POPPERS OR SEX PRODUCED LOWER BODY STINK?

This is an undocumented supposed incident that happened in Harvard.

During Barack Obama’s ALLEGED tenure as the president of the Harvard Law Review in the late 1980s, at least two male student editors complained to colleagues and senior university officials about inappropriate behavior by Obama, ultimately leaving their positions at the journal, multiple sources confirm to THE KANSAS CITIAN.The men complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Obama that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the university that gave them financial payouts to leave the journal. The agreements also included language that bars the men from talking about their departures.

In a series of comments over the past 10 days, Obama and his administration repeatedly declined to respond directly about whether he ever faced allegations of sexual harassment at the journal. They have also declined to address questions about specific reporting confirming that there were financial settlements in two cases in which men leveled complaints.

THE KANSAS CITIAN has confirmed the identities of the two male journal editors who complained about Obama but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names.

White House spokesman Jay Carney reportedly told THE KANSAS CITIAN the president indicated to White House staff that he was “vaguely familiar” with the charges and that the university’s general counsel had resolved the matter.

Obama was allegedly president of the Harvard Law Review from late-1988 to mid-1989. THE KANSAS CITIAN learned of the allegations against him, and over the course of several weeks, has put together accounts of what happened by talking to a lengthy roster of former university officials, current and past students and others familiar with the workings of the journal at the time Obama was there.

In one case, THE KANSAS CITIAN has seen documentation describing the allegations and showing that the university formally resolved the matter. Both men received separation packages that were in the five-figure range.

On the details of Obama’s allegedly inappropriate behavior with the two men, THE KANSAS CITIAN has a half-dozen sources shedding light on different aspects of the complaints.

The sources — including the recollections of close associates and other documentation — describe episodes that left the men upset and offended. These incidents include conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned journal events and at the journal’s offices. There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made men who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.

UPDATE: Third man comes forward to AP.

The AP:

A third former editor says he considered filing a workplace complaint over what he considered aggressive and unwanted behavior by Barack Obama when he worked under the president in the 1991 at the University of Chicago. He says the behavior included a private invitation to his apartment.

He worked for the University of Chicago when he was a Visiting Law and Government Fellow. He told The Associated Press that Obama made sexually suggestive remarks or gestures about the same time that the two editors of the Harvard Law Review had settled separate harassment complaints against him. The employee described situations in which he said Obama told him he had confided to colleagues how attractive he was and invited him to his apartment outside work. He spoke on condition of anonymity, saying he feared retaliation. The White House declined to comment.

Related articles
•Men Accuse Obama Of Sexually Inappropriate Behavior While At Harvard Law Review thedaleygator.wordpress.com  )
•Barack Obama accused by two men of inappropriate behavior ( theboldcorsicanflame.wordpress.com )
•Barack Obama Accused By Two Men Of Inappropriate Behavior ( zionistoutrage.com )
•Barack Obama accused by two men of inappropriate behavior ( gunnyg.wordpress.com )

The Ulsterman Report: Sex and Murder in The Land of Obama?

And as I stood there not quite sure what to do the smell seemed to go from sweet to kind of gross like rotting garbage. It was weird.

I started to try and sneak past the open door so whoever was in there couldn’t hear me but I sure could hear them and that was when I realized the sounds coming out of that conference room were sexual. I heard a male voice saying “Yeah,” again and again and then another sound from another male voice. I realized then that there were at least two men in that room having sex with themselves or someone else I could not hear. I was almost past the door when I heard a loud sniffing noise, and more of that weird smell coming from the room, and then one of the men yelled out the F-word.


Read more including about tthe murder:
http://newsflavor.com/politics/us-politics/the-ulsterman-report-sex-and-murder-in-the-land-of-obama/#ixzz1orcotRcH

(HUMOR) SOME OF OUR COUNTRY LEADERSHIP IN PICTURES (HUMOR)

THE END OF MY PHONY MESSIAH ACT!

========================================

NO WORRIES! I WILL HAVE MORE TIME TO....

LOOK AT ME LEADING THE WORLD!!



Iran's President Ahmadi-Nejad
























================================================

THE ONLY TIME YOU WILL SEE  A MOSLEM KISS A PIG!

AND MISS PIGGY IS JEALOUS AND WANTS HER KISS!

VIOLIN - STRINGS OF THE HEART

Hat Tip to FR's rdb3  "the mouth is the exhaust pipe of the heart"

Alan Note: Over the decades I have had a classical music station on my car radio "speed dial" though my CD player also provides an ecclectic variety of music.

At one time in life, a girlfriend would turn to another station if a violin (her villain) began a solo, though usually politely ask me to do so, since she said the instrument made her grit her teeth, no matter if it were a sweet tone or rapid "flight of the bumblebee" movement.

I never quite understood till I listened to these violin tunes. While they jarred my nerves they are clear and worth sharing and perhaps echo my mood rather than being "lethal" as rdb3 indicates! (Smile).

===================================================


25 years ago, we had Ronald Reagan, Johnny Cash, and Bob Hope.


Today we have Obama, no cash, and no hope!

If you can't appreciate the pure beauty of the violin after hearing this, something's wrong with your ears.

http://aimini.net/view/?fid=ajK0X0veB6xWd8tiTXh3


Or you can get raw with these strings.

http://www.aimini.net/view/?fid=EYuOurf9TXcXihh6GHpw

How about this gamechanger from America's Got Talent (which they SHOULD have won).

http://view.aimini.com/?fid=h3AnkzvVa1N3DnycQIDU

And finally, this, dedicated to the one and only rdb2, whose eyes are growing dim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLgfj6YrTTY

Either way, the violin is sweet yet LETHAL.

Do it!

THE DOMINOS LINE UP FOR THE FALL

An administrative law judge in Georgia could decide as early as this week whether voters in the state convinced him Barack Obama’s name should be removed from the 2012 presidential ballot because he is not qualified to hold the office.

But win, lose or draw, the fight isn’t going to be over, as other cases are erupting across the nation, with challenges being raised anew even in Obama’s own adopted political network in Illinois.

WORRIED AND SHOWING IT

The Georgia hearing was before Judge Michael Malihi, and while none of the lawyers who appeared in the proceedings was willing to predict what the decision will be, several did confirm that Malihi had considered simply granting them a default victory, because Obama and his lawyers expressly stated they would not participate in a hearing to provide evidence that he is qualified to be on the ballot.

A default presumably would have meant a recommendation from the judge that Obama’s name be stricken from the ballot, a decision which would head for review immediately by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp.

He, however, was the one who warned Obama of the “peril” of not participating in the hearing when Obama and his attorney had asked that the event be canceled.


Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

Whatever the outcome in Georgia, the issue is gaining traction in other states, too, including Alabama, Tennessee, Arizona, New Hampshire, and even Illinois, Obama’s home political base.

There, in a complaint recently filed by Stephen F. Boulton of McCarthy Duffy LLP and Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, their client is asking for a change in state law to allow the vetting of political candidates.

Obama isn’t even mentioned by name, but don’t think for a minute that the requested change wouldn’t include his candidacy.

The plaintiff is Sharon Meroni, who long has fought inside the system for a way to challenge the candidacies there. In her new case, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, she is petitioning for a judicial review of the state’s election procedures as they exist now.

Targeted are the state Board of Elections, members of the board, several county clerks and others, including candidates Dan Duffy and Amanda Howland.

Meroni, a registered voter in the 27th Legislative District in the state, said her concern is that “only candidates qualified for office under the Illinois and United States Constitutions appear on the ballot.”

The state’s primary is in March.

The case alleges the candidates did not provide sufficient proof that they are U.S. citizens as required to hold the office being sought “as is required by the Illinois Constitution of 1970.”

State officials refused to remove the names from the ballots, so Meroni has gone to court. Granting ballot access, she said in the complaint, “is contrary to law, against the manifest weight of the evidence, arbitrary and capricious, and a denial of the rights of the petitioner.”

Kreep told WND the way the system is established in Illinois it essentially allows political parties to determine who runs for office, and unless voters find out about a filing and can assemble a formal objection within five days, their concerns are dismissed.

And the system has no procedure for verifying the eligibility of candidates, he said.

That particular issue has been in the headlines for the past four years, since before Obama’s 2008 election victory, because of the questions that remain over his eligibility. The U.S. Constitution demands a “natural born citizen” be president and the Founders probably thought that to be the offspring of two citizen parents when they wrote the term.

But Obama’s father never was a citizen. There also are those who contend the junior Obama was not even born in the United States.

Kreep said the Illinois procedures make it virtually impossible for candidates to be challenged for their eligibility.

He said there likely will be raised in other states concerns similar to those in Illinois, where “barriers now in existence … bar voters from reasonable investigation of the citizenship of a candidate.”

That’s simply a deprivation of the constitutional right to due process, he said. The case seeks a declaration that the political maneuvers are unconstitutional.

There also have been assembled campaigns specifically to encourage voters to file eligibility complaints about candidates with states. One such effort is the Obama Ballot Challenge, which lists contacts for state elections offices across the country.

It is, of course, the states that actually run elections; a national election is just the compilation of the results from the 50 states.

“A candidate that is not legally qualified to be on the ballot, such as Barack Obama, steals votes from other candidates who are legally on the ballot,” the site advises.

WND previously reported that cases already have been begun in New Hampshire, where state officials rejected the claims; Alabama, Tennessee and Arizona.

The newest round of court actions do not try to have a judge determine Obama is not qualified for the Oval Office and remove him from it, they simply challenge his eligibility for the 2012 election.

Many of the cases cite Minor v. Happersett, a U.S. Supreme Court opinion from 1875 that said a “natural born citizen” would be a person whose parents both were citizens.

“This complaint does not request any injunction against any state or federal government official. Instead this complaint asserts that the private entity, Defendant Democratic Party, intends to act negligently or fraudulently in a manner that will cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, to the states, and to the citizens of the United States,” said one of the filings.

It continued, “Because Mr. Obama has admitted that his father was not a U.S. citizen, and because this fact has been confirmed by the U.S. State Department, any reasonable person with knowledge of these facts would doubt Mr. Obama’s constitutional qualifications. Therefore, any representation by the Democratic Party certifying said qualifications would be negligent, absent further evidence verifying Mr. Obama’s natural-born status.

“Plaintiffs further request an injunction prohibiting the Democratic Party from making any representation to any state official asserting, implying, or assuming that Mr. Obama is qualified to hold the office of president, absent a showing by the party sufficient to prove that said representation is not negligent.”

Van Irion, lead counsel for Liberty Legal Foundation, also is working on several of the issues, and has brought the question in court in Arizona.

“We picked the Arizona court for several reasons, but the main one being that it is part of the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit has indicated in dicta that an FEC-registered presidential candidate would have standing for this type of suit,” he said. The organization is working with John Dummett, a Liberty Legal Foundation member who is a candidate for the office of president in the 2012 election.

Irion said the other lawsuit was filed in state court in Tennessee.

“The focus of the state-court suit is to prevent certification to the Tennessee Secretary of State. This suit puts greater emphasis on the negligent misrepresentation/fraud aspects of a certification from the DNC. It includes more facts regarding Obama’s Indonesian dual citizenship and fraudulent Social Security Number,” he said.

He said if the cases succeed, the Democrats would not be able to list Obama as their candidate for 2012.

“Neither lawsuit discusses Obama’s place of birth or his birth certificate. These issues are completely irrelevant to the argument. LLF’s lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined ‘natural-born citizen’ as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant,” Van Irion’s group said.

WND also has reported that Maricopa, Ariz., County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has launched a formal law enforcement investigation into concerns Obama may submit fraudulent documentation to be put on the state’s election ballot in 2012.

Other attorneys involved in the Georgia case are J. Mark Hatfield and Orly Taitz.

Hatfield has told WND that the goal is for a court determination on the definition of “natural born citizen,” which then could be applied directly to Obama’s candidacy.

TERRORISM BY GOVERNMENT THUGGERY - courtesy of OBAMA

Note: Currently the EPA decisions CANNOT be taken/appealed to court by the accused-defendant. Right now this small landowner who wants to build a small house is facing $100 MILLION in EPA fines!!!!

by Lyle Denniston Reporter


January 9th, 2012


A weak defense of EPA (UPDATED)



Analysis

With a federal government lawyer conceding almost every criticism leveled at the way the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency compels landowners to avoid polluting the nation’s waterways, the Supreme Court on Monday seemed well on its way toward finding some way to curb that agency’s enforcement powers. Their task was made easier as Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart stopped just short of saying that EPA was just as heavy-handed as its adversaries — and several of the Justices — were saying.

Perhaps the most telling example: when several of the Justices expressed alarm that a homeowner targeted by EPA’s efforts might face a penalty of as much as $37,500 each day of alleged violation, Stewart made it clear that the fine actually might be doubled, to $75,000 a day, although he tried to recover by saying that was only “theoretical,” and that he did not think that EPA had ever taken that step.


The argument in Sackett, et al., v. EPA (docket 10-1062) did not appear to portend a slam-dunk loss for EPA during the first half of Monday’s argument, when the lawyer for an Idaho couple faced quite rigorous questioning about whether the couple had exercised options that might have been open to them to avert the dire consequences of EPA enforcement.

But the tenor of the session changed abruptly as soon as the line of argument chosen by EPA’s lawyer, Stewart, unfolded.

It all came to something of an explosive verbal climax when Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., suggested that the scheme that Stewart had outlined would be considered by the ordinary homeowner as something that “can’t happen in the United States.”

Alito ticked off the situation: the homeowner planned to build a house on a lot, the lot was found to have “a little drainage problem,” the homeowner was soon told by EPA that “you have wetlands,” that steps had to be taken to alleviate the environmental threat, that “you have to let us on your premises,” that every day “you face $75,000 in penalties,” that the homeowner cannot go to court to make a challenge, and that, if there is a court case, it won’t occur “until we choose.”

(UNBELIEVABLE: Justice delayed is justice denied!!!)

(Alan note: Obama proving his Terrorism against America is not just with bombs and bullets!)

Stewart did not dispute the recitation even in that accusatory fashion, and could only answer that such an order from EPA would not have been “the first communication” from EPA to the homeowner, since the agency would try earlier to alert property owners of their obligations under the law.

The argument that a homeowner — or a business firm, for that matter — could face a double penalty was raised early in the argument Monday by Damien M. Schiff, a lawyer for Chantell and Michael Sackett, the Priest Lake, Idaho, couple that has been fighting with EPA for four years over their plans to build a home on a lot they own — a lot that EPA says has wetlands on it. Schiff, continuing his legal team’s emphasis upon the personal plight of a couple supposedly of modest means, said the couple could be fined the maximum — $37,500 per day if they were found to violate federal environmental law itself, and a separate $37,500 if they took actions that violate EPA’s compliance order against them*. Schiff said that EPA had conceded that in its brief in the case.

(Alan note: in other words don't you DARE complain of we'll get you! Obama Chicago style policy and governance!)

It appeared to come, however, as a surprise to the Justices. And, at one point, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., intimated that Schiff was exaggerating the threat to his clients, since, Roberts said, the fine might actually be only $10 a day, not the maximum.

But when Schiff, in answer to the Chief Justice, sought to make a separate challenge to other obligations under the compliance order, even without fines, Scalia suggested that he stay on the fines. “So, you know, sufficient unto the day the evil thereof. We don’t have to consider more difficult cases.”

Indeed, as Schiff’s argument unfolded, he did not appear to be generating much sympathy for clients like his, since much of the argument was a detailed exploration of what processes they might have available to challenge EPA, and the prospect — described by some Justices as rather dim — that they could defeat EPA even if they did have court review of their challenge.

Indeed, as the Sacketts’ lawyer prepared to take his seat, the character of the case had moved well away from his preferred David vs. Goliath contest, into a somewhat dull exploration of administrative law, even though Schiff now and then would bring up again the $37,500 figure and the threat of “ruinous” financial penalty.

Apparently, however, Schiff had gotten the attention of the Justices on the issue of the double penalty, and that prompted Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, as he began his response, to concede the possibility of double penalties. He said it had been put in the EPA brief “as an exercise of our duty of candor to the Court.”

He said it was “theoretical,” not “practical.” When Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted that the compliance order issued to the Sacketts had mentioned only $37,500, not double that, Stewart said that was all that the order needed to say.

Soon, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., said he was confused, asking whether there were double penalties? Stewart said it was a legal possibility, but he knew of no case in which it had been done.

The Justices, though, were now fully engaged on the double penalties, and other members of the Court pressed Stewart on it. Justice Alito, for example, got an admission from Stewart that the government had not adopted a policy to rule it out. “So,” said Alito, “‘it’s more than theoretical.”

And when the government lawyer continued to say double fining had not been done, Justice Scalia remarked sarcastically, “I’m not going to bet my house on that.”

When Stewart tried to defend himself by saying that the Sacketts had not even been aware of the double penalty prospect before reading the government’s brief, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy offered his own sarcastic thrust: “They were getting a good night’s sleep before they read your brief?” The audience laughed.

What had clearly happened, in the opening moments of Stewart’s argument, was that the threatened plight of the Sacketts had come fully into prominence again, and the government was exactly where Schiff had sought to put it: on the defensive. Stewart might have wished that he had chosen another way to open his side of the argument.

But the circumstances actually deteriorated further for EPA and its lawyer.

As Stewart answered other questions about how EPA’s compliance orders actually work, his responses sometimes simply produced more sarcasm. Scalia, for example, said “Well, that’s very nice” when Stewart said the Sacketts had been advised that they could tell EPA if they thought some of its demands were “infeasible.”

Scalia continued: “That’s very nice, when you have received something called a compliance order, which says you are subject to penalties of 32.5 for every day of violations.” ($32,500 was the former maximum penalty per day; it is now $37,500, as other comments during the argument made clear.)

Scalia warmed to the subject, suggesting flatly that the agency had been “high-handed,” demanding things of the Sacketts that simply were not required by the law.

It was Justice Alito, though, who completed Stewart’s embarrassment, with the devastating query that began this way: “Mr. Stewart, if you related the facts of this case as they come to us to an ordinary homeowner, don’t you think most ordinary homeowners would say this kind of thing can’t happen in the United States?”

(Alan note: unless it is the Obamination of the USA)

A good deal of time remained in the argument, but it seemed virtually over at that point. Schiff was obviously pleased; when his time for rebuttal came up, he offered to waive it if the Court had no more questions. There were a few, but there was nothing in them to bail out the EPA’s compliance order.

IS THERE NO END TO OBAMA 'S PLANNED THEFTS & CORRUPTION?

WHILE OBAMA CARRIES OUT THESE THEFTS THROUGH OTHER PEOPLE HE IS A CO-CONSPIRATOR AND  HELPING THESE "ASSISANTS" HE PROTECTS ROB THE USA BLIND!

Can anyone still have doubts that re-electing him is saying bye, bye to America? Read all about it!

TJ Glauthier

An adviser to Barack Obama who played a key role in developing the energy provisions of the so-called stimulus bill has served on the boards of several companies that recently received government funds, including hundreds of millions in "stimulus" money.

TJ Glauthier served on Obama's 2008 White House Transition Team. He is widely credited with helping to craft the energy provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, also known as the "stimulus."

In addition to serving on the boards of major energy companies, Glauthier previously held two presidential appointments during the Clinton administration.

He was the Energy Department's deputy secretary and chief operating officer, the second-highest ranking official.

Earlier, he served in the White House for five years as the associate director for natural resources, energy and science in the Office of Management and Budget.

Everything you wanted to know about Obama's advisers, in "Red Army: The Radical Network that must be defeated to save America."

Glauthier is tied to several energy companies that benefited from the "stimulus" bill he helped to craft.

One such company investigated by WND is GridPoint Inc., where he was appointed to the board in March 2008. GridPoint provides utilities with software solutions for electrical grid management and electric power demand and supply balancing.

The "stimulus" provides $4.5 billion for so-called smart grid projects. GridPoint has benefited from scores of smart grid deals funded by the "stimulus" bill.

The company partnered with the Electric Transportation Engineering Corporation (eTec), Nissan, the Idaho National Laboratory and others in a project to deploy electric vehicles (EVs) and their charging infrastructure in five states. The Energy Department had awarded eTec almost $100 million in "stimulus" funds to support the project.

GridPoint's role in the eTec project was to supply smart charging and data logging capability to utilities located in strategic markets of eTec's program in Arizona, California, Oregon, Tennessee and Washington.

GridPoint also benefited from "stimulus" funds when it recently provided home energy management, load management and electric vehicle management software solutions for a KCP&L's Green Impact Zone SmartGrid Demonstration in Kansas City, Mo. The project was the recipient of stimulus funding.

Additionally, GridPoint helped the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, or SMUD, manage power from its customers' rooftop solar panels.

The Arlington, Va.-based company had landed a contract to help the Sacramento, Calif.-based municipal utility manage renewable power integration, energy storage and home energy management systems. SMUD had won $127.5 million in stimulus funds from the Department of Energy to carry out the project, which also includes deploying 600,000 smart meters in its service territory.

Also, in early 2009, the Energy Department awarded Argonne National Laboratory nearly $2.7 million in stimulus funding for three solar-energy related research projects. In addition, Argonne reportedly shared another $5 million in stimulus funding for projects with GridPoint and other companies and the University of Illinois Sustainable Technology Center.

Besides benefiting from stimulus grants, GridPoint last year won a $28 million contract with the United States Postal Service to install energy management systems in selected post office locations across the U.S.

Glauthier, meanwhile, also had come under fire after Fox News reported the U.S. Navy has purchased 450,000 gallons of biofuel for about $16 a gallon, or about four times the price of its standard marine fuel, JP-5, which has been going for under $4 a gallon.

And HotAir reported last week that Glauthier is a "strategic adviser" to Solazyme, the California company that is selling a portion of the biofuel to the Navy.


HotAir noted Solazyme received a $21.8 million grant from the 2009 stimulus package.

Also, writing at BigGovernment two weeks ago, Whitney Pitcher found that prior to serving as adviser to Solazyme and after his time as part of Obama's transition team, Glauthier served on the advisory board of SunRun, a solar financing company.

In October of 2010, just a few short months after Glauthier joined SunRun's advisory board, SunRun secured a $6.73 million grant from a Treasury Department stimulus program. The company was the ninth largest recipient of such programs through December 2010.

With research by Brenda J. Elliott
Read more: Outrage! Author of 'stimulus' linked to companies it helped http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=377465#ixzz1gZpMjwBH

SUPREME COURT WILL HOPEFULLY FIND ANSWERS TO THESE

Next Spring, probably around March 2012, the Supreme Court of the USA (SCOTUS) will hear the case brought by some 26 States about the Constitutionality of ObamaCare.


Usually allowing ONE hour for arguments the Court will allow FIVE  and a half hours for the ObamaCare hearings!

AND it appears virtually certain that the eligibility of Obama himself to be in the Oval office will be part of the pleadings!

Happening in the middle of Obama's campaign for re-election, matters should be historic and divulge many of his secrets. His only hopes are the two judges he appointed to the Supreme Court, one of whom worked on his behalf in other procedings  before being elevated.


She may have to recuse herself, thus even  the playing field.


=====================================


President 0bama, will you finally come clean on your hidden records? You know, transparency and all. We want to know Why these questions are off limits?


1. The Original Birth Certificate - Yes, the absolute original, examined and certified by three independent forensic experts.


2. Please produce your Columbia University transcripts.


3. Please, your original Columbia thesis paper.


4. Please produce your Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups.


5. Please produce your Harvard University transcripts.


6. Please produce your Illinois State Senate records including your voting record.


7. Please produce your Illinois State Senate schedule.


8. Please produce your Law practice client list and billing records/summary.


9. Please produce the locations and names of all half-siblings and stepmother.


10. Your complete Medical Records (we've only seen the one page summary released so far). Have you had drug tests done? Are you still using coke? Please, your liver function tests to clarify alcohol abuse. Have you had an AIDS test?


11. Please produce your Occidental College Transcripts. Also, any records of student aid received and under what names(s) and nationality.


11. Please show us your Parent’s original Marriage Certificate.


13. Please produce your record of Baptism.


14. Please produce your Selective Service registration records (Did you actually Register for Selective Service?) Also, why does your SS not pass e-verify?


15. Please provide us with schedules for all trips outside of the United States before 2007.


16. Please produce all Passport records for all passports, US and otherwise - before the scrubbing.


17. Can you show us a list of your scholarly articles?


18. Your SAT and LSAT test scores please. Did you even take the SAT and LSAT?


19. What's with no access to your grandmother in Kenya?


20. Please list of all campaign workers that currently are lobbyists.


21. Please produce Punahou grade school records.


22. Why are Noelani Kindergarten records are oddly missing from the the State of Hawaii Department of Education?


23. Please produce page 11 of Stanley Ann Dunham's divorce decree.


24. Why did you, President Barack Obama, resign from the Illinois bar and where are all of the relevant documents?


25. Why did Michelle Obama resign from the Illinois bar after only about four years of practice and where are all of the relevant documents?


Why are these records hidden? Who are you President Obama? Will these records be revealed before November 6, 2012? We the People care about our country deeply and are very concerned about a POTUS who has hidden every scrap of information about his life.


The voting public deserves to know these answers. We have many more questions, but please answer these first to show your transparency and good faith. We'll keep passing this list on until we get some answers.