If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
IN A SEA OF RATIONAL QUESTIONERS, ONE SUPPORTS OBAMA…AND USES ALINSKY TACTICS
by Sharon Rondeau
(Apr. 26, 2012) — An article published today in American Thinker by Arnold Cusmariu stated that despite the release of the purported long-form birth certificate belonging to Barack Hussein Obama, “the controversy has not gone away.”
The author then went on to detail several document examination and handwriting analysis organizations he had contacted to inquire as to whether or not they would render an opinion on the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate, but for various reasons, they were unable to do so.
The final organization whose response the writer presented was the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (ABFDE), whose president suggested that Dr. Cusmariu contact “a forensic digital evidence examiner.” Cusmariu found that suggestion to be helpful and concluded his piece by stating, “…Obama, who is confident that the evidence is on his side, can end the birth certificate controversy once and for all by turning over a notarized copy of the certificate to ABFDE forensic document examiners for analysis.”
Following the piece are 125 comments as of publication time of this article, most of which seemed to agree that the “birth certifificate” Obama presented to the public is not authentic. A comment from “Sayit” early on the first page of comments began, “I am so sick of this cat and mouse game that Obama has been playing for the last 4 years. What kind of a man does this? The minute the issue with his birth certificate raised questions, Obama should have immediately moved to present legally certified documentation quash any concerns and been done with it…”
Another comment by “rayzorbak” reads, “If Mommy and Daddy turn out to BOTH being Us Citizens and he actually was born on US soil, he would be a “Natural Born Citizen”. I think that FORGERY/FRAUD is the correct course of action.”
A Cold Case Posse working with the Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff’s Office declared Obama’s birth certificate and Selective Service registration card “computer-generated forgeries” on March 1 during a press conference. Government employees, in answering questions about Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve, have omitted key phrases from legal cases with the apparent purpose to qualify him as a “natural born Citizen,” despite his claimed foreign-citizen father.
In September 2009, The Post & Email’s Founder Emeritus, John Charlton, published an article which suggested that a “governmental conspiracy” in Hawaii was “hiding evidence regarding Barack Hussein Obama’s birth story,” which appears to be true today following the issuance of a subpoena from the U.S. District Court in Honolulu to Hawaii Department of Health Director Loretta Fuddy after which Fuddy refused to produce the requested document.
One commenter with the screen name “Questioning” asked, “Obama, WHO R U?” The “O” at the beginning of “Obama” could actually be a “0.”
“The Peeled Eye” stated that the process of discovering Obama’s identity would be “complex.”
Although as editor of The Post & Email, this writer does not normally leave comments in response to articles on blogs or other websites, this morning seemed an ideal time to inform the citizenry of the intent and function of the Fifth Amendment grand jury about which we have reported extensively over the last two years and which recently Atty. Larry Klayman wrote in an op-ed piece. Atty. Orly Taitz presented evidence to a citizens’ grand jury in early 2009 and has advocated submitting the evidence gleaned from the Cold Case Posse’s investigation to a “local grand jury.”
The Post & Email therefore left the following observation:
Anyone should be able to take evidence of a crime to a county, state, or federal grand jury to review. Because the grand juries are now commandeered by prosecutors and U.S. Attorneys, the people have nowhere to go to present evidence of criminal activity. Arguably, if a grand jury had been functioning as the Fifth Amendment intended it to, Obama would never have been allowed to take office without proving his eligibility and identity.
Sharon Rondeau, Editor
The Post & Email
www (dot) thepostemail (dot) com
Sometime in the afternoon, we received a notification from the comment registrar at American Thinker that a response to our comment had been posted from someone named “Paul” who addressed us rather personally:
As soon as you come up with admissable evidence, Sharon, then you can request prosecution. Innuendo and hyperbole are not evidence.
In our comment, we did not proffer “hyperbole” or “innuendo” and are therefore puzzled at “Paul’s” statement that we did. We merely made a statement of fact, invoking the rights enshrined in the Fifth Amendment which were recently utilized by Jeff Neely, a GSA Western Region supervisor who chose not to answer a congressman investigating the Las Vegas GSA convention scandal. The junket cost taxpayers almost $1,000,000 and could generate criminal prosecutions.
The doings of American grand juries are notoriously misunderstood and unknown by most sectors of the public. Generally, the grand jury process escapes obscurity only when indictments are made public and when, for whatever reason, grand jury “leaks” are disclosed in the news media. In theory, the grand jury is supposed to act as a check on the government — a people’s watchdog against arbitrary and malevolent prosecutions. By and large, however, federal grand juries rarely challenge federal prosecutors.
Today, critics are nearly unanimous in describing the alleged oversight function of modern grand juries as essentially a tragic sham. The Framers of the Bill of Rights would scarcely recognize a grand jury upon seeing the modern version conduct business in a federal courthouse. In modern federal grand jury proceedings, the government attorney is clearly in charge and government agents may outnumber the witnesses by six-to-one.
A “runaway” grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today’s “runaway” grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact “runaways,” according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself.
In a recent interview, Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III, who is facing an indictment emanating from a tainted grand jury, posited that the loss of the grand jury as a check on overzealous government has resulted in rampant corruption on the part of public officials. Fitzpatrick attempted to advance a criminal complaint against Obama in March 20o9 and as a result, discovered that the local grand jury in Monroe County, TN had been overtaken and controlled by presiding judges. Compromised grand juries in Monroe County date back at least three decades, and citizens are not allowed access to the federal grand juries in the area.
Had a grand jury been asked to review Obama’s documentation or lack thereof prior to the 2008 election, what would have been the result? Is there a county or federal grand jury which might review the evidence of forgery and fraud against Obama resulting from the Cold Case Posse’s investigation? If not, why not? As “Paul” stated in response to our comment, the “evidence” against Obama would consist of a copy of the Cold Case Posse’s report on its findings as well as analyses from document and image professionals who have staked their reputations on their declarations that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery.
“Paul” also became contentious with other commenters to the article, particularly “Countryman.” After Countryman suggested that “we can get him [Obama] on tax evasion, just like Al Capone,” “Paul” said, “You are correct. You do not know anything about real estate tax deduction. You also know nothing about the law.”
One of Saul Alinsky‘s tactics was to attempt to convince the opponent that his cause contained more members than it did. Alinsky’s son stated that Obama was an adept student of his father’s teachings about community organizing and agitating. In 1998, Obama reportedly attended and served as a discussion panelist following productions of a play dedicated to Alinsky.
Rule No. 5 of Alinsky’s “Rules” was “”Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” Is “Paul” attempting to ridicule the commenters to Dr. Cusmariu’s informative article?
In response to “Lock777,” “Paul” says with obvious sarcasm, “And I bet your idol is Inspector Clouseau, right?” to which another person, “stodghie,” responds, “ahhh paul are we just a litte bit upset that the truth is being spoken. and heck no i won’t prove it to you. you do it since you are all aflutter and in high dungeon about this.”
Alinsky’s Rule No. 1 stated that “Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.”
Below Paul’s response to The Post & Email is a response directed to him from “Saipan Annie,” a frequent commenter at Atty. Apuzzo’s blog. As she has in the past, she refers to “Paul” as “Bari” when she says to him:
It is fancy to meet you here, Bari. Do you not have more important work to do than post as yet another so-called person, besides it is not polite to pick on girls, did not your mother teach you any thing?
Saipan Annie has also referred to “Unknown” as “Bari.” What does Saipan Annie know that we don’t know?
Another identity, “mrmynor,” who has posted on Atty. Apuzzo’s blog, is arrogant and condescending to Apuzzo.
On April 25, 2012, mrmynor posted at Apuzzo’s blog:
@countvonluckner – HA! Yet another dip**** crackpot comes out of the woodworks. Too bad for you that your opinion is irrelevant because it isn’t even remotely based in reality given the manne in which our legal system functions. Allow me to explain: first, the notion that a jury of 12 hearing this ballot challenge could ultimately culminate in a grand jury indictment is RETARDED. Grand jury and the traditional jury of 12 are two TOTALLY different decision making bodies that operate in totally different environments and serve two totally different purposes. Secondly, a jury simply finds facts, the same as an ALJ. If anything it would be a higher bar to convince a jury because you have to convince 12 people that your idiotic conspiracy theory has some basis in reality. A jury of 12 has no authority to interpret the law what so ever – never have, never will. All they can do is take the law as charged by the court, determine the true facts of the matter based on their weighing of the evidence, and apply the law to those facts. If they find obama was the son of a british citizen, something we all know to be the case, it doesn’t give them the right to keep him of the ballot because the jury cannot decide the issue of whether two citizen parents are a requisite to becoming a natural born citizen. That question is a matter of law, and as such, it can only be resolved by a judge. Nice try at sounding smart, numb****. Keep trying, you’ll get there eventually…
Is there one grand jury in the country which would review the evidence against Obama without fear of the government?
What does that say about you? They have made birthers look like fools for 4 years.
Are there fewer Obots than we think?