Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA, 92688
Copyright 2014

Review of Politics, Economics, Constitution, Law and World Affairs by Attorney and Doctor Orly Taitz


If you love your country, please help me fight this creeping tyranny and corruption.
Donations no matter how small will help pay for airline and travel expenses.





The articles posted represent only the opinion of the writers and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Dr. Taitz, Esq., who has no means of checking the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles.
Mail donations to:
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, c/o Dr. Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688.
Contact Dr. Taitz at
orly.taitz@gmail.com.
In case of emergency, call 949-683-5411.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth
becomes a revolutionary act.
 -- George Orwell

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they
fight you, then you win.
 -- Mahatma Gandhi



a number of people with last name Phali live in Africa, in South Africa, I still do not know, why 2 out of top queries related to my site are linked to ballor phali or ballore phali. Need help in research

Posted on | February 22, 2013 | 15 Comments

. https://www.facebook.com/ntsoaki.phali/friends?ft_ref=mni

Share

Comments

15 Responses to “a number of people with last name Phali live in Africa, in South Africa, I still do not know, why 2 out of top queries related to my site are linked to ballor phali or ballore phali. Need help in research”

  1. charlene zechender
    February 22nd, 2013 @ 8:49 am

    Obama Illinois bar application fraud, Obama lied about drug use other names and tickets, Andy Martin complaint letter to IL Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission
    Posted on April 9, 2012 | 94 Comments

    Obama Illinois bar application fraud, Obama lied about drug use other names and tickets, Andy Martin complaint letter to IL Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission

    “Why did Barack Obama surrender his IL law license?”…Citizen Wells
    “They can’t punish someone who has resigned, which is why so many corrupt lawyers in Illinois resign before they are disbarred.”…Andy Martin

    “Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light.”…George Washington

    Citizen Wells articles about fraud committed by Obama on his Illinois Bar Application have been getting a lot of attention lately. I am reprinting what I consider to be the more damning one. Andy Martin, whether you agree with him or not, was in the forefront of questioning Barack Obama prior to 2008. Martin has a legal background and below you will see his complaint against Obama from March 13, 2007 filed with the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. You will also find an email exchange between me and Andy Martin.

    From Citizen Wells September 29, 2009.

    There is much controversy regarding Barack Obama being eligible to be president. What we know is that Obama has not produced an actual birth certificate, his father was a British citizen, Obama is not a natural born citizen, Obama has kept hidden almost all official documents related to his past. One of the records Obama was not completely able to hide was his IL bar application. Here is data from Obama’s bar application that was saved in 2008.

    BObarApplication

    The Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission
    An agency of the Illinois Supreme Court

    Rules of the Board of Admissions and Committee on Character and Fitness
    RULE 6 CHARACTER AND FITNESS REQUIREMENTS
    “Rule 6.4. The revelation or discovery of any of the following should be treated as cause for further detailed inquiry before the Committee decides whether the law student registrant or applicant possesses the requisite character and fitness to practice law: (a) unlawful conduct; (b) academic misconduct; (c) making false statements, including omissions;

    (d) misconduct in employment; (e) acts involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (f) abuse of legal process; (g) neglect of financial responsibilities; (h) neglect of professional obligations; (i) violation of an order of a court; (j) evidence of conduct indicating instability or impaired judgment; (k) denial of admission to the bar in another jurisdiction on character and fitness grounds; (l) disciplinary action by a lawyer disciplinary agency or other professional disciplinary agency of any jurisdiction; (m) acts constituting the unauthorized practice of law; (n) failure to comply with the continuing duty of full disclosure to the Board and the Committee subsequent to the date of registration or application.”

    Barack Obama fraudulently applied to the Illinois Bar.

    Obama had 17 unpaid parking tickets from his days at Harvard.
    Obama omitted his aliases of Barry Soetoro and Barry Obama.
    Obama admitted to drug use when he was younger and there is strong reason to believe he was still using drugs.

    Read the complete IL bar rules:

    https://www.iardc.org/rulesadmissions.html#Rule%203,%20Character

    From the Somerville News, March 7, 2007.

    “Before Barack Obama was a United States senator and a presidential hopeful, he was a Harvard University law student living in Somerville who parked in bus stops and accumulated hundreds of dollars in parking tickets. And for nearly two decades those parking tickets went unpaid, until a representative of Obama’s settled all his outstanding debts with Cambridge’s Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department Jan. 26.

    Obama attended Harvard Law School from 1988 to 1991. During his time at Harvard, Obama lived at 365 Broadway in Somerville, according to his parking tickets. Records from the Cambridge Traffic, Parking and Transportation office show that between Oct. 5, 1988 and Jan. 12, 1990 Obama was cited for 17 traffic violations, sometimes committing two in the same day. The abuses included parking in a resident permit area, parking in a bus stop and failing to pay the meter.

    Twelve of Obama’s 17 tickets were given to him on Massachusetts Avenue.

    In one eight day stretch in 1988, Obama was cited seven times for parking violations and was fined $45. Thirteen of the 17 violations occurred within one month in 1988.

    Obama’s disobedience of the rules of the road earned him $140 in fines from the City of Cambridge. The tickets went unpaid for over 17 years and $260 in late fees were added to the tab. On Jan. 26, the fines and late fees were paid in full. The final tally for Obama’s parking breaches was $400, according to Cambridge Traffic, Parking and Transportation.

    Obama spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said the presidential candidate’s parking violations were not relevant.”

    Read more:

    http://somervillenews.typepad.com/the_somerville_news/2007/03/obama_finally_p.html#more

    “not relevant”??

    Apparently they were relevent to the IL bar and running for president.

    Andy Martin filed a formal complaint with the Illinois Board of Admissions, Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and Illinois Supreme Court on March 13, 2007.

    “March 13, 2007

    Illinois Board of Admissions to the Bar
    625 S. College Street
    Springfield, IL 62704
    via fax (217) 522-3728
    with copies to:

    Attorney Registration and
    Disciplinary Commission
    Suite 1100
    130 E. Randolph Street
    Chicago, IL 60601
    via fax (312) 565-1806

    Clerk
    Illinois Supreme Court
    Supreme Court Building
    Springfield, IL 62706

    Re: Barack Hussein Obama (see attached)

    COMPLAINT
    Dear Board, Commission and Clerk’s Office:

    I am addressing the following complaint to all three of your offices because
    I am not sure which of you has jurisdiction to review the matters submitted
    below.

    Please deem this letter a formal complaint and request for investigation
    submitted to all three of your offices, although I understand that only one
    office will likely have authority to proceed with an actual investigation.

    1. Background facts

    a. Bar admission of Barack Hussein Obama
    Mr. Obama was admitted to the Illinois Bar on December 17, 1991 (see
    attached ARDC page). He is currently inactive.

    b. IBAB requirements
    The IBAB requires that bar admission applicants disclose whether they have
    outstanding parking tickets (see attached excerpt from current application).
    Obviously, in so far as the admission of Mr. Obama is concerned, the form of
    the 1991 IBAB application would be controlling.

    c. Outstanding parking tickets of Obama
    Mr. Obama recently paid outstanding parking tickets that were unpaid at the
    time of his admission to the bar (see attached news stories).

    2. Legal issues
    If in 1991 Mr. Obama signed an application to IBAB and denied that he owed
    outstanding parking tickets, he falsified his application and gained
    admission to the bar by fraud.

    3. Request for relief/investigation/action
    I would respectfully submit that Mr. Obama’s 1991 application should be
    scrutinized to determine whether he falsified his answers and whether he
    gained admission to the bar on the basis of fraudulent representations.
    If the investigating authority determines that Mr. Obama’s answers were
    deceptive, I believe an appropriate sanction should be imposed. It obviously
    should not be a major sanction but a public reprimand or other appropriate
    sanction should be imposed to protect the integrity of the admissions
    process.

    Respectfully submitted,
    ANDY MARTIN”

    Here is an email exchange from 2008 between Citizen Wells and Andy Martin.

    From: Citizen Wells
    To: Andy Martin

    Sun, Sep 21, 2008 7:37 PM

    What was the outcome of your March 13, 2007 complaint to the Illinois Supreme Court
    regarding Obama’s application?
    Thanks.
    Wells

    From: Andy Martin
    To: Citizen Wells

    Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 7:40 PM
    Nothing. Obama had already resigned as a lawyer and so they had no jurisdiction over him.

    From: Citizen Wells
    To: Andy Martin

    Sep 21, 2008 at 7:45 PM
    Thanks for the rapid response.
    However, is there not a penalty for supplying false information?
    Wells

    From: Andy Martin
    To: Citizen Wells

    Sep 21, 2008 at 7:48 PM
    Not if they have lost jurisdiction over the individual. They can’t punish someone who has resigned, which is why so many corrupt lawyers in Illinois resign before they are disbarred.
    http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/obama-records-il-bar-application-fraud-obama-lies-deception-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-andy-martin-complaint-letter-to-illinois-il-supreme-court-illinois-board-of-admissions/
    About these ads

  2. charlene zechender
    February 22nd, 2013 @ 8:50 am

    National Labor Racket
    Obama labor board pick has ties to mob
    Obama Change 08

    BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
    June 22, 2012 4:58 pm

    One of President Obama’s controversial recess appointees to the National Labor Relations Board has ties to corrupt mafia bosses, Fox News reports.

    That recess appointee, Richard Griffin, was former general counsel for the 400,000-member [International Union of Operating Engineers] – a union tainted over the years by mob connections and a history of corruption.

    Public documents obtained by Fox News show that more than 60 IUOE members have been arrested, indicted or jailed in the last decade on charges that include labor racketeering, extortion, criminal enterprise, bodily harm and workplace sabotage.

    In some of the more egregious examples, federal prosecutors alleged in February 2003 that the Genovese and Colombo crime families wrested control of two IUOE locals, and stole $3.6 million from major New York area construction projects — including the Museum of Modern Art and minor league baseball stadiums for the Yankees and Mets in Staten and Coney Islands.

    This entry was posted in Big Labor, Obama Administration and tagged nlrb, Obama appointee, recess appointment, Richard Griffin. Bookmark the permalink.

  3. charlene zechender
    February 22nd, 2013 @ 8:50 am

    National Labor Racket
    Obama labor board pick has ties to mob
    Obama Change 08

    BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
    June 22, 2012 4:58 pm

    One of President Obama’s controversial recess appointees to the National Labor Relations Board has ties to corrupt mafia bosses, Fox News reports.

    That recess appointee, Richard Griffin, was former general counsel for the 400,000-member [International Union of Operating Engineers] – a union tainted over the years by mob connections and a history of corruption.

    Public documents obtained by Fox News show that more than 60 IUOE members have been arrested, indicted or jailed in the last decade on charges that include labor racketeering, extortion, criminal enterprise, bodily harm and workplace sabotage.

    In some of the more egregious examples, federal prosecutors alleged in February 2003 that the Genovese and Colombo crime families wrested control of two IUOE locals, and stole $3.6 million from major New York area construction projects — including the Museum of Modern Art and minor league baseball stadiums for the Yankees and Mets in Staten and Coney Islands.

    This entry was posted in Big Labor, Obama Administration and tagged nlrb, Obama appointee, recess appointment, Richard Griffin. Bookmark the permalink.

  4. charlene zechender
    February 22nd, 2013 @ 8:51 am

    Arizona Immigration Ruling~Direct Assault on State Sovereignty PDF | Print | E-mail

    by KrisAnne Hall – http://www.KrisAnneHall.com

    June 25, 2012

    Never has a ruling by the Supreme Court been more aptly titled as an “Opinion,” because that is exactly what Justice Kennedy and his cohorts have delivered in Arizona v. United States. It is nothing more than an open display of judicial activism. The majority opinion is not a legal explanation on the Constitutionality of Arizona’s laws, but is an ideological dissertation on this current administration’s view of immigration.

    Not only is this ruling devoid of any appeal to the Constitution, it is very dangerous. It is an aberration of fundamental Constitutional principles and a brazen assault on state sovereignty! Chiefly, Kennedy takes the Supremacy clause of the Constitution, which declares that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and translates that principle into the supremacy of the Federal government over the states. There couldn’t be anything more contrary to our founders’ intent. Let me repeat: this opinion is a monumental assault on the sovereignty of the states.

    Article I section 8 clause 4 of the Constitution states that Congress has the power [t]o establish an uniform rule of naturalization. The purpose of the federal government in the case of immigration, as Justice Kennedy appropriately acknowledges is “to be a single voice of the nation for foreign relations.”

    This external focus is in line with James Madison’s directive that: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce…”

    Indeed, we must have a single rule of law regarding immigration, else foreign nations will never know what to expect from state to state. However, this is where Kennedy’s constitutional understanding ends. He continually remarks throughout this opinion, that the states are not only not allowed, but not capable of enforcing the laws that the federal government codifies. What is his authority for this opinion? Not the Constitution itself and certainly not the founders.

    Kennedy does not appeal to the Constitution as the standard, but rather the “broad discretion of immigration officers” as the determining factor of how immigration policy should be devised and carried out. He says, “Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all.” The standard for deportation of an illegal immigrant is NOT the law, according to Kennedy, but an arbitrary determination of the Department of Homeland Security, which we all know will reflect Obama’s recent declaration.

    Kennedy suggests that the states must submit to lawlessness based upon the whim of federal officials, declaring,“Were §3 to come into force, the State would have the power to bring criminal charges against individuals for violating a federal law even in circumstances where federal officials in charge of the comprehensive scheme determine that prosecution would frustrate federal policies.”

    How does Kennedy justify this arbitrary determination? “This state authority could be exercised without any input from the Federal Government about whether an arrest is warranted in a particular case. This would allow the State to achieve its own immigration policy. The result could be unnecessary harassment of some aliens (for instance, a veteran, college student, or someone assisting with a criminal investigation) whom federal officials determine should not be removed.”

    According to Kennedy, enforcement of immigration laws are nothing more than a tool to harass illegal aliens. This is a direct reflection of the policies of the President and not the law established by Congress through the powers delegated by the Constitution. Simply put, the states must accept violations of the law if the whim of the sovereign decides it is not in their comprehensive scheme to enforce the law. It is the whim of the sovereign to decide who gets the privilege of citizenship, not the supreme law of the land.

    Kennedy further opines that the states are apparently not smart enough to know when to deport and not to deport: “There are significant complexities involved in enforcing federal immigration law, including the determination whether a person is removable…By authorizing state officers to decide whether an alien should be detained for being removable, §6 violates the principle that the removal process is entrusted to the discretion of the Federal Government.”

    It should be apparent by the Federal Government’s refusal to enforce the law, that it is, in fact, the states that have better sense about immigration laws. The federal government is not interested in following the law of the land, they are only interested in circumventing it to achieve their ideology and now the Supreme Court is aiding and abetting this lawless assault upon Liberty. I will repeat it, if you have to circumvent the Constitution to do your job, YOU are the criminal.

    In true judicial activist form, Kennedy couldn’t resist giving the liberal agenda for immigration as justification for arbitrary enforcement of federal law. Nearly quoting the president’s position on this law, Kennedy states:

    “Immigration policy shapes the destiny of the Nation. These naturalization ceremonies bring together men and women of different origins who now share a common destiny. They swear a common oath to renounce fidelity to foreign princes, to defend the Constitution, and to bear arms on behalf of the country when required by law. The history of the United States is in part made of the stories, talents, and lasting contributions of those who crossed oceans and deserts to come here.”

    I ask you, what does this have to do with the Constitutionality of these laws? I believe the key to understanding this opinion lies in knowing the President’s recent determination that DHS will not be enforcing immigration laws and for the court to rule otherwise would allow the states themselves to nullify the president’s order. Here it is, in Kennedy’s own words: “If §3 of the Arizona statute were valid, every State could give itself independent authority to prosecute federal registration violations, “diminish[ing] the [Federal Government]’s control over enforcement”

    Ignoring nearly two centuries of the individual state’s role in making these decisions (as outlined cogently in Scalia’s dissent), Kennedy cuts through one of the pillars of the Republic, state sovereignty, like a buzzsaw. He tramples the separation of powers and wholeheartedly supports just one more example of the executive branch stealing power from Congress. Any hopes that Congress will do anything about it?

    In a statement that can only be classified as patronizing, Kennedy throws the final salt in the wound, by declaring, in spite of the states “frustrations” with enforcement, the federal government is the King, and the states must subject themselves to its authority. “Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”

    The “victory” claimed by some is no victory at all. The Supreme Court did uphold the ability of law enforcement officers to contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when they have pulled over someone to verify whether that person is an illegal alien. Big deal! Justice Kennedy has informed us:

    “As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States. See INS v. Lopez­ Mendoza, 468 U. S. 1032, 1038 (1984).” It’s not illegal to be illegal. Really?

    Since being here illegally is not a crime according to the federal government, even if law enforcement is informed that a person is illegally present, that officer will still have to let them go. The Supreme Court has said any other action by the state is an infringement upon the federal government’s power. According to Kennedy, state officers are not even allowed to detain illegal aliens: “By authorizing state officers to decide whether an alien should be detained for being removable, §6 violates the principle that the removal process is entrusted to the discretion of the Federal Government.”

    According to Kennedy, the sole authority to determine whether an illegal alien is to be detained or deported rests in the Attorney General: “[T]he Attorney General can exercise discretion to issue a warrant for an alien’s arrest and detention “pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States…the Attorney General will issue a warrant.” Kennedy then reminds everyone that all who are enforcing these laws are “subject to the Attorney General’s direction and supervision.” In what version of the Constitution did he find this?

    Once again, it is NOT about the law, it’s about the discretion of the Federal Government and the Federal Government is King. This court has not only taken the precedent and placed it above the founders’ understanding of the Constitution, but now regulation applied by arbitrary discretion is also elevated above our foundational principles. This supports the hopes of this current administration to further create a totalitarian government led by King Barry I.

    In one decision, the Supreme Court has told every state, they do not have the authority to protect themselves; they must submit to the supervisory authority of the Federal Government and the Supreme Court supports the president’s recent directive to DHS.

    Let’s be clear. The Constitution says the federal government is supposed to establish standards so that foreign nations will not have to deal with 50 different rules. Yes, the states are bound by these standards pursuant to the supremacy clause. However, the power to create standards does not infer the ability to be the sole enforcer. Once the standards are set, then the states are bound to enforce those laws pursuant to those standards. The only time the federal government is allowed to be involved is when the states are not following those standards! This power has now been expanded from the power to create regulations to the power of sole enforcer, and Justice Kennedy has now declared that the sovereign states have no ability to enforce these laws, and therefore have no right to protect their own territories. It’s as if the US government, via the Supreme Court, has practically expelled Arizona from the Union – since, if the Federal government will not enforce the law and Arizona is NOT ALLOWED to enforce the law – then Arizona is bare and unprotected.

    One need only read Justice Scalia’s dissent to discover the correct interpretation.

    “ The most important point is that, as we have discussed, Arizona is entitled to have “its own immigration policy”—including a more rigorous enforcement policy—so long as that does not conflict with federal law. Today’s opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there. Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result. I dissent.”

    As do I, Justice Scalia. As do I.

  5. charlene zechender
    February 22nd, 2013 @ 8:52 am

    SHOCKER: OBAMA, ARMING TERRORISTS IN AMERICA AND DESTROYING 2ND AMENDMENT
    WeepingEagle

    Mr. Fast and Furious himself and the head of the Dept. of Justice, ERIC HOLDER reports to one person, but the President of the United States, the illegal alien who just stole another election. Now, the two apparently, as you will see the proof yourself are arming terrorists and destroying the second amendment all in one nice neat plan. We have to ask why they want to arm terrorists in the United States?? Consider this, Obama is already arming Al Qaeda over in Syria…which is what Benghazi was ultimately about. We have armed Mexican gang-lords (aka terrorists) that have killed at least two American’s and countless Mexicans known as Fast and Furious. The administration is in bed in a big way, with the murderous Muslim Brotherhood. Obama wedding ring is inscribed, “There is no God but Allah”. But America by and large can’t seem to put the pieces together that the Fox is in the Hen House, and We The People are the hens that that Fox is after…by any means necessary. Get ready America, change has come to you from within. – W.E.

    KrisAnneHall
    Proof!: DOJ Busy Destroying the 2nd Amend & Arming Terrorists!
    Is the Federal government aiding and abetting terrorists within the United States? You be the judge.
    In April ATF made some peculiar changes in their form required for over the counter purchase of firearms, Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record Part I- Over-the Counter. ATF requires firearm dealers to use this form for over the counter gun purchases and cites the reason for these changes to be an order by the Attorney General’s Office.
    These changes are stunning as they actually make it easier for transient aliens to purchase firearms than for US Citizens. Transient aliens will no longer be required to show any proof of residency and are not required to undergo the same rigorous background checks as citizens. What is the purpose of these changes you may ask? ATF asserts that these changes are necessary to prevent STATES from creating more stringent residency requirements on aliens than those of citizens, but I believe the evidence shows much more than that.
    alt
    (Open Letter To All Federal Firearms Licensees, DOJ April 30, 2012)

    Gun and ammunition dealers and law enforcement agents are no longer allowed to request proof of residency from ANY non-immigrant for authorization of shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving “any firearm or ammunition”.
    It is relevant to point out that this falls right in line with the recent Supreme Court ruling in Arizona. The Supreme Court, in this ruling gave greater protections to aliens, and the DOJ and ATF are falling right in line. (For further understanding of the Arizona ruling please read here)
    Aliens with non-immigrant visas are just temporary visitors. They do not intend to obtain citizenship, express no intent to stay in this country for more than 90 days, make no application for visa, have made no profession of loyalty to the laws of this land, and have had no formal background checks. Have you tried to buy a firearm from a dealer or store lately? How many HOURS did it take you? I bought a .22 rifle built for young shooters and it took me an hour and 45 minutes just for the background checks (yes that is plural, checkS). With these new changes, the AG and ATF have made it easier for transient immigrants to buy guns and ammunition than for US Citizens. The ATF, in enforcing the AG’s standards, claims that the states have no right to do anything about this; the states cannot make more stringent requirements upon aliens than on citizens. However, there seems to be no problem making more stringent requirements upon citizens than on transient aliens.
    alt
    (Open Letter To All Federal Firearms Licensees, DOJ April 30, 2012)
    The changes made by ATF and DOJ should be even more alarming when we consider the Government Accountability Office report which criticizes our visa offices for “bickering over the degree of association with a terrorist that would make a visa applicant ineligible to enter the United States.” Our government is authorizing visas to people with KNOWN terrorist affiliations and then making it easier for them to buy, ship, and transport firearms and ammunition than for our own citizens!
    Another interesting change in form 4473 occurs in section 10. The updated form adds a new section and a separate question regarding ethnicity, to distinguish Hispanic or Latinos from all other races. This is in addition to the new section 10-b that requires the person to identify race, giving 5 choices.
    The original form looks like this:
    alt
    The changed form looks like this:
    alt
    What is the justification for this change? How does a separate distinction between Hispanics and non-Hispanics meet the intent of the Gun Control Act as claimed by the AG? What is the purpose of making this distinction? It is interesting to note that there is no box for “Arab or Middle Eastern” and no box for “Other.” The choices are so specific, how would someone answer that question if they were from Iraq or Israel or Pakistan?

    Have we just uncovered the DOJ’s American version of gun running?
    Is this how they are arming our enemies within? Why else would they make it so easy for aliens with known terrorist affiliations to remain in this country and then make it so easy for them buy, possess, and ship firearms?

    We must know that this will only serve to dilute our 2nd Amendment rights, or at least provide gun hating legislators and organizations with the ammunition to try.
    The AG has made it a point to tell us what they believe Congress’s intent is with immigrant aliens and the Gun Control Act. It would seem that it is inherent upon Congress to respond and correct them. Will the AG’s understandings ever be challenged? It is unlikely when the corrections are generally issued by the Department of Justice against the Department of Justice; the agency governing itself. If we make Congress aware of these changes, they will have the opportunity to stop the “lawful” arming of terrorists in this nation. Will they do their job, or do we have to wait for another tragedy?

    “Nothing can be more truly Machiavellian in our Ministry than their first endeavoring to sap the liberties of our settlements abroad. Every act, however injurious to freedom, loses its horror by repetition. Thus by progressive steps, and the pleading of precedents, we may expect shortly to see all of our most valuable privileges taken away from us, without so much as feeling their loss, till their restoration is irremediable.” The Kentish Gazette, British Newspaper June 11, 1774.

    ***NOTE~ This is a summary of my 6 page report. To view the entire report, please go here.

  6. charlene zechender
    February 22nd, 2013 @ 8:52 am

    SHOCKER: OBAMA, ARMING TERRORISTS IN AMERICA AND DESTROYING 2ND AMENDMENT
    WeepingEagle

    Mr. Fast and Furious himself and the head of the Dept. of Justice, ERIC HOLDER reports to one person, but the President of the United States, the illegal alien who just stole another election. Now, the two apparently, as you will see the proof yourself are arming terrorists and destroying the second amendment all in one nice neat plan. We have to ask why they want to arm terrorists in the United States?? Consider this, Obama is already arming Al Qaeda over in Syria…which is what Benghazi was ultimately about. We have armed Mexican gang-lords (aka terrorists) that have killed at least two American’s and countless Mexicans known as Fast and Furious. The administration is in bed in a big way, with the murderous Muslim Brotherhood. Obama wedding ring is inscribed, “There is no God but Allah”. But America by and large can’t seem to put the pieces together that the Fox is in the Hen House, and We The People are the hens that that Fox is after…by any means necessary. Get ready America, change has come to you from within. – W.E.

    KrisAnneHall
    Proof!: DOJ Busy Destroying the 2nd Amend & Arming Terrorists!
    Is the Federal government aiding and abetting terrorists within the United States? You be the judge.
    In April ATF made some peculiar changes in their form required for over the counter purchase of firearms, Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record Part I- Over-the Counter. ATF requires firearm dealers to use this form for over the counter gun purchases and cites the reason for these changes to be an order by the Attorney General’s Office.
    These changes are stunning as they actually make it easier for transient aliens to purchase firearms than for US Citizens. Transient aliens will no longer be required to show any proof of residency and are not required to undergo the same rigorous background checks as citizens. What is the purpose of these changes you may ask? ATF asserts that these changes are necessary to prevent STATES from creating more stringent residency requirements on aliens than those of citizens, but I believe the evidence shows much more than that.
    alt
    (Open Letter To All Federal Firearms Licensees, DOJ April 30, 2012)

    Gun and ammunition dealers and law enforcement agents are no longer allowed to request proof of residency from ANY non-immigrant for authorization of shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving “any firearm or ammunition”.
    It is relevant to point out that this falls right in line with the recent Supreme Court ruling in Arizona. The Supreme Court, in this ruling gave greater protections to aliens, and the DOJ and ATF are falling right in line. (For further understanding of the Arizona ruling please read here)
    Aliens with non-immigrant visas are just temporary visitors. They do not intend to obtain citizenship, express no intent to stay in this country for more than 90 days, make no application for visa, have made no profession of loyalty to the laws of this land, and have had no formal background checks. Have you tried to buy a firearm from a dealer or store lately? How many HOURS did it take you? I bought a .22 rifle built for young shooters and it took me an hour and 45 minutes just for the background checks (yes that is plural, checkS). With these new changes, the AG and ATF have made it easier for transient immigrants to buy guns and ammunition than for US Citizens. The ATF, in enforcing the AG’s standards, claims that the states have no right to do anything about this; the states cannot make more stringent requirements upon aliens than on citizens. However, there seems to be no problem making more stringent requirements upon citizens than on transient aliens.
    alt
    (Open Letter To All Federal Firearms Licensees, DOJ April 30, 2012)
    The changes made by ATF and DOJ should be even more alarming when we consider the Government Accountability Office report which criticizes our visa offices for “bickering over the degree of association with a terrorist that would make a visa applicant ineligible to enter the United States.” Our government is authorizing visas to people with KNOWN terrorist affiliations and then making it easier for them to buy, ship, and transport firearms and ammunition than for our own citizens!
    Another interesting change in form 4473 occurs in section 10. The updated form adds a new section and a separate question regarding ethnicity, to distinguish Hispanic or Latinos from all other races. This is in addition to the new section 10-b that requires the person to identify race, giving 5 choices.
    The original form looks like this:
    alt
    The changed form looks like this:
    alt
    What is the justification for this change? How does a separate distinction between Hispanics and non-Hispanics meet the intent of the Gun Control Act as claimed by the AG? What is the purpose of making this distinction? It is interesting to note that there is no box for “Arab or Middle Eastern” and no box for “Other.” The choices are so specific, how would someone answer that question if they were from Iraq or Israel or Pakistan?

    Have we just uncovered the DOJ’s American version of gun running?
    Is this how they are arming our enemies within? Why else would they make it so easy for aliens with known terrorist affiliations to remain in this country and then make it so easy for them buy, possess, and ship firearms?

    We must know that this will only serve to dilute our 2nd Amendment rights, or at least provide gun hating legislators and organizations with the ammunition to try.
    The AG has made it a point to tell us what they believe Congress’s intent is with immigrant aliens and the Gun Control Act. It would seem that it is inherent upon Congress to respond and correct them. Will the AG’s understandings ever be challenged? It is unlikely when the corrections are generally issued by the Department of Justice against the Department of Justice; the agency governing itself. If we make Congress aware of these changes, they will have the opportunity to stop the “lawful” arming of terrorists in this nation. Will they do their job, or do we have to wait for another tragedy?

    “Nothing can be more truly Machiavellian in our Ministry than their first endeavoring to sap the liberties of our settlements abroad. Every act, however injurious to freedom, loses its horror by repetition. Thus by progressive steps, and the pleading of precedents, we may expect shortly to see all of our most valuable privileges taken away from us, without so much as feeling their loss, till their restoration is irremediable.” The Kentish Gazette, British Newspaper June 11, 1774.

    ***NOTE~ This is a summary of my 6 page report. To view the entire report, please go here.

  7. patricia anderson
    February 22nd, 2013 @ 9:59 am

    …the spellings were most likely ‘phonetic’ in origination, but now that you mention Africa, witnesses did appear in the Stanley Dunham initiated depos as to the birth certificate issued from Mombasa, and they or one of the other witnesses may have verified that the surnane “Phali” is a commonly used surname in Africa…..one of them may have further verified knowledge of an individual who used the name, or variation thereof, “Balore Phali”…

  8. patricia anderson
    February 22nd, 2013 @ 9:59 am

    …’they’, or ‘one of the other witnesses from Africa’…

  9. 5214chief
    February 22nd, 2013 @ 11:15 am

    It sounds like a Turkish name to me.

  10. D. Richard Hunter
    February 22nd, 2013 @ 11:39 am

    Thanks Patricia! You are an invaluable resource. I know I’ll be searching for Phali all weekend.

    Keep up the good work Patricia. We need more patriots like you.

  11. Jer Kaufer
    February 22nd, 2013 @ 12:44 pm

    Has anyone searched for his birth certificate in South Africa? He could have been born anywhere on the dark continent.

  12. Anonymous
    February 22nd, 2013 @ 1:24 pm
  13. tracey castanda
    February 22nd, 2013 @ 1:26 pm
  14. Sheila Demus
    February 22nd, 2013 @ 2:21 pm
  15. Jeff Barnes
    February 22nd, 2013 @ 6:15 pm

    Come on Orly, I dare you to post my comments….

Leave a Reply





*