While most SCOTUS watchers today will be focused on the social justice aspects of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act—which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman—the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision will extend far beyond the equal protection aspects of the law and how this constitutional guarantee is applied to all members of American society. …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest
By The Huffington Post News Editors
By Sofia Resnick
Goal of conservative-backed parenting study was to influence SCOTUS decisions on gay marriage, docs show
Read More…
More on Gay Marriage
Today, February 15, 2013, Attorney Orly Taitz brings her request to move the Obama eligibility challenge from conference to the oral hearing stage at the US Supreme Court. She is moving forward in spite of the fact that four African-American Supreme Court clerks refused to allow Taitz to see the signature of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who denied her petition originally. “But I resubmitted to Justice Roberts, and he sent it to the conference,” Taitz said.
The California attorney is asking “…how do we know that he (Kennedy) ever saw the brief?” In no uncertain terms, clerk James Baldin told her that “I (Taitz) [was] not allowed to see the signature.” This denial of her right to see Kennedy’s signature “does not make any sense.” Perhaps her Russian ancestry and background knowledge of the suppression of citizens caused her to note similarities with DC police actions that blocked “more and more streets” during Obama’s State of the Union address. The group of eligibility challengers were pushed farther and farther away, making it impossible for the public to see or question those who attended the event. When school students touring the buildings came up to the Taitz group to ask questions, their teacher was said to have made them leave!
The crux of the Taitz challenge to Barack Obama’s legitimacy to serve as US President involves the following charges: use of forged IDs and a stolen CT Social Security number; last name not legally his; fraudulent claim to being US Citizen; legal last name is SOEBARKAH on certified copy of passport records of Obama’s mother S. Ann Dunham (Taitz is presenting this passport evidence!); Obama’s Indonesian school records show his citizenship to be Indonesian; credible expert testimony by law enforcement individuals in sworn affidavits showing the birth certificate and selective service certificates are forged; the 2009 Social Security number on Obama’s tax returns failed both E-Verify and SSNVUS.
Also, Attorney Taitz is presenting evidence that 1 1/2 million invalid voter registrations were filed in the state of California! She is asking US citizens to “please, write and fax SCOTUS and demand to see the order by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who allegedly originally denied my case Noonan v Bowen before it was sent by Justice Roberts to the conference.” Is not this the very least we can do to attempt to clear up this matter?
Photo Credit: Laura Padgett (Creative Commons)
31 years ago, the RNC entered into a consent agreement to settle a lawsuit brought by the DNC not to peruse suspected voter fraud or prevent voter fraud. The RNC has been held to that consent agreement to this day. Each time they go to court to remove the consent agreement, a particular judge comes out of retirement to rule against the RNC requests.
New Jersey District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise, appointed by Jimmy Carter, ruled to keep in place a 30-year-old restriction against the RNC “which is national in scope, limiting the Republican National Committee ‘s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention”
The judge cited voter suppression of minorities outweighing the impact of voter fraud.
There are serious reasons for concern of voter fraud:
1) Pew Research Center states in 2012 –
“Voter registration in the United States largely reflects its 19th-century origins and has not kept pace with advancing technology and a mobile society. States’ systems must be brought into the 21st century to be more accurate, cost-effective, and efficient.
Research commissioned by the Pew Center on the States highlights the extent of the challenge:
2) The American people support voter ID laws by an overwhelming 74% (Washington Post.)
Hispanic Americans support voter ID laws by an overwhelming 71 % (Pew Research Center.)
3) The presidential election of 2000 was won by only 500 votes.
4) Local elections can be won by just a handful of votes.
5) People who believe their vote does not count or will be canceled out by fraud are unlikely to bother to vote.
Multiple left leaning groups are being criminally investigated for voter fraud schemes in the swing state of Florida.
6) 160 counties in the U.S. have more registered voters than people living in those counties.
Question: Have you seen any documented examples of voter suppression?
They appear to only be in Michelle Obama’s dreams.
Judicial Watch challenged her accusation, but it went unanswered.
Scott Gessler, CO Sec of State stated: “These accusations are built on a foundation of sand,” referring to voter suppression. He also states that the opposition to voter ID is well-financed and organized. “Disenfranchisement hysteria is, frankly, silly”
During a 1981 gubernatorial election in New Jersey, concern was raised over voter suppression; and the Democratic National Committee sued the RNC. That one incident in NJ 30 years ago came with a “consent decree”, stipulating that the RNC was prohibited from pre-election “ballot security” activates:
As modified in 1987, the Decree defined “ballot security activates” to mean “ballot integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud.
One section is particularly disturbing. Areas where minorities are living are in particular off limits for voter fraud protection measures. What message does this send to the DNC? Answer: Voter fraud will be allowed in minority areas; please target your efforts in those neighborhoods as this court is giving you a get-out-of-jail free card:
(e) refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose;
It should come as no surprise that voter fraud issues are rampant in the swing states districts where minorities make up a large percentage of the population.
Furthermore, the Court held that the RNC was barred from asserting this argument because the RNC willingly entered the Decree as a means of settling the initial 1981 lawsuit and the RNC again consented to the Decree, as modified, in 1987. The District Court also held that the Decree did not violate the First Amendment because, under the Decree, the RNC is free to communicate with state parties about subjects other than ballot security. Additionally, the Court noted that the First Amendment applies only to state actions and does not prevent private parties from agreeing to refrain from certain types of speech.
Prior to the 2012 elections, the RNC again attempted to have the consent decree vacated. An Obama-appointed Judge Joseph Greenway, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, denied the petition.
This past week’s ruling on Monday, January the 14th by the SCOTUS to refuse to hear the case brought by the RNC to end the consent order suggests there will be no end to rampant voter fraud; this ruling is an open invitation to the DNC and it’s affiliates to perpetrate fraud with no repercussions, accountability, or scrutiny.
Obama won the 2012 election by 400,000 votes in 4 swing states. All of these states had precincts that had statistical miracles of 99% of the vote going to Obama and voter registration numbers far in excess of their actual population counts. Additionally, all of these same states had claims of voter machine errors changing individual votes cast from Romney to Obama. With the RNC’s hands tied, barring them from any action to remedy the situation, we are bound for more of the same in the upcoming 2014 and 2016 election cycles.
No U.S. citizen should ever have to wonder if their vote was canceled out by a fraudulent vote. The system is set up to fail the legitimate voter; we demand integrity, full transparency, and accountability in our elections!
What is the solution to this predicament? See my article Addressing Voter Fraud – A 14 Point Plan For 2013. Force action by your State Representatives and Governors, or be content to be obsolete.
