Archive for the ‘Feds’ Category

IRS Fraud: There Is No Law That Requires You To File A 1040!

Do we have to pay income tax?

Aaron Russo exposes IRS fraud while meeting w/ Sheldon Cohen


Lumin Consulting
April 15, 2012

In the hopes of creating awareness of what CISPA actually is and how it could effect the lives of every day people, we created this infographic. Feel free to share the graphic on your site. You can find quotes from Fortune 500 CEO’s who are endorsing the bill here. You can also write a letter to your local representative to protest CISPA here.

CISPA Infographic by Lumin ConsultingInfographic designed by Lumin Consulting

Tea Party Tribune – Tea Party & Political News

Posted by:
Categories: Breaking News, Featured, The President

A recent ballot challenge hearing in New Jersey exposes a desperate strategy by Obama to distance himself from his forged certificate and induce the contrived value of his transient political popularity as the only “legitimate qualification” needed to hold the office of the presidency.

By Dan Crosby of THE DAILY PEN
Editor: Penbrook Johannson

Thursday, April 12, 2012

NEW YORK, NY – After a Maricopa County law enforcement agency conducted a six-month forensic examination which determined that the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth posted to a government website in April, 2011 is a digital fabrication and that it did not originate from a genuine paper document, arguments from an Obama eligibility lawyer during a recent New Jersey ballot challenge hearing reveals the image was not only a fabrication, but that it was likely part of a contrived plot by counterfeiters to endow Obama with mere political support while simultaneously making the image intentionally appear absurd and, therefore, invalid as evidence toward proving Obama’s ineligibility in a court of law.

Taking an audacious and shocking angle against the constitutional eligibility mandate, Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.

Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate.

At the hearing, attorney for the plaintiffs, Mario Apuzzo, correctly argued that Obama, under the Constitution, has to be a “natural born Citizen” and that he has not met his burden of showing that he is eligible to be on the New Jersey primary ballot by showing that he is indeed a “natural born Citizen.” He argued that Obama has shown no authenticate evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State demonstrating who he is and that he was born in the United States. Apuzzo also argued that as a matter of law, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” because he was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen.

As Obama’s legal argument becomes more contorted, he is being forced to avoid an ever shrinking legal space, and an increasing weight, of his failure to meet constitutional eligibility requirements.

Hill, of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi Attorneys in Newark, made a desperate motion to dismiss the ballot objection arguing that Obama’s lack of natural-born citizenship status was not relevant to being placed on the New Jersey presidential ballot because no law exists in New Jersey which says that a candidate’s appearance on the ballot must be supported by evidence of natural born citizenship status. Only the U.S. constitution restricts eligibility to hold the office of president to natural born citizens.

Judge Masin denied the motion to dismiss and the case proceeded to trial.

“Sadly, regardless of her moral deficiency, Hill is legally justified,” says TDP Editor, Penbrook Johannson, “Obama’s eligibility is a separate matter than the charges of forgery and fraud. Of course, we have evidence that he is not eligible. But, evidence of forgery by as yet unidentified counterfeiters working on behalf of Obama is not what legally excludes Obama from appearing on a ballot, by itself, until some authority is willing to consider this as evidence of forgery on its merit as an indication of actual ineligibility in a court of legal authority. Until some court of competent jurisdiction is willing to hear evidence of forgery and fraud, you can’t legally punish a political candidate for that crime which has not been proven that they committed. However, since Obama is not eligible because of a lack of authenticated evidence to the contrary, he could be held off the ballot for that reason.”

According to Johannson, there is an overwhelming level of moral certainty that Obama is a usurper, but until a court with jurisdiction considers this case, Obama’s status as a legitimate president is in limbo.

“He does not exist as a president except in the imagination of those who blindly support him. Whereas he is politically desired by a transient consensus, his legality is unresolved until a responsible court makes a determination. This is the essence of our crisis. Our nation exists in a state of non-authorized identity. Obama is just some guy calling himself a president and living in the White House without the confirmative authority to do so.”

Obama’s document forgery and fraudulent presidency have now forced him to flee to a “strange twilight zone” between political popularity and legal legitimacy where poorly counterfeited records are apparently allowed to be published by Obama using government media resources for political purposes, yet those same records are held by the courts as irrelevant for determining Obama’s legal eligibility status because they are, according to judges, “so poorly forged” they are obviously meant to be satirical and not to be taken seriously as evidence.

Shockingly, parting from widespread public ignorance, Hill actually acknowledged two of the three necessary components of determining natural born citizenship as being place of birth and citizenship status of both parents. However, she argued that, “No law in New Jersey obligated him (Obama) to produce any such evidence in order to get on the primary ballot.”

The third component of natural born eligibility is maintenance of natural born citizenship status from birth to election without interruption, involuntarily or voluntarily, due to expatriation, extradition, renouncement or foreign adoption.

“Obama is mocking our constitution,” says Johannson, “His position is that he never claimed the image was an indication of his natural born status, just that it was information about his birth. Whether it is forged or authentic is irrelevant to Obama because plausible deniability affords him the security in knowing that no legal authority is willing to hang him with it.”

Of course, Johannson adds that it makes Obama look like a willing accomplice and a liar, but, he says, “…show me a politician who cares about being seen as a liar by the public. If people who support him want to vote for a person like that, it reveals more about the reprobate character of Obama supporters than competency of any legal determination about his lack of constitutional eligibility. Degenerates will vote for a degenerate while patriots will exhaust all civil means to remove him…until those civil means are exhausted. Then things get ugly for government.”

“However, Hill is also essentially admitting that Obama is not a legitimate president and that Obama believes that his illegitimacy does not matter to his legal ability to hold the office. Obama holds to a political tenet, not a legal one with respect to his views on his eligibility. That’s what corrupt, criminal politicians do. When the law convicts them, they run to public favorability for shelter with the hope that their supporters will apply pressure to disregard law in their case.”

Obama is now arguing that because he is politically popular, as he points to as being indicated by his so-called ‘election’, despite accusations of eligibility fraud and election fraud, the constitutional eligibility mandate is not relevant, in his view. Until a courageous authority is willing to disagree and hold Obama to an equally weighted legal standard, civil remedies for the Obama problem are limited.

Johannson adds that Obama is making the same argument on behalf of Obamacare.

“If he had the gall to actually tell the Supreme Court that they have no authority to determine the unconstitutionality of his illegitimate policies, what makes anyone think he believes they have the authority to disqualify him due to his lack of constitutional eligibility? Obama believes he holds preeminent power over all branches of government because of his delusions of political grandeur.”

He correctly points to a lifetime pattern of behavior and testimony by Obama which indicates a complete lack of regard for the U.S. Constitution when it restricts Obama’s political agenda and lust for power.

“This is a guy who illegally defaced public property when he scribed his aspirations to be ‘king’ in a concrete sidewalk at the age of ten, for God’s sake. Now, his ‘majesty’ wants to put his illegal ‘graffiti’ into American law books. However, his problem is that he has to face the fact that he is an abject failure in his capacity to meet any standard required by the 250-year-old U.S. Constitution, in everything he tries to do. The Constitution owns him and he can’t stand it. He hates it. Therefore, instead of admitting his lack of constitutionality, he simply breaks the rules and proceeds to illegally scribe his fake authority on everything until someone is willing to physically stop him. Obama is not just an illegitimate politician, he is a rogue outlaw without regard for the divine providence of American law.”

Apuzzo submitted that New Jersey law requires Obama to show evidence that he is qualified for the office he wishes to occupy and that includes showing that he is a “natural born Citizen,” which includes presenting evidence of who he is, where he was born, and that he was born to two U.S. citizen parents. Apuzzo added that the Secretary of State has a constitutional obligation not to place any ineligible candidates on the election ballot.

The account of the trial can be read at:


By Chuck Baldwin
March 8, 2012

A few weeks ago, I said in this column, “It is far more important who is elected as your governor than who is elected President. It is far more important who is elected as your State attorney general than who is appointed US attorney general. It is far more important who is elected to your State legislature than who is elected to the US House and Senate. It is far more important who is elected as your sheriff than who is appointed as the Director of the FBI. But if all you watch is FOX News, CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC, you will be mesmerized with national politics, and you will forget about that which is the most important defender of our liberties: our individual state governments. In fact, in many cases today, our State and local governments are as abusive of our liberties as is the federal government. This is mainly due to the inattention and misunderstanding of the People as to the importance of electing local and State leaders who will accept, as their first responsibility, the maintenance of liberty for the people they represent. And by nature, that means being a faithful watchdog to the incursions of the federal government against our freedoms.”

See my column here.

I can’t stress enough that our liberties will be won or lost at the State level. All of the evil machinations that spew forth from that Cesspool By The Potomac would have absolutely no bearing upon or authority over our lives without the approbation of our State leaders. If our states had governors like Patrick Henry and State legislators and senators like Samuel Adams today, Washington, D.C., would not be the obnoxious bully that it is.

And let’s face it: some states are better positioned to reclaim their lawful jurisdictional authority than other states. Furthermore, I am personally convinced that all it would take would be for three or four states to draw their “line in the sand” and a host–maybe even a majority–of other states would quickly follow suit. And I further believe that my home State of Montana is uniquely poised to be one of those states.

The problem in Montana, however, is similar to that of most states: the “good-old-boy,” “politics-as-usual,” “scratch-my-back-and-I’ll-scratch-yours” politicians are ensconced in the State political infrastructure. And it’s going to take some political dynamite to blast them out! And that dynamite is a courageous constitutionalist (or better yet, a host of courageous constitutionalists) who is not afraid to take on these arrogant elitists and restore the principles of liberty to their states. In short, the status quo has to go!

And I want to let readers know that there is an epic battle underway right now in Montana that is both a microcosm and precursor of the battle that is raging nationally. In fact, this political duel might be the most important fight in the State of Montana this year. And because of Montana’s leadership in the national fight for freedom, it must be regarded as one of the most important political duels in the country.

I’m talking about the race for Montana State Senate District Three. The incumbent is the personification of the word RINO. This neocon is the bane of liberty and constitutional government. In fact, he is quoted as having told a gathering of local Republicans a few days ago, “We are NOT constitutionalists; we are NOT freedom-fighters.” Pray tell, Senator, if you are not willing to support and defend the Constitution, if you are not willing to support and defend freedom, what in Hades are you doing in public office?

This man comes from a long-established Montanan family with a good reputation in the State. Unfortunately, he has used that reputation to vault himself to the State senate. Name the issue and this Big Government toady is on the wrong side of it. He’s on the wrong side of the Second Amendment issue; he’s on the wrong side of the life issue; he’s on the wrong side of the less government and less taxes issue; he’s on the wrong side of the right to work issue; he’s on the wrong side of the State sovereignty issue; and he’s on the wrong side of the right of parents to educate their children via private or Christian education or homeschooling issue. And adding insult to injury, if this man is reelected this year, he will, in all likelihood, be elected Senate President, which means he will use his incredible power and influence to kill most of the good legislation that many of the noble house members and senators will bring forth next legislative term–not to mention the scores of RINOs and neocons that he will help place in key political positions around the State. This man simply must be defeated in the Republican primary, which takes place this June.

And the good news is that there is a courageous constitutionalist who is running against this neocon Neanderthal. His name is Rollan Roberts II. I’ve known Rollan for many years, and I can tell you that Rollan is as straight as a gun barrel on every single constitutional issue facing us today. He’s straight on the Second Amendment issue; he’s straight on the life issue; he’s straight on the private and Christian education and homeschooling issue; he’s straight on the State sovereignty issue; he’s straight on the constitutional government issue; he’s straight on the right to work issue; and he’s straight on the less government and less taxes issue. Rollan has the grit and determination of Ron Paul; he has the business acumen of Steve Forbes; and he has the look and polish of Ronald Reagan. Rollan Roberts is the real deal!

As you can imagine, Rollan is going up against a political MACHINE. These elitists have already attempted to threaten and intimidate Rollan by using very graphic language. They are making it their reason for getting up in the morning to defeat Rollan in the primary election. They know what is at stake. If Rollan can beat this Big Government elitist, their plans to dominate the State senate and thwart the noble efforts of the many constitutionalists, which are in the Montana House of Representatives, will be set back for years to come.

For all intents and purposes, Rollan has two months (sixty days) to win this senate seat. You see, a large number of Montanans vote via mail-in ballot, and these ballots are distributed on the first of May. So, Rollan has the months of March and April to upset this elitist RINO. And I’m telling you: Rollan has a VERY GOOD CHANCE of succeeding. A lot of Montanans see through his opponent and are working and praying for Rollan’s success.

I am asking all of my readers, if you believe in constitutional government, if you believe in State sovereignty, if you want to help a man who is uniquely poised to make a difference, not only in the State of Montana, but in the entire country as well, please consider helping Rollan Roberts II win this State senate seat. If every reader sends a $20 contribution to Rollan’s election campaign, this just might put him over the top. Will you help?

Rollan’s campaign website.

Again, time is of the essence! Rollan only has two months to win this race. If he wins the primary, he will most assuredly win the general election in November, as this senate district is heavily Republican. In fact, as of this writing, I haven’t even heard of a Democrat who has filed for this seat.

Will you prayerfully consider helping Rollan Roberts? If I didn’t know this man as I do, I would not use this column to ask readers to support him.

Ladies and gentlemen, when we find good constitutionalists who are running for public office, we need to do everything we can to support them. If you know of such people who are running for public office in your State and community, please support them. As I said, our liberties will be won or lost at the State level!

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

© 2012 Chuck Baldwin – All Rights Reserved

Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. Chuck and his family reside in the Flathead Valley of Montana. See Chuck’s complete bio here.

March 7, 2012

Dr. Graeme MacQueen discusses the 9-11 attacks and anthrax mailings in his presentation “The Fictional Basis of the War On Terror”.

Harvard University,
Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Studies
May 22 2010


The Spectacle Blog

By on 3.7.12 @ 12:45PM

In an extraordinary development reported exclusively by Dan Riehl over at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government, the Democrats’ deliberate refusal to accept Rush Limbaugh’s apology, coupled with the President’s attack on Rush, has fueled a stunning surge in death threats against the conservative champion.

The American left, its proclivity for violence well demonstrated over the centuries from riots over race, labor, Vietnam and Occupy Wall Street to specific assassinations such as that of President John F. Kennedy by Communist and pro-Castro activist Lee Harvey Oswald, has now been stirred to talk of violence against Limbaugh.

The threats also comes in the wake of a left-wing drive to intimidate Limbaugh sponsors.

Limbaugh’s audience will doubtless be even further infuriated by the news of the physical threats, captured in screen saves by Riehl. As reported here at the Daily Caller, Carbonite — which officiously withdrew as a Limbaugh sponsor and then was revealed to be headed by contributor and leftist businessman David Friend — has seen its stock plummet, its infuriated conservative customers dumping the product in droves.

Media Matters has tried, in typical style, to fuel the impression sponsors are abandoning Limbaugh in droves with stories like this.

The story is a deliberate lie. Limbaugh opened his program today explaining the inside baseball of radio advertising. There is a difference between local advertisers, whose dollars do not go to Limbaugh at all, and national advertisers — like Carbonite. Media Matters — and I debated Media Matters’ guy Eric Bohlert yesterday on KQED in San Francisco — deliberately misleads, and knows it, since it surely understands the difference in revenue streams between local and national advertisers.

Limbaugh also announced that new national sponsors are lining up to replace those who left — and notably, that there are at least two who want back in. In fact are “begging” to do so.

Get ready for some surprises.

Doubtless this backlash against Carbonite and others comes from the furious reaction of Rush’s audience.

The Rally for Rush continues. And it’s working.