Without a doubt the most important and significant legal action in the United States this week, is Dr. Orly Taitz’s Letter to Eric Holder, sent today(Dec. 14, 2009) , demanding that he institute Quo Warranto proceedings against Barack Hussein Obama in the District Court of Washington, D.C..

The importance of this letter is the fact that the quo warranto provisions of the District of Columbia Code provide that a 3rd party may institute a quo warranto action if the U.S. Attorney General fails to respond within 3 months to his request.

Dr. Orly Taitz wrote Holder on March 1st. In her letter, published today at her website, she demands that either he take action himself, or that her plaintiffs be granted ex-relator status to proceed in the name of the United States of America, as the D.C. code allows.

Quo warranto is a legal action whereby a plaintiff formally demands proof that the holder of an office, holds it lawfully, and if he does not, is empowered by the court to remove him from it. The Code of the Disctrict of Columbia contains provisions for quo warranto, in such cases as the usurpation of any federal office exercised within the district. Quo warranto can be used against Barack Hussein Obama because he is not a natural born citizen, and thus does not enjoy the Constitutional immunities of that office.

Dr. Taitz’s letter reads in full:

Dear Mr. Holder,

On March 1^st on behalf of my clients I have submitted to you a request to file Quo Warranto against Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. The request was filed due to following troubling facts:

1. According to a number of licensed investigators National Databases show Mr. Obama using as many as 39 different Social Security numbers, which included the numbers of deceased individuals and numbers never assigned.
2. Number 042-68-4425 that Mr. Obama used for most of his life and is currently using while residing in the White House, is a number assigned to an individual born in 1890, who resided in the state of Connecticut and this Social Security number was issued in the state of Connecticut where Mr. Obama never resided.
3. One of the leading forensic experts in the country Ms. Sandra Ramsey Lines has prepared an affidavit, stating that Mr. Obama’s short version Certification of Life Birth cannot be treated as genuine without seeing the original on file in the Health Department in HI.
4. The state of Hawaii since 1911 had in its statutes a provision allowing Foreign born children of Hawaiian residents of get Hawaiian Birth Certificates(currently statute 338-17) and currently statute 338-5 allows one to get a birth certificate based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence from the hospital.
5. In spite of over 100 law suits filed around the country and 12 Citizen Grand Jury indictments Mr. Obama refused to sign a consent to unseal his original birth certificate currently sealed in the Health Department of the state of Hawaii and all the other vital records.
6. Ms. Chiuomi Fukino, Director of the Health Department of the State of Hawaii has provided a statement that there is a document on file in Hawaii, however she refused to provide any information, as to what document is on file: whether it is a Birth Certificate given to a foreign born child of Hawaiian resident, whether it is an amended Birth certificate, obtained when Mr. Obama was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather. She refused to answer any questions as to whether his birth certificate was obtained based on a proper hospital birth certificate or based on a statement of one of his relatives only, which needs to be corroborated.
7. Regardless of place of birth of Mr. Obama, since birth and until now Mr. Obama had a split allegiance. He had British citizenship at birth, Kenyan since age 2 and Indonesian since age 5. Allegiance to other Nations goes as a clear violation of the Natural citizenship clause of the article 2 section 1 of the Constitution.

8. Under the Freedom of Information act 5 US 552, since no response was provided to numerous certified mail letters received by your office nine months ago, I demand a written response or Administrative hearing on the matter within 30 days. On behalf of my clients I demand an answer, as to when the Quo Warranto against Mr. Obama will be filed by the US Attorney General office, or in the alternative if the Attorney General office refuses to file Quo Warranto, I demand an ex-relator status for my clients to proceed with the Quo Warranto action against Mr. Obama in the DC court or the Supreme Court of the United States.

Signed,

Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ

Counsel to the plaintiffs-ex relators.

Islam is not compatible with a republic

from The Betrayal by David-Crockett

Posted: November 21, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009

Every Muslim is not a terrorist, but every terrorist is a Muslim.
~ Dr. Zakir Naik, president, Islamic Research Foundation

When I first started writing for WorldNetDaily, almost three years ago, I wrote “Is Islam compatible with a republic?” My thesis then was to use the Constitution, reason, history and philosophy out of the Judeo-Christian traditions of intellectual thought, including Natural Law, to state authoritatively why Islam is not compatible with a republic. Why? Because Islam contains none of the essential components of what philosopher Booker T. Washington called the “fundamentals of civilization.”

What are some of the fundamentals of civilization?

• Belief in God (the moon god, Allah, is a very different entity);
• veneration of the intrinsic value of all life;
• the rule of law;
• A written constitution based on truth, equity, liberty and morality;
• laws that don’t discriminate based on race, creed, wealth, gender or national origin;
• Freedom of religion.

These are just a few of the fundamentals of civilization Islam under Shariah law has no conception of and utter contempt for.

Islam is not compatible with a republic.

Last Monday I drove down to Columbus, Ohio, to attend a rally for the 17-year-old Christian convert, Rifqa Bary, who was tricked to come back from Florida where she had fled in mortal fear. She returned to her native Ohio to attend a juvenile court hearing that may force her to move back with her family, who are devout Muslims from Sri Lanka. Rifqa fears that her father will perform an honor killing upon her for “blasphemy against Islam” because of her conversion to Christianity.

Brigitte Gabriel combats politically correct notions about the “religion of peace” in “They Must be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How we Can Do It”

The event was organized by my friend, Florida radio host and publisher Pamela Geller. One of the speakers, Nonie Darwish, also a Christian convert from Islam, made this profound statement:

This [Islam] is not religion. It has nothing to do with religion. Religion is a relationship with God. … Islam is a relationship with the State. Islam is a one-party, totalitarian system. It’s a one-party State that will not allow you to speak. And it will kill anybody who challenges or questions.

Islam is not compatible with a republic.

Last Tuesday the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ordered Lynne Stewart, a convicted terror-coddling civil-rights lawyer, to begin serving her prison sentence.

Stewart, 69, was convicted over four years ago, in February 2005, of conspiracy and providing and concealing material support of terrorism for her actions in smuggling messages from “blind sheik” Omar Abdel-Rahman to his followers in the Islamic terror group Gama’a al-Islamiyya.

As irony would have it, last week President Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder, brought five terrorists from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to be tried in a criminal court in New York. This act is tantamount to treason and is essentially overturning 230 years of American constitutional law and over 400 years of common-law traditions by permitting enemy combatants caught on foreign territory waging war against American soldiers to have full constitutional rights rather than being speedily tried by a military tribunal.

Last year I wrote a book, “The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust,” on this very issue of coddling extreme war criminals and clogging up our criminal courts with people as irredeemably wicked as the Nazis, who, after World War II, should have all been tried by a military (not an international) tribunal and summarily hanged in the public square as a lesson to future would-be dictators that the civilized world means business.

They didn’t. Instead, in November 1945 the civilized world at the Nuremberg Trials miserably failed to dispense swift, comprehensive justice against Hitler’s Nazis. Now, their anti-Semitic allies then and now, the Muslims, seek to finish what Hitler started.

Obama and Holder’s decision to bring these religious fanatics to New York is an insane policy that no constitutional lawyer worth his salt could tolerate, but instead of a unified front against this double-crossing policy from the American Bar Association, the National Trial Lawyers Association and the ACLU, all I hear is the sound of shekels jingling in moneybag of Judas as legions of shyster lawyers from NYU, Columbia and Harvard are lining up to become the next Lynne Stewart – the next traitorous terrorist lawyer who will get 24/7 media coverage and a king’s ransom for defending these murderers.

Islam is not compatible with a republic.

The Obama administration at every opportunity is bending over frontwards and backwards to convince the world that America is a nice country since GWB left office and Obama is in charge. Conversely, this Neville Chamberlain policy of appeasement has only demonstrated to the world our societal decadence, our duplicity and our utter lack of moral resolve to fight an avowed enemy like radical Islam with the same passion and merciless tactics they have leveled against the civilized world.

As Nonie Darwish said, Islam is a totalitarian political ideology feigning as a religion; indeed, Islam is anti-religion. It has no belief in a God of love, but in Allah, the pagan moon god that predates the prophet Muhammad and the Quran. Islam has no respect for the intrinsic value of all life, but is a cult of death that celebrates death by promoting homicide bombers and “killing the infidel where you find him.”

America’s republic respects a written Constitution based on God, Natural Law, liberty and truth; therefore, truly just laws should not discriminate based on race, creed, gender or wealth (within biblical traditions, of course). However, Shariah law under Islam openly discriminates against others based on every conceivable difference. In other words, according to the Quran, everyone not a Muslim is considered a second-class citizen or worse, can be abused, sold into slavery or even summarily killed. The Quran commands: “A Muslim must not enslave another Muslim but is free to do so with a non-Muslim.”

And that’s why, in my opinion, Islam is not compatible with a republic.