Tuesday, February 23, 2010


How the Obama administration is facilitating the Muslim Brotherhood's plan of the "grand jihad."...

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a columnist for National Review. His book Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books, 2008), has just been released in paperback with a new preface. Check out a description from Encounter Books.

FP: Andy McCarthy, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

The Obama administration has now named a CAIR-trained supporter of convicted terrorist Sami al-Arian to be its envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. What gives here?

McCarthy: Jamie, as always it’s a great pleasure to be here.

It’s not such a great pleasure, however, to talk about what is happening to our country. What we are seeing is the domestic version of the Obama administration’s dangerously loopy “engagement” strategy. Basically, if you’re a friend of the United States, say Israel or Poland, prepare to be screwed; if you despise America as, say, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood do, prepare to be wooed. What’s happening here is wrong on so many levels it’s hard to unwind.

The OIC is an insidious organization dedicated to the imposition of Sharia (i.e., the evisceration of liberty) and the destruction of Israel. Yet, as Claudia Rosett’s recent brilliant column in Forbes observes, we are subsidizing its activities and giving it a propaganda victory every time we repeat its claim to be a “57-nation bloc” (one of those “nations” is the Palestinian territories, which do not constitute a nation). We shouldn’t have an envoy for it at all. We can thank the Bush administration’s pandering for that, but the Obama administration takes every Bush misstep and increases it geometrically. So now we will have an envoy whose credibility with the OIC will lie in the fact that he shares its disdain for the American government’s national defense measures against Islamic terrorists.

FP: What’s with Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano and her cozy relationship with Muslim Brotherhood’s U.S. affiliates?

McCarthy: This is a continuation of what President Obama started in Cairo, when the Muslim Brotherhood was invited to attend his ballyhooed speech. There are many people on the Left who have argued for years that we should be engaging the Brotherhood — that they are the “good” Islamists who are willing to work through a political process rather than resort to terror. Putting aside that they actually do support terrorism (against U.S. forces in Muslim countries and against Israel, at the least), shouldn’t we be concerned about what these “moderates” want to achieve through the political process? They are dedicated to the installation of Sharia law, the necessary precondition, in Islamist ideology, to the Islamization of society.

Many of the groups for which Napolitiano has rolled out the red carpet — the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society, for instances, are Muslim Brotherhood tentacles. Like CAIR, they were shown in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism finance trial to be part of what the Brotherhood described as ”grand jihad” to “sabotage” America from within. When you know that, the idea would be to keep them out. We’re inviting them in. I strongly recommend that people check out Richard Pollock’s report at Pajamas Media about Napolitano’s meeting with these groups.

FP: Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan has come out with some curious comments on the recidivism rates of released Gitmo detainees. Tell us about those comments and other aspects of this story that need more attention.

McCarthy: Well, the recidivism comment is just staggering. First of all, to say the rate at which former Gitmo detainees recidivate (i.e., go back to the jihad) is ”20 percent,” as Brennan said, is preposterous. We don’t know if someone is a recidivist unless we either encounter him on the battlefield or get reliable intelligence that he has rejoined the terrorist groups. That is, we can’t account for people we haven’t encountered on the battlefield or otherwise gotten good intelligence about.

This is not a criminal trial such that you have to suspend common sense and give those unaccounted for jihadists the benefit of the doubt. The only safe assumption is that the real recidivism rate is higher — no doubt much higher — than 20 percent. Moreover, even if it were lower, we are talking about people who go back to mass-murder, not shop-lifting. For Brennan to say 20 percent is fine because it compares favorably to the recidivism rate for ordinary criminals utterly misconstrues the difference between a national security challenge (which must be defeated) and a mere criminal justice problem (which has to be managed by good policing but can never really be eliminated). That would be a stupid remark for a cop or an analyst to make; for a high national security official to make it is inexcusable.

Beyond that, why is Brennan going to NYU to pander to Islamist activists like Omar Shahin? Michelle Malkin has an excellent piece on this unnoticed aspect of Brennan’s performance. Shahin was the ring-leader of the Flying Imams. He was also the leader at one of the most notorious Islamist mosques in the United States, the Islamic Center of Tucson. His predecessor there was Wael Hamza Julaidan, an al Qaeda founder designated by the Treasury Department as an international terrorist. Shahin gave fiery anti-Semitic “sermons” while at the mosque, the worshippers at which included 9/11 suicide bomber Hani Hanjour, bin Laden’s secretary Wadi el-Hage (since convicted in the embassy bombing case), and two young Saudis (Hamdan al-Shalawi and Muhammad al-Qudhaieen) who just happen to have been implicated in a 1999 “dry run” for the 9/11 attacks — engaging in the same sort of antics Shahin and the other Flying Imams engaged in. Shahin was the Arizona coordinator for the Holy Land Foundation (a charity later shuttered for supporting Hamas) and later became a representative of “Kind Hearts,” another Hamas charitable front. Yet, here is a top presidential adviser not only giving this guy the time of day but seemingly agreeing with him that our post-9/11 counterterrorism has been too aggressive. It’s shameful.

FP: What is happening in all of these developments and what threat does it pose?

McCarthy: The Muslim Brotherhood’s “grand jihad” — as it describes the plan in a 1991 memo — is to “sabotage” the United States from within. These developments show we’re not only failing to defend ourselves. We’re helping them along.

Monday, February 15, 2010


I really really wonder if these two attend the Dar el-Eman Islamic Center in Arlington. You know, the one Jamal Qaddura is president of? That Jamal Qaddura who's running for Justice of the Peace . . .

Arlington woman, teen had explosives in pickup, police say



An Arlington woman and a teenager had explosives in their pickup Saturday evening during a road-rage incident with another motorist that started in Arlington and ended on Southeast Loop 820 in Fort Worth, authorities said Sunday.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives spokesman Tom Crowley declined to make any additional comments other than to say that they had explosives.

Kimberly Al-Homsi, 45, and Yasinul Ansari, 18, also of Arlington, are scheduled to go before a federal judge in Fort Worth on Tuesday to face federal explosives charges, Crowley said Sunday. Federal offices are closed today for Presidents Day.

"Once the complaint is filed, there will be more information," Crowley said.

Al-Homsi remained in custody Sunday in the Arlington Jail in lieu of $210,000 bail. Ansari was in the Arlington Jail in lieu of $100,000 bail, accused of possession of a prohibited weapon.

Al-Homsi is accused of evading arrest with injury to an officer, possession of a prohibited weapon and two counts of making a terrorist threat -- all state charges.

Fort Worth police closed the highway Saturday evening for more than five hours at East Rosedale Street after what appeared to be an incident of road rage in Arlington turned into a bomb squad investigation in Fort Worth.

By 11:15 p.m. Saturday, members of the Fort Worth bomb squad had detonated four charges as they examined a vehicle containing what authorities called a suspicious device.

Authorities said Arlington police received a telephone call about 5 p.m. from a driver who reported that someone in another vehicle had pointed a weapon at him as they both traveled on Texas 360 between Pioneer Parkway and East Abram Street.

Arlington police saw a pickup matching the description and tried to stop it. The driver continued, and officers began pursuit, Arlington police said.

After about a 20-minute chase, the pickup hit a patch of ice, spun out of control and came to a stop on Rosedale beneath Loop 820 in Fort Worth.

After talking to Ansari and Al-Homsi, Arlington police asked that the Fort Worth bomb squad be called in.

Al-Homsi has a criminal history involving a fake grenade and possessing prohibited weapons, according to Tarrant County criminal court records.

In July 2007, Al-Homsi was arrested on suspicion of prohibited weapons after her roommate held Arlington police at bay during a six-hour standoff in their southeast Arlington home.

Four suspicious packages and a weapon were confiscated from the house after Al-Homsi's roommate, Aisha Abdul-Rahman Hamad, surrendered to police. Authorities never released details of what was in the packages.

Tarrant County criminal court records show that Al-Homsi was sentenced to 110 days in jail.

Court records also show that Al-Homsi waved a fake hand grenade at a motorist in 2005. She was put on probation for nine months for making a terroristic threat.

This report includes material from the Star-Telegram archives.

DOMINGO RAMIREZ, 817-390-7763



Please forgive my forwardness is asking you to share the following information or attend the meeting if possible Tuesday, February 16, 2010 in Senate staffers in Dirksen 152 this Tues.Feb. 16 at 2:00 PM re Free Speech Protection Act-vital to protect journalists from being sued in foreign courts under foreign law. You can read about it below:

Call to action for free speech
Subject: Free Speech for Journalists! Please meet Senate staffers on the Hill Feb. 16 2:00 PM re Free Speech Protection Act

Please meet Senate staffers in Dirksen 152 this Tues.Feb. 16 at 2:00 PM re Free Speech Protection Act-vital to protect journalists from being sued in foreign courts under foreign law.

Journalists, You can help get Freedom of Speech for all journalists, freedom to investigate terrorist activity without fear of overseas lawsuits in foreign courts! Please come meet with us this Tuesday, Feb. 16 at 2:00 PM in the Senate Minority Judiciary Conference room in Dirksen 152, to discuss the Free Speech Protection Act of 2009 (Senate Bill S.449) that will come before the Judiciary Committee on Feb. 24 or sooner. The judiciary staffers of five Senators (Sessions, Coburn, Cornyn, Hatch, and Grassley) will be present, as will Dr. Paul Williams, one of the journalists who inspired the bill, plus Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld's legal expert.

This is an extremely crucial bill, and is also newsworthy because it has truly bipartisan support, and is a bill all Senators can support, Democrats as well as Republicans. The Washington Post has written editorials in favor of the bill. We are meeting to see if we can get the four undecided Republican Senators (Cornyn, Coburn, Hatch, and Grassley) to get on board.

Please help us pass this important bill, which is vital to protect journalists who are exposing terrorist activity from being sued in foreign courts under foreign law. Senator Sessions, the Ranking Member, and most of the Democrat Senators on the Judiciary Committee are in favor of the bill. We need to get Republican Senators Cornyn, Coburn, Hatch, and Grassley on board as well. This is one bill that truly deserves bipartisan support! Please meet with us this coming Tuesday, Feb. 16. At 2:00PM. Thank you so much, Dr. Hugh Cort, (cell 205-213-5621). Please see more info about the bill below.

Dr. Paul Williams and Rachel Ehrenfeld have already met with the staffs of several other Senators, including Senator Arlen Specter, Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Leahy, and others who are supporting the bill. I just learned from Dr. Ehrenfeld that Senator Sessions is backing the bill, which is great. I think it is still important to meet with Senator Sessions' judiciary staffer, and definitely the judiciary committee staffers of the four undecided Republican Senators to discuss the bill.

The Free Speech Protection Act of 2009 (first proposed in Feb. of 2009) will protect authors and journalists such as Paul Williams and Rachel Ehrenfeld (and Joe Sharkey of the New York Times) who have been sued by people in foreign countries in the courts of those countries, under the laws of those countries, which often have no 1st Amendment rights of freedom of speech as we have here in America. For example, Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote the book Funding Evil, about how Islamic extremists in Saudi Arabia are funding Al Qaeda. Rachel was then sued by a wealthy Saudi businessman in England under British law that does not have free speech protection like we have here in America. The English court awarded him a big judgment against her. She then had to spend thousands of dollars in her home state of New York to fight the Saudi from getting her money. She succeeded in getting the State of New York to pass Rachel’s Law, which protects journalists and authors from foreign lawsuits. Now she wants to pass the Free Speech Protection Act to get such protection nationwide.

My friend and colleague, Dr. Paul Williams, wrote a book about Al Qaeda’s plans for a nuclear attack on America, in which he wrote about some terrorists who the FBI had spotted in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, including Adnan Shukrijumah, who FBI Director Robert Mueller has called, “the next Mohammed Atta”, the man Osama bin Laden has chosen to lead the next 9/11 against America (which may well be a nuclear attack). The terrorists were spotted near McMaster University, home of the largest research nuclear reactor in Canada, where several news reports came out that the terrorists had made off with some nuclear material. For writing about these news reports in his book, Dr. Williams was sued by McMaster University, which has a large number of Islamic students, and is heavily funded by wealthy Saudis. Dr. Williams has thus far had to spend over $50,000 of his own money to fight this lawsuit in Canada, which is being held under Canadian law (which does not protect freedom of speech), for writing a book in America!

If these lawsuits are allowed to have jurisdiction in America, it will have a very chilling effect on journalists who are trying to expose funders of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. However, if Senator Sessions and the other Senators pass the bill, American journalists will be allowed to investigate terrorism issues without fear of foreign lawsuits in foreign courts intimidating their research. In these perilous times, as you may well imagine, it is more important than ever to find out what is happening with terrorist groups!

Sincerely, Dr. Hugh Cort, President,
American Foundation for Counter-

Terrorism Policy and Research

For more information, see my interview with Dr. Paul Williams here. If you cannot attend the above meeting, please call, email, fax, your politicians and urge them to pass the Free Speech Protection Act.

Deborah F. Hamilton
Right Truth

Federal judge rules against 'Muslim Mafia'
CAIR decision seen as victory over plan to 'chill' free speech

Posted: February 15, 2010
1:04 am Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Defense attorney Daniel Horowitz

A federal judge has dismissed an attempt by the Council on American-Islamic Relations to re-file a lawsuit against Air Force special agent P. David Gaubatz and his son Chris, the father-and-son team that investigated and exposed the group's terrorist ties.

Defense lawyers are hailing the decision as a victory over CAIR's alleged plan to "chill" free speech critical of the organization through an avalanche of court cases and legal costs.

"We briefed, counter-briefed, we spent thousands of dollars on the case," said Daniel Horowitz, one of the three lawyers for the defense. "Only then did they file this new lawsuit, which would have effectively forced us to start all over."

"But the new lawsuit didn't have anything substantively new," Horowitz told WND. "And yet, that's their whole goal. They know they can't win the case, but they can chill the First Amendment by making it so expensive to speak against them that no one can challenge Saudi-funded CAIR. In the end, they can just keep getting more and more money from overseas and burn out opposition with lawsuits."

Get "Muslim Mafia," the book that exposed CAIR from the inside out, autographed, from WND's Superstore!

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, however, "denied as moot" CAIR's request to re-file the case. CAIR now has until March 1 to re-file "an appropriate motion for leave to amend."

"The judge looked at papers and said, 'Look, you don't have a right to do this; everything was fully briefed; you had your opportunity,'" Horowitz explained.

"In terms of the First Amendment, it's a powerful ruling," Horowitz continued, "because it recognizes that by chilling free speech, you undermine it, even if you lose the case in the end. CAIR was trying to exploit that to the max, and the judge said no."

Sunday, February 14, 2010


Dr. Orly Taitz, esq

29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100

Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-7603

E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com






v. § Civil Action: 10-151 RCL


Barack Hussein Obama, § APPLICATION FOR






Defendant. §

Notice of Application For Preliminary Injunction pursuant to LCvR 65.1 (c), LCvR 65.1 (d)

Plaintiff is seeking a Preliminary Injunction to recuse the US attorney’s office from representing the defendant.

Plaintiff is seeking a Preliminary injunction- Injunctive relief to obtain the vital records of the defendant prior to the February 26 deadline for document and response submission of the response by the Plaintiff to the CA Bar.

Plaintiff is seeking a preliminary injunction hearing within 20 days, as prescribed by LCvR 65.1 (d) to be scheduled by the court prior to March 1st.

Memorandum of point and authorities

The only relevant authority in this case, is the unanimous decision rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States and provided by the opinion written by two justices: John Paul Stevens and opinion by Steven Breyer. “Sitting president of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation against him from acts done before office and not related to the office”. Clinton v Jones, 520 US 681 (1977). Decision was made based on Article 2 of the Constitution of the United States.

Background of the Case and Factual Allegations

1. Plaintiff in this case is Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ, (hereinafter Taitz) who is a CA licensed Attorney and also a licensed Doctor of Dental Surgery. She is the president of the “Defend our Freedoms” Foundation, that seeks to educate the citizenry about the Constitutional freedoms, envisioned by the framers of the Constitution and guaranteed to us all. She was born and raised in the Communist Soviet Union and was able to see first hand the social devastation, caused by lack of guaranteed Constitutional freedoms and liberties.

2. Defendant is Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States (Hereinafter Obama).

3. Taitz alleges that she has a unique standing to bring this case as she suffered unique damages and she was the harmed by the actions of the defendant.

4. Prior to the 2008 election Taitz became concerned regarding Obama’s refusal to unseal any of his original vital records, that would prove his eligibility to office.

5. Taitz has written to the CA secretary of State Debra Bowen, asking which documents she checked to ascertain Obama’s eligibility.

6. Bowen responded by stating that she did not check anything, but rather relied on Obama’s statement that he is eligible.

7. Taitz has related this finding with fellow voters through an article published in Westminster Herald and through public appearances.

8. Taitz argued that hypothetically speaking, utilizing such lack of zeal in verifying credentials, anyone can become the president, even Osama Bin Ladin can hypothetically become a president if he was to put his name on the ballot and have several hundred million for the campaign.

9. Taitz filed two legal actions prior to the meeting of the electoral college. Those actions were filed on behalf of the Presidential candidate from the American Independent party former UN Economics and Cultural Commission Ambassador Alan Keyes and vice presidential Candidate Gail Lightfoot.

10. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts agreed to hear Lightfoot v Bowen in the conference of all nine justices on 01.23.09.

11. On 01.21.09, one day after the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama, all mention of Lightfoot v Bowen by attorney Taitz was erased from the docket of the Supreme Court. After numerous complaints from the public the case was re-entered in the docket, however subsequently when Taitz asked one of the Justices, Justice Scalia about the case, he had no knowledge of existence of this case. Taitz has filed a complaint and demanded investigati! on, but received no answer from law enforcement.

12. After the 2008 election over 200 members of the US military with ranks up to Major General, a number of state Representatives and others have signed up to be plaintiffs represented by Taitz in seeking verification of eligibility of Obama to be president.

13. Taitz has filed a number of legal actions seeking verification of eligibility. Most of the cases were dismissed when the judges claimed that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing and the courts lacked jurisdiction.

14. There were some 100 Federal and State cases filed by pro se plaintiffs and other attorneys, all of which were dismissed on procedural grounds due to lack of standing or jurisdiction

15. Twelve citizen grand juries have come up with indictments or presentments of Obama, as ineligible, however no law enforcement official or judge would assert jurisdiction.

16. Obama has refused to unseal any of his original vital records. No one was allowed to see his original birth certificate, college application records, financial aid forms or his medical records.

17. The only record Obama presented, was a short version Certification of Live birth, issued in 2007, which didn’t provide the name of the hospital, name of the doctor in attendance or signatures of any witnesses.

18. In light of the fact that the state of HI statute 338-17 allowed foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to get Hawaiian birth certificates and statute 338-5 allowed birth certificates to be obtained without any corroborating documents from any hospitals, there is no verifiable prima facia evidence of Obama’s birth in Hawaii.

19. Chiuomi Fukino, Hawaiian director of the Health Department has prepared a carefully crafted statement, claiming that Obama’s vital records, currently sealed in Hawaii, were valid. She refused to provide any explanation, what birth certificate was on file: was it one base on Statute 338-17, on based on 338-5, was it an amended birth certificate obtained after Obama, was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, was it a late birth certificate, obtained after the original was los! t or destroyed. In all of these instances Obama would have a valid document based on Hawaiian rules and regulations, but not a sufficient verification of Hawaiian birth. In July 2009 Taitz represented Major Stefan Cook in Cook v Good, 4:2009 cv82 in front of Judge Clay D. Land in Columbus GA. In September of 2009 she represented a flight surgeon Captain Connie Rhodes in Rhodes v McDonald in front of the same Judge Clay D Land.

20. In both cases members of the military were supposed to be deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq and they were questioning the deployment orders coming from Obama down the chain of command, as they didn’t believe those orders were legitimate.

21. After becoming a plaintiff and legitimately seeking verification of Obama’s eligibility Major Cook was subjected to retaliation whereby his employer, a small military contractor was pressured by the military to fire Major Cook from his $120,000 a year job.

22. After investigator Sankey compiled a database for Taitz, showing that some 39 different social security numbers were used by Obama, he was subjected to audit by Lexis Nexis.

23.When former immigration officer and private investigator John Sampson has provided Taitz information showing Obama using Social Security number 042-68-4425 issued in CT, he was locked out of LocatePlus search database in retaliation for his Obama search, which affected his livelihood as investigator.

24. When police officer, Mr. Ronald Dishler from Beaumont, TX cooperated with Taitz and attempted to investigate suspected forgery in Obama’s Certification of Live Birth, he was threatened with investigation against him, officer Dischler.

25. In Georgia Presiding judge Clay D. Land tried to intimidate Taitz and stop her from filing any more legal actions against Obama by threatening $10,000 sanctions if she files any more legal actions on behalf of members of the military against Obama.

26.When Taitz filed a motion for stay of deployment of her client Captain Connie Rhodes, pending re-consideration of her case, Judge Land has assessed $20,000 against her and has written a denigrating order.

27.Order from Judge Land was forwarded to the CA bar and her answer is due by February 26.

28.Members of CA bar are predominantly Democrats and among largest donors and supporters to Obama campaign and Democratic National Campaign. Taitz has a legitimate concern that CA bar will be used as a tool for retaliation against her, particularly in light of recent wrongful disbarment and imprisonment of former Assistant US attorney, community activist and antitrust constitutional lawyer Richard Fine.

29.Taitz clearly became a dissident against Obama regime and her license, her livelihood, well being of her family and, judging by the case of Richard Fine, her very freedom is at stake.

28.Additionally she saw a group of convicted criminals, convicted document forgers, who appear to be working in concert, submitting perjured affidavits, forging her signature in order to derail her cases and endanger her license.

30. There is a clear concerted effort to destroy her legal actions, undermine her law license and destroy her as a human being.

31.Such attacks were unrelenting, coming from each and every direction not by the hour, but by the minute. The attacks have risen to the level of hate crimes. Pro Obama ‘main stream media” has covered her by a barrage of insults, assaults and harassment.

32. After she received a threat to kill her and burn her body for the whole world to see, there was a warning signal in her car. Test by a mechanic showed that the fumes emissions hose was disconnected and hot combustable fumes were going back to the engine which was a dangerous condition for her and her family riding in the car.

33.At the same time Obama has given speeches about civility, telling the audience, such as theologists at the National prayer breakfast that there is a need for civility, and there should be no questioning of his citizenship. He conveniently forgot to mention to the audience, his refusal to unseal his original vital records or his use of multiple social security numbers, none of which were issued in the state of Hawaii, where he resided.

34.All Obama had to do, was take one minute of his time and sign a consent to unseal his vital records, yet he has chosen to continue to obfuscate all of his vital records and either orchestrate or at least stay idle, showing reckless disregard to mental anguish Taitz was subjected to, showing more then lack of civility, it showed totally depraved heart.

Preliminary injunctive relief sought

Plaintiff re-alleges in this paragraph everything alleged previously and also alleges the following:

Plaintiff is seeking an order by this honorable court directing the defendant to release by February 26,2010 his original birth certificate, which was allegedly obtained based on the defendant’s birth in Kapiolani hospital in Hawaii on 08.04.61.

Plaintiff is seeking an order by this Honorable court directing the defendant to release his birthing (birth or labor and delivery) file from Kapiolani Hospital by February 26, 2010.

Plaintiff is seeking an order by this Honorable court directing the defendant to release by February 26 his school enrolment records and financial aid application records from Occidental college, Columbia University, Harvard university and Punahoa high school.

Plaintiff is seeking an order by this Honorable court directing the defendant to release by February 26 any and all of his passport applications.

Plaintiff is seeking an order by this Honorable court directing the defendant to release by February 26 his Social Security application and explain why Social Security number, used by him for most of his life, and used for registering for the Selective Service shows 042- the code of the State of CT, even though the defendant never resided there, and why this number shows as being assigned to an individual born in 1890, even though the defendant was not born in 1890 and is not 120 years old.

Plaintiff is seeking an order by this Honorable court directing the defendant to provide an explanation by February 26, why National databases Choice Point and Lexis –Nexis show him using as many as 39 different Social Security numbers, none of which were issued in the state of Hawaii.

Plaintiff is seeking an order by this Honorable court directing Mr. Michael Astrue. Director of the Social Security administration, to provide by February 26 an original Social Security application for Barack Hussein Obama and an explanation why is he using a Social Security number issued in the state of Ct, to an individual born in 1890, even though the Defendant never resided in the state of CT and was not born in 1890, as well as access to the original Social Security application of the defendant to be granted to the plaintiff’s forensic document expert.

Plaintiff is seeking an order by this Honorable court to direct the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to release by February 26 defendant’s passport application and an access to such application to be granted to the plaintiff’s forensic document expert.

Injunctive relief is necessary, as monetary damages will not resolve the conflict at hand. Only specific performance will provide the information needed. There is no other source, where such information can be obtained.

Hardship on the defendant is minimal. All that is required from the defendant is one minute of his time to sign a consent for the release of his vital records, that are routinely released by candidates for political office and would simply confirm information alleged by Obama. Those records do not represent prying into personal life and definitely would represent less interference and less disclosure then was experienced by President Clinton in Clinton v Jones, when such disclosure was allowed by the courts.

The plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not ordered. Her career, law license and her whole life will be in turmoil.

When one compares the weight of hardships on both parties, the hardship on the plaintiff greatly outweighs the hardship on the defendant.

Requested Injunctive relief is in the interest of the public at large as legitimacy of the president affects the public. An illegitimate president represents danger to the National Security and well- being of the country as a whole.

The system of justice will benefit, as it will show that no one is above the law, that there is no two tier system, where the bottom tier has to abide by the laws and the constitution and the top tier can arrogantly disregard and disrespect them.

Based on all of the above equitable relief of production of all the requested vital records will be a proper and necessary remedy.

Necessity of recusal of the US attorney’s office is in the best interest of all of the parties and all of the parties and the public will benefit from such recusal .

In case the US attorney’s office is not recused and it is found that the defendant has committed federal criminal offences, the same US attorney’s office will be prosecuting him, which will deny him fair trial.

If the US attorney is not recused, due to apparent conflict of interest the plaintiff will be denied access to evidence, as granting such access will create conflict of interest with the defendant as a client of the US attorney‘s office.

Lastly the public will be in detriment and damaged without such recusal, as the main purpose and function of the US attorney’s office is to represent the United States of America and the people of the United States of America. In case the defendant is committing fraud, there will be a conflict of interest between him and the public at large, the public will not be represented which will cause irreparable harm to the public.

Any hardship associated with the recusal, is minimal and nominal. If the defendant is not committing fraud, then all he needs to do, is take a minute of his time to sign the consent for release of a few vital records and the plaintiff will be happy to pay the $12 customary fee for the certified copies as well as for the analysis with the forensic document examiner, if needed.

Based on all of the above, all of the parties to the dispute will benefit from the recusal, and it will be in the best interest of public at large.

Wherefore the plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable court to grant her application for injunctive relief as stated above.



Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. (California Bar 223433)

Attorney for the Plaintiffs

29839 Santa Margarita Parkway ste 100

Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

Tel.: 949-683-5411; Fax: 949-766-7603

E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com

Saturday, February 6, 2010




Offered by Michael Ledeen

It’s from Sueddeutsche Zeitung, citing a “new IAEA summary.” The article is in German. Here’s a translation:

“Iran has developed a nuclear warhead, according to an article in the German newspaper “Sueddeutsche Zeitung”. A foreigner alleged to have helped Iran towards developing nuclear weapons is from the former Soviet Union…The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has already mentioned the employment of a foreigner in the nuclear programme.

Quoting a new IAEA summary, the Suddeutsche said the scientist had previously worked in a Soviet nuclear weapons laboratory on advanced warheads. It said both western intelligence services and diplomats had confirmed the connection.

The newspaper added that Iran was trying to make a nuclear weapon small enough to fit into one of its Shahab 3 medium-range missiles and was designing a so-called two-point implosion system, which requires only two simultaneously exploding detonators to trigger a nuclear blast.

The former Soviet scientist was an expert on the high-speed cameras needed to test if both detonations were symmetrical, and had worked for Iran from the mid-1990s till 2000.

Somebody better tell Director of National Intelligence Blair, who testified this week that the Iranian regime had not yet decided to produce nuclear weapons.