of natural born citizens.

She explained that the judge in that case already has noted that while critics of Obama have cited a legal definition for natural born citizen, supporters of the president have failed to cite a single instance to back their position.

“The mystery must be solved,” she said.

Obama seizes control over all food, farms, livestock, farm equipment, fertilizer and food production across America

“We told ya so” just doesn’t quite cut it anymore. As the American sheeple slept, selfishly refusing to take a stand against tyranny, the Obama administration has been plotting what can only be called a total government takeover of America.

On March 16, 2012, President Obama issued an executive order entitled, “NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS.” (…)

This executive order states that the President alone has the authority to take over all resources in the nation (labor, food, industry, etc.) as long as it is done “to promote the national defense” — a phrase so vague that it could mean practically anything.
The power to seize control and take over these resources is delegated to the following government authorities:

(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;

(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;

(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;

(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;

(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and

(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

This takeover is designed, in part, to “stockpile supplies” for the U.S. military. Authority for this total takeover of all national resources is granted with nothing more than the writing of a single statement that claims these actions are necessary to “promote the national defense.” As stated in the order:

the authority delegated by section 201 of this order may be used only to support programs that have been determined in writing as necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense:

(a) by the Secretary of Defense with respect to military production and construction, military assistance to foreign nations, military use of civil transportation, stockpiles managed by the Department of Defense, space, and directly related activities;

What all this means is that the U.S. government now claims the power to simply march onto your farm with guns drawn and demand all your crops, seeds, livestock and farm equipment.

Think I’m exaggerating? Read it yourself!

And for those living in denial who refuse to accept the reality of what’s happening in America, remember the following:

• When NaturalNews reported on the existence of the NDAA, we were told our reporting was misleading because Obama opposed it and wouldn’t sign it.

• When Obama betrayed America and signed the bill, we were told our reporting was misleading because “it didn’t apply to Americans.”

• When Obama admitted it did apply to Americans, he announced that he would choose “not to use it on Americans” but only by the grace of his restraint. Nobody who previously accused us of misleading the public had the integrity to offer us an apology and say, “Gee, you were right, it DOES apply to Americans!”

• Now Obama has seized control over all food, farms, livestock, water and transportation across America. How many brain-dead Americans will continue to live in denial and try to convince themselves this is not happening? Sticking your head in the sand does not make this go away…

What California did to Rawesome Foods, the Obama administration can do to everyone

Remember the armed raids on Rawesome Foods? With guns drawn, California authorities assaulted the food distribution center, arrested the farmers, then proceeded to destroy $50,000 worth of food including milk, eggs, cheese and watermelons. (

As outrageous as that raid was, it’s only the beginning. Now, thanks to Obama’s executive order, the federal government can conduct Rawesome-style raids on all farms, all grocery stores, all food co-ops and even individual home gardens.

It’s written in plain English. This is no longer debatable and it’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s Obama administration policy. For what other purpose would this be issued in an executive order if it was not seen as actionable by the government? This piece of paper, you see, gives them the (false) authority to do whatever they want and then have the front-line soldiers who carry it out claim “we’re only following orders.”

Sound familiar? Heil Hitler!

Understanding the fraud

This executive order starts out by stating that the U.S. President is the “Commander in Chief” of the U.S. military. This is false. He is not the commander in chief unless and until Congress declares an Act of War. No acts of war have been declared in recent memory, and certainly not under Obama who doesn’t even seek congressional approval for war.

So Obama is in no way a “Commander in Chief.” In fact, it is questionable whether he is even a U.S. citizen.

The phrase “national defense” can be twisted to mean almost anything. It could be invoked from something as harmless as a barge sinking in the harbor. It could even be invoked based on fabricated intelligence such as a fake website post from someone alleged to be “Bin Laden’s second in command” who appears to shout some sort of threat against the United States of America. So the claim that this seizing of national resources will only be done under some sort of national defense emergency is pure bunk — both Obama and Bush before him have already declared we are living under a national defense emergency! Thus, the conditions described in this executive order have already been triggered. It is already in effect!

Notice how nothing in this document talks about protecting the People? Serving the People? Supporting the People? It’s all about protecting the government! The government needs stockpiles of weapons, food and resources — but YOU don’t! Such is the philosophy of current government which sees itself as all powerful and the People as helpless, mindless slaves of the state.

Tyrannical governments concern themselves with important concepts such as continuity of government but never the continuity of liberty for the People. At the first drop of a hat, liberty gets thrown out the window to keep government in power.

Other signs of the takeover

• Last year, I interviewed Farmer Brad in central Texas, who openly stated, on camera, that FEMA has already started calling farms across Texas and demanding an inventory list of all their crops and seeds. Watch this interview yourself at:

• Yesterday in Chicago, the police arrested NBC reporters outside a hospital, screaming that their First Amendment rights could be taken away from them at any time:…

• Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently revealed in U.S. Senate testimony that the Obama administration takes its orders from the UN and that the U.S. Congress is now null and void. (…) and (…)

• When MF Global head Jon Corzine stole billions of dollars from investors (many were farmers), there were absolutely no investigations, no indictments and no criminal arrests! Massive financial theft is now openly tolerated in America as long as those doing the stealing are politically connected to the Obama administration. (

Of course, it’s not an Obama thing. Bush was much the same. It’s not the name of the person in the Oval Office who matters, it’s the fundamental lack of principles and ethics reflected across government today. Instead of protecting the rights of the People, today’s corrupt governments are little more than criminal gangs who steal power and resources for themselves (and their connected buddies) while destroying the economy and stealing everything in sight from the real workers upon whose sweat-drenched backs America was built.

Learn more: