FEC Says Ineligible Candidate Can Bilk Citizens!

© Bridgette WTPOTUS 2011

FEC Rules that a  Foreign-Born Person Can Raise Funds to Run  for President!


No, your eyes are not deceiving you…

FEC Allows Presidential Campaign for Foreign-Born Man

By Alex Knott
Sept. 2, 2011

The Federal Election Commission ruled Friday that a Guyana-born American citizen could file papers and raise money to run for president of the United States. But the agency also told the prospective candidate, Abdul Hassan, that his campaign may not receive federal matching funds because he was not born in America.

The FEC’s unanimous vote allows Hassan — who was born in a South American country in 1974 — to be a candidate, solicit funds and requires him to file disclosure reports for a presidential bid.   However, the agency’s decision stopped short of addressing the constitutional issue of whether someone born outside the United States can be president.

Instead, the agency told Hassan he may not receive any presidential primary matching funds by quoting the Constitution, stating

“[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Hassan’s request appeared to put the FEC in the rare role of deciding a large constitutional issue that has only a few intersections with campaign finance law.   The two commonly held constitutional requirements to run for president are that the candidate be 35 years of age or older and be a “natural born citizen.”

But FEC commissioners said repeatedly that their decision to define Hassan as a candidate had nothing to do with his birth country. They said that current federal election law allows for someone to be a candidate, regardless of whether they can legally hold the office they seek and that the FEC is not charged with deciding presidential criteria including one’s natural-born citizenship.

“This does not mean that he can go and say ‘look the FEC has said that I am a candidate, give me money, I’m official,’” said Republican Commissioner Donald McGahn. “That is not what we do here; we don’t certify you as a candidate. That’s what the states do.”

During Thursday’s meeting, commissioners said they had trepidation about voting for Hassan’s candidacy because of how it might be perceived.

“By saying that it is okay — it does give the impression that we don’t see a problem,” said Democratic Commissioner Steven Walther.

“I think that we really need to be cognizant of how this could be misconstrued.”

The FEC’s decision to allow Hassan to go through the initial steps to run for president took place outside of its normal publicly attended open meetings and instead was approved by a tally vote as commissioners tried to reach a consensus.

One of the final sections added to approved opinion states: “Notwithstanding this conclusion, the Commission expresses no opinion on Mr. Hassan’s potential liability arising out of his proposed activities under any other Federal or State law, including any laws concerning fraudulent misrepresentation. Any such issues are outside the Commission’s jurisdiction.”

“For us this is really all about what we are empowered to decide and what we are not empowered to decide,” said Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub.

“Nobody is saying that it is fine and nobody is saying it’s okay for this guy to be going out and raising funds.”

Shortly after Hassan made the request, the FEC signaled that it would decide the technicalities of filing requirements while leaving the broader issue of who can run for president to the judicial branch.   In an email to Hassan on July 18, the FEC stated that he understood

“that although the Commission can respond to the questions asked in [his] advisory opinion, the Commission cannot make any determination as to whether [Hassan] can, as a naturalized citizen, serve as President.”

The issue was made more contentious by comments and Internet postings by citizens, Tea Party advocates and “birthers,” who continue to press long-refuted claims that President Barack Obama was not born in America. About a dozen of these individuals wrote letters to the FEC stating that Hassan should not be allowed to run for president.

In the face of this opposition, Hassan said before the vote that he believed that the FEC was making the decision in good faith-based on the facts. But he added that it would be hard for commissioners not to be “influenced by the political sensitivity of the issue.”

Hassan told Roll Call that his candidacy is not a stunt but rather an effort by a “political junkie” with various legislative interests. “I follow politics closely, but I have never held elected office,” he said. “I would admit that I am not well-known, and I would admit that my chances of winning are not as good as other candidates. That’s obvious.”


 Who are the six members of the Federal Election Commission who made this decision and chose to ignore the Constitution?  How can they  ignore the Constitutional requirements for the position of Vice President and President and allow a person who clearly is not eligible solicit funds to run for  office?  Are the Constitutional requirements not facts of law?

We have to think that this decision is another cover for the usurper that occupies the White House.   Even though these two men want to solicit funds, both Hasan and  Obama are ineligible to run for the office of the president for different reasons.  Obama deceived the public in 2008 and declared himself a natural born citizen on a nomination form for Arizona.   He also collected funds to run for the highest office in the land, knowing he was not eligible.   If we are to believe the forged birth certificate,  it shows he was born on  US soil, but his father whose lineage he must follow, makes him a British subject, and therefore ineligible for the office.  Hasan admits to being a naturalized citizen, and therefore is ineligible.

Now the FEC ignores our nation’s laws and the requirements for office holders, and says it leaves the candidate’s eligibility to the states and to the judiciary.  Yet having been educated in the laws of our country, they are ruling that any candidate may raise money to run for office whether they are qualified and meet the requirements for the office they seek or not.   This ruling is shocking and unconscionable.

Has the FEC been corrupted?   Who are these commissioners that are setting the law that  allows a person to solicit funds for an office that they cannot legally occupy?  Let’s look at these  officials who are responsible for a decision that will have far-reaching consequences now and in the future.

The Commission is made up of six members with three from each political party.  They are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate.  Their duties as described by the  FEC  are:

 “to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.” 

Current Commissioners

Cynthia L. Bauerly

Cynthia L. Bauerly, FEC Chair for 2011,  was confirmed June 24, 2008 for a term expiring on April 30, 2011.  She was nominated by President George W. Bush on May 6, 2008.  Prior to her appointment, she  served as Legislative Director for Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY).  Prior to that she specialized in complex litigation and appellate law at Jones Day in Washington, D.C.  She      graduated cum laude from Indiana University School of Law – Bloomington and received a Master of Public Affairs from Indiana University’s School of Environmental and Public Affairs.     Party:  Democrat.

Caroline C. Hunter

Caroline C. Hunter, FEC Vice Chair for 2011,  was confirmed June 24, 2008 for a term expiring on April 30, 2013.  She was nominated  by President George W. Bush.  From 2005 to 2006, she was executive officer at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman.  From 2001 to 2005 she was associate counsel and then deputy counsel at the Republican National Committee.
Her Alma mater is the University of Memphis School of Law and  Pennsylvania State University.   Political party:  Republican.

Donald F. McGahn II was confirmed June 24, 2008 for a term that expired on April 30, 2009.  He continues as a Commissioner until his replacement is nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate.

Prior to joining the FEC, he served as head of McGahn & Associates PLLC, a Washington-based law practice specializing in election law. Mr. McGahn has represented federal and state candidates, Members of Congress, political party committees, leadership political action, committees (PACs), corporations and corporate PACs, non-profits, trade associations and others involved in issues related to campaign finance law and government ethics. Since 1999, Mr. McGahn served as General Counsel to the National Republican Congressional Committee.   He also served as Counsel for the Illinois Republican Party for several years.   Alma mater:  Georgetown University Law School, Widener University School of Law, US Naval Academy, University of Notre Dame.  Political Party:  Republican.

Matthew S. Petersen

Matthew S. Petersen was confirmed June 24, 2008 for a term expiring on April 30, 2011.  He will serve until another person is nominated to take his place.  He was nominated to the FEC by President George W. Bush. He was Chairman of the FEC in 2010.    From 2005 – 2008, he served as Republican chief counsel to the United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.   Mr. Petersen received his J.D. in 1999 from the University of Virginia School of  Law. Political party:  Republican.

Steven T. Walther

Steven T. Walther was a recess appointment from January 2006 to December 2007, and confirmed June 24, 2008 to the remainder of a term that expired on April 30, 2009.  He was Chairman of the FEC in 2009.  Prior to joining the FEC,  Mr. Walther practiced law in the Reno, Nevada law firm of Walther, Key, Maupin, Oats, Cox & LeGoy, now known as Maupin, Cox & LeGoy which he co-founded in 1972.

He has been active in American Bar Association initiatives focusing on international relations, human rights and the rule of law. He was appointed as the ABA Representative to the United Nations. He has been a member of the Board of Trustees and lecturer for the National Judicial College, both in the United States and in Russia. He  has lectured extensively, both domestically and internationally (principally in Russia), on rule of law, human rights, litigation and international law issues.  He received his J.D. degree from Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley in 1968. He received his undergraduate degree, with a major in Russian, from the University of Notre Dame.    Political party:  Democrat

Ellen L.Weintraub  received a recess appointment on December 6, 2002, and was confirmed to full term in 2003.  Her term expired in April 2007. Although Weintraub’s term ended,  by statute she continues in office until her successor takes office.  Prior to her appointment, she was of Counsel to Perkins Coie LLP and a member of its Political Law Group. There, she counseled clients on federal and state campaign finance laws, political ethics, nonprofit law, and lobbying regulation.  Before joining Perkins Coie, Weintraub was Counsel to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for the U.S. House of Representatives (the House Ethics Committee). Alma mater: Harvard Law School, Yale College.  Political party: Democrat


There are three Republicans and three Democrats, all attorneys, who are now serving as commissioners at the FEC.  Of the six, five member’s terms have expired.  No successors have been named.   Caroline Hunter is the only one whose term is current.

Yes, these six, well-educated people are said to “have stopped short”   of determining whether a foreign-born person could serve as president.  They did not have to make that determination!  It was made over 236  years ago and it is Article II, Section 1,  of the U.S. Constitution.   What part do these six not understand?   Do they not know the difference between a natural born citizen  (born on U.S. soil  to two citizen parents) and a naturalized citizen (those who need a law to determine their citizenship)?

Were these six afraid to stand for our Constitution?   Or are these  six government officials who oversee the most important elections in our nation  totally inept and  ignorant of our Constitution?  Was Mr. Hassan’s lawsuit  used as a plant to test the integrity and ethics  of the FEC and its commissioners?  Is this a part of the overall plan that will allow and set the precedent for two other non eligible candidates to run for the presidency i.e.,  Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal?  Both of them are naturalized citizens.   We already have allowed one totally unknown alien  run for office,  and he is illegally occupying  the White House.  Is this ruling just another piece of the puzzle that will further destroy our nation?  The Commissioners were worried about something since they didn’t present this in an open forum as they normally do.  This was done in secret, behind closed doors.  That tells you everything you need to know.

 Hey Five, if this ruling is indicative of your work,  your “Term is Up!”   Get Out of Our Government!   This should not stand!  Drop a quick note to your senators and representatives.  They must hear from We the People!

Again, what part of the Constitution do they not understand?



49 responses to “FEC Says Ineligible Candidate Can Bilk Citizens!

  1. I am heart broken. Never did I ever think that I would post an upside down picture of our flag…I will now.

  2. Rubio Sure Thing for VP Slot
    Saturday, 03 Sep 2011 Snips

    Forida Sen. Marco Rubio’s prospects for landing the Republican nomination for vice president are so good that it’s possible that one of the presidential candidates has already offered him the job, Florida political blogger Javier Manjarres tells Newsmax.TV.

    The editor of Shark Tank said the chances that Rubio would be offered the No. 2 spot on the ticket were “100 percent.” “I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s already been offered it by some of the candidates,” Manjarres said. “I know that several of the candidates like Michele Bachmann and Gov. Romney have been in touch with him and they’ve all expressed their delight with him in his rise to fame and power in … the Senate.

    “I think he’s the No. 1 choice for every single candidate out there maybe with the exception of Ron Paul. I think he’s the No. 1 choice. It would be a natural fit for anyone. Because … he can deliver Florida and whoever wins Florida wins the presidency.”

    Manjarres said Rubio brings much to the game including his ability to give a speech and connect with people. “He speaks from the heart. He’s not a typical politician. He’s going to speak from the heart, tell you how he feels. His message resonates with voters and people get him. People get Marco Rubio and that’s why I feel he’ll be the vice presidential choice if he decides to take it.”


    • If Rubio and Jindal were true patriots..TRUE AND AUTHENTIC PATRIOTS…they would get the word out themselves that they are NOT eligible for VP or Pres because they are not Natural Born Citizens!

      We have now seen Rubio’s naturalization papers showing he is not eligible. This country can not run another ineligible candidate no matter if he speaks from the heart!

    • This sounds like bull and wishful thinking to me. From a Florida writer. Bachmann supposedly asked him? I seriously doubt it, when Bachmann is the Constitutional Tea Party candidate. I personally like Rubio and there are some (not me) who argue that his case differs in that his parents were here legally as permanent residents and this means he may have been born into the allegiance of the USA. If they were here permanently as refugees, and I don’t know if it’s true, that may play a role in THEIR thinking (not mine). People say this is something the SCOTUS would have to rule on. Right. As if. They’re avoiding it. I’ve heard elsewhere that he says he’s not considering nor is he pursuing the position. I agree that a patriot would either NOW take himself out of the running, explaining why, OR would at least go take it to the SCOTUS FOR a ruling. Once and for all. Both SHOULD HAVE got on the ineligibility bandwagon and addressed the issue of Barry’s ineligibility. I don’t know what Jindal’s situation is. His parents weren’t citizens when he was born, though.

  3. I just checked the news and do you know that the only one that has reported the backroom decision of the FEC is Roll Call and that was 21 hours ago!

  4. United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit *

    ABDUL KARIM HASSAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT ABDUL K ARIM H ASSAN , E SQ . Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro Se 215 …


    • I just now have gotten done reading the pdf, I’ll leave it to you all comment on. If you run a search on ABDUL KARIM HASSAN v. UNTED STATES OF AMERICA you can find much more, I haven’t had a chance to go through them.

      In the pdf I posted Abdul states @ 38 (43 of 48) –

      Given that we now have a president with African ancestry – it has to be the fourteenth amendment repealed the limitation imposed by Dredd Scott that only a natural born citizens who are not of African ancestry can be president.


      • Poorly argued, isn’t it? No wonder they denied it. Of course, as usual, they said he had “no standing.” He needs a new lawyer, that’s for sure. His arguments seem to be that it’s “invidious discrimination” (going by a US LAW) for the Constitution to deny someone who was born in another country the ability to be POTUS because of “national origin.” And then he tries to say that the 14th amendment did away with “native” versus “natural born” versus “naturalized” versus simple “citizen”, rolling all into one–citizen. Hardly. And then he tries to say that the 5th and 14th amendments, being amendments, include within the penumbra of whatever the heck his idea of a “modern” Constitutional reading is means they threw out the requirements that a POTUS be “natural born” versus just a citizen. The 5th because he thinks it made “natural born” discriminatory by denying someone “due process” and the 14th because he thinks it did away with the “discriminatory” concept of “natural born” versus “naturalized”. They probably told him he has no standing, as they told anybody who questioned Barry’s eligibility the same–because they’re AVOIDING the issue entirely, as Justice Thomas said.

        Hassan’s argument that “we now have a president with African ancestry” seems to indicate that he thinks Barry IS a “natural born citizen” although of African ancestry, when under the Dred Scott decision, he wouldn’t have been considered even a citizen. It matters not because Barry is NOT a natural born citizen, no matter where he was born, UNLESS HE’S LYING ABOUT HIS PARENTAGE (and his birth certificate doesn’t name BHO Sr. and SADOS).

  5. Sorry for off topic post


    Read Lame Cherry, Friday 2nd post there

    You will understand why I don’t copy it,

    May be untrue,
    but if true, wow

    Judge for yourself


  6. Miri | August 28, 2011 at 12:58 pm


    Supposedly, the FEC has issued two draft opinions stating that a Muslim NATURALIZED citizen can collect money in order to run as a CANDIDATE for the presidency. Even though he admits he is NOT eligible because he was not born in the USA, but in Guyana!

    What I’d like to know is if this is a joke. Read the draft opinions. Page 2 of Draft A refers to Mr. Hassan NOT meeting one Constitutional requirement, that being “the NATIONAL born citizen” condition. NATIONAL born? It’s bad enough that most obots DELIBERATELY conflate natural born with native born, but now we have what are presumably LAWYERS (one would hope) MISQUOTING the Constitution as well as deliberately obfuscating the meaning of natural born. It’s ridiculous that they seem to argue that because he fits the definition of “person” and “candidate” (after he collects enough money), he can run for the office and collect money, even though he’s NOT eligible for the position. The draft cites a federal court ruling that says it’s up to challengers at the time the electoral votes are cast to object, but the guy (INELIGIBLE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION) can get that far! They allow that since he’s ineligible, he can’t receive matching funds, which makes me wonder if that’s why Barry went the route he did. Did he refuse public funding because he similarly KNEW that he’s ineligible? Coincidentally, this draft opinion apparently clears Barry of fraudulently collecting campaign donations, knowing he’s ineligible. They say that’s not “fraud” within the intent of the bill cited. This draft is open to public comment, and supposedly becomes official after the commissioners vote to accept it.

    That’s a comment I made days ago, about this issue. I should have watched for the final ruling. At the time, I thought they were laying groundwork to excuse Barry for illegally collecting campaign funds, knowing he was ineligible. I remember ALL of us believing that his known ineligibility is WHY he refused public funding. Not being a lawyer, I don’t know if there’s something in the public funding LAW that makes it criminal for an ineligible person to accept public funds, BUT this ruling by the commission seems to indicate so. They are carefully parsing. They said in the draft opinions that there’s nothing specific in the law establishing their commision and duties that gives them AUTHORITY to decide “candidate” eligibility. They decided he’s a “candidate” even if eventually is ruled (by Congress, at the time someone objects, or by a court). This is what lawyers do (parse) and some lawyers like Clinton even change or corrupt the obvious meaning of English words! This is exactly what lawyers do when they want to avoid being on the hot seat. It’s probably true that they don’t have the “authority” to deny him the “right” to collect money–but where do they have the authority to decide that it’s not fraud for him to do so, when he knows he’s ineligible? It seems like they may have changed their minds on that issue, between the time of the draft ruling (which I did read) and this final one (which I didn’t read yet).

    So much to ponder. Is this Hassan guy pushing the envelope, trying to force a ruling? This may end up helping our cause more than hindering it. The progressives don’t know HOW SCOTUS will rule. They SHOULD certainly follow the law and the Constitution and the REASON for the “natural born” clause in the POTUS eligibility standards. The FEC seems to be saying that obviously Hassan is not a natural born citizen. What is? That’s the question, which SCOTUS HAS ALREADY DETERMINED, via the Minor vs. Happersett decision. Barry is NOT a natural born citizen, even if born in the USA. He was BORN a British subject. He was therefore NOT born into the sole allegiance of the USA. He was BORN with divided allegiance; ergo, not natural born US citizen.

    I believe that both Jindal and Rubio were BORN in the USA. Therefore, they’re not naturalized citizens. They were US citizens at birth. I don’t believe they had to naturalize, although their parents did. Like Barry, they’re native born but not natural born. Not exactly sure if Rubio had dual citizenship, because of the special case of Cuba and refugee status (if applicable). Jindal might have been a dual citizen, just like Barry. Both Rubio and Jindal differ from Barry in that neither parent was a US citizen at the time of his birth. Barry’s mother (if the person he names is his mother–if she was a real person, that is) was supposedly a US citizen at the time of his birth. These particulars are exactly WHY the SCOTUS must REAFFIRM their prior decision that a natural born citizen is one is born in the USA to TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS.

    The only way to change that is to amend the Constitution by the means provided in the Constitution.

    • Miri

      Rubio is a naturalized citizen. He applied for it. A certified copy of his naturalization papers was posted. at ORYR The information is on another thread.

      • Oh, I thought somebody posted the naturalization papers for his parents! Seriously? He wasn’t born in the USA? WTF do they think they’re trying to pull? If they want Hispanic votes, they can’t find a candidate who’s a natural born citizen?

      • I don’t know how you missed this one as I posted copies of it and in Bold print.

        Bridgette | August 25, 2011 at 1:09 am

        National Archives: It’s Official – Marco Rubio is NOT a Natural Born Citizen – Certified Record Obtained
        Wednesday, August 24, 2011


        • Mario Rubio? With 4 children. Wikipedia says Marco was born in the USA. I remember seeing the post, in bold print, too. He’s not natural born because his parents weren’t citizens when he was born.

        • I finally have this down. Took me a while:
          Mario Rubio, his father, came to the US in 1956. Marco, the son, was born in the US in 1971. In 1975, Mario Rubio applied for naturalization. So Marco is “native born” just like Barry (IF you believe Barry was born in Hawaii, which remains to be seen.) Marco is a citizen because he was born in the USA. But did he have dual citizenship with Cuba?

          My opinion is that since the definition of natural born citizen requires birth on US soil to TWO U.S. citizen parents, he’s NOT a natural born citizen and therefore ineligible to be POTUS. Some are trying to shade it for Marco, by saying his parents were refugee, permanent residents, never going back to Cuba (which they didn’t). But as Bridgette said, a patriot would accept reality and stand up for the Constitution. If Marco wants to be POTUS, he can use his own case to try to get a Constitutional amendment through, which would make him eligible. That’s the only RIGHT way to proceed. He’s young enough that he can wait for the green light. He doesn’t have to help the progressives do an end run around the Constitution. It’s a slippery slope. Barry is NOT a precedent. There’s no such thing as precedent for flouting the clear meaning of the Constitution.

          That WND story contains an infuriating quote by Matt Lewis of the Daily Caller: “The good news here, of course, is that the rise of Rubio birthers proves that birthers are not merely partisan hypocrites who solely attack Democrats like Obama. They are, instead, either consistent racists – or consistently misguided adherents to the Constitution.”

          Isn’t that special? Like most progressives, his “logic” is limited to imputing only evil motives to anybody who doesn’t think or believe as he does. If you read the clear words of the Constitution the same way that the Founders INTENDED them to be read AND the same way that the SCOTUS affirmed they are to be read in the Minor vs. Happersett decision, then you can ONLY be

          1. RACIST, or
          2. MISGUIDED (read: stupid).

          There’s nowhere in his “logic” for someone sensibly taking into account HISTORY and SCOTUS PRECEDENT, which is what lawyers and judges do on a regular basis. So they must be racist and misguided also.

          No, sir, you are the person who is misguided. By wishful thinking instead of reality and the RULE OF LAW, which is the FOUNDATION of our REPUBLIC.

  7. This is the final opinion:


    You end up at Search

    Go to AO 2011-15

    • “The Commission concludes that the Act does not prohibit Mr. Hassan, a naturalized citizen, from becoming a “candidate” as that term is defined under the Act. However, Mr. Hassan will not be eligible to receive Federal matching funds under the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act. The Commission also concludes that Mr. Hassan will not be in violation of 2 U.S.C. 441h(b) if he solicits and receives contributions. Finally, Mr. Hassan will be required to comply with the Act’s provisions regarding expenditures, contributions, recordkeeping, and reporting.”

      So it appears they are clearing Barry of fraud, at least under one law. But later they write, “Notwithstanding this conclusion, the Commission expresses no opinion on Mr. Hassan’s potential liability arising out of his proposed activities under any other Federal or State law, including any laws concerning fraudulent misrepresentation.”

      So there are any number of other laws that might trip him (or Barry) up. But Barry didn’t accept matching funds. WHY NOT? We can hazard a very good guess.

    • “See 26 U.S.C. 9033; 11 CFR 9033.2. See also, e.g., Advisory Opinion 1996-07 (Browne for President) (describing the steps a candidate must take to become eligible for matching funds). These provisions collectively reflect Congressional intent to ensure that U.S. Treasury funds in the form of matching funds are only paid to eligible candidates. … Clear and self-avowed constitutional ineligibility for office is one of the few instances where the Commission’s exercise of its discretion to withhold funds is appropriate.”

      So it does appear to be a crime or fraud to accept matching funds. Didn’t look up that law yet. Of course, Barry NEVER clearly self-avowed his ineligibility.

    • “Although Mr. Hassan is a naturalized citizen running for President, he would not be engaging in fraudulent misrepresentation as described in section 441h(b) by soliciting or receiving contributions for his presidential campaign committee because nothing in the Act requires a candidate to be eligible for the office he or she seeks.”

      Now that’s brilliant, isn’t it? Nothing in the Act says the person must be eligible. A loophole big enough to drive a truck through. Would you want any of the “lawyers” who wrote that Act representing you in court?

    • Sorry. The link only goes to the search, you have to hit “search” and then you have to click the Hassan entry to see the pdf. I can’t figure out how to get a direct link.

  8. This is truly an insane ruling because it allows virtually anybody to set up a campaign fund and collect donations even if the person has NO CHANCE to win the elected office. It’s like an open door to fraud. Can such candidates then “share” their ill-gotten donations with other candidates? For example, can any number of ineligible people “run” for office and then pass their donations over to the Democrat party to be used to further Barry’s reelection?

    What’s encouraging is that they state that the number of ordinary citizens who commented before their final ruling was about unprecedented. Way to go! WE THE PEOPLE.

  9. What Constitution? Oh that scrap in the shredder pile? Grrrrrr So mind-numbingly arrogant!

  10. On the first page of this PDF is a picture of Abdul Hassan and his wife posing with a poster of Obama. Futher down in the pdf it states – Iman Abdul Hassan is CEO of the Bilah learning center in south central Los Angeles.


    • Cute one Leza, good catch !
      Soundex Code for Bilah = B400
      Other surnames sharing this Soundex Code:

      Always around every corner Leza !

    • Great find. I want a picture of me next to a poster size photo of BHO too! That is on my Christmas list! That reminded me, in Hope Arkansas, there is/was a wooden replica of Bill Clinton as you enter the tiny, tiny town of Hope. People stand by it to have their pictures taken. My relatives lived in Hope, so I visited them.

      Thanks, I will add the photo of Imam Abdul Karim Hasan to the article. Is the Iman also an attorney?

  11. King Saud University Journal Digital Libary

    Author(s) Souad Mohammed Agrebi
    Affiliation Assistant Professor, College of Arts, Department of English, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

    Title Imam Abdul Karim Hassan and the Black Muslim Experience: Striking a Balance between Religious and Socio-Political Demands

    Source Journal of King Saud University. Arts. Volume 10, No 2. (1998/1418)

    Abstract This study traces the development of the Black Muslim movement in the United States of America from a separatist and revolutionary sodo-political movement, using an erroneous Islamic nomenclature, to its current state as a movement committed both to mainstream American socio-political values and to mainstream Islamic tenets. Through the personal account of the experience of Imam Abdul Karim Hassan, a present day Moslem religious and community leader in Los Angeles, California, the article portrays the typical conversion experiences of African Americans to Islam during the sixties and seventies. Most of these converts started out as non-conformists and later adopted pro-establishment attitudes while exercising their religious freedom.

    Download Full Text/Image PDF Research Paper


    • OMG!!!

      SOS….SOS…SOS is right Bridgette!

    • Thinking off the top of my head, but is this the same mosque in LA that hid the guys from 9-11? I remember the terrorists were in LA and went from house to house of people that belonged to a certain mosque. It was a documentary that I watched a long time ago.

  12. The pdf download for above research paper –


  13. The guy who’s running for president is from Guyana. I think the guy in the photo was born in New Jersey.

    • The letter from the FCC is written to:

      Abdul Karim Hassan, Esq.
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, New York 11427

      Are there two men with identical names? I certainly thought they were one in the same. Although this Abdul is supposedly an attorney.

      • I would have given the link but my browser crashed. It said the Imam is 71 and born in NJ. Updated on the 4th: I looked for that link and can’t find it again. This is about his brother http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/09/12/news/metro/doc4c8c5116ab531134012415.txt?viewmode=fullstory also an Imam. This story says he was “American born”. I found another that said their mother moved them to Connecticut at some point. The other brother actually testified before Congress.

      • I found this one that talks about the family.
        March 11, 1977

        Iman Abdul Karim Hasan has had a good name, in one variation or another, since birth. He has been the proud bearer of an Islamic name since his birth in Camden, New Jersey in September, 1931.

        Also named Abd El Karim.

        Today, almost every member of his family on his mother’s side are active in the World Community of Islam in the West.

        One brother, Abdul Majied Karim Hasan, is an Iman in Connecticut. His mother, Sis. Amida,, still active, lives in Wilmington, N.C.

        When the Iman was just a tot, the family moved South and lost contact with UNIA. 10 years later the family returned to the North, this time settling in Harford, Conn.

        As an assistant minister, he taught all over the East Coast area: New Jersey, Massachusetts New York, PA, Rhode Island and Connecticut.

        Near death accident in Connecticut.. he moved to New Haven. He helped establish mosque Nos. 40 and 44.

        Sent to LA in 1971 and stayed there.

        50 years of faith: Area’s first mosque celebrates milestone
        Published: Sunday, August 23, 2009

        By Ann DeMatteo, Assistant Metro Editor

        Abdul-Majid Karim Hasan, left, the imam of the Muhammad Islamic Center in Hamden, prays with Shahid Abdul-Karim. (Peter Hvizdak/Register)

        HAMDEN — Muslims partake in spiritual cleansing during Ramadan and this year, worshipers at the Muhammad Islamic Center will also celebrate the center’s 50th anniversary.
        The month-long observance of Ramadan started Saturday. It is a time when the more than one billion Muslims throughout the world reflect on their spiritual lives and become closer to God, according to Abdul-Majid Karim Hasan, the resident imam of the Muhammad Islamic Center.

        The center was first mosque in southern Connecticut and will celebrate its 50th year in November.

        Hasan, 71, of Hamden, has been the religious leader of the center for 40 years. A reunion and anniversary will take place from Nov. 6 to 8 at the mosque at 870 Dixwell Ave. “We prefer to call it a reunion, a reuniting of all Muslims in southern Connecticut who may want to participate,” said Hasan.

        The keynote speaker for the weekend will be the imam who started it all in the New Haven area, Hasan’s brother, Abdul-Karim Hasan. The current imam assisted his brother when worship began in New Haven in a home on Hamilton Street in 1959. Abdul-Karim Hasan has been the imam of the Bilal Islamic Center in Los Angeles, Calif. since 1971.

        The Nation of Islam became the Muslim American Society in 1975. Hasan said that his congregation is mainstream and modern, and holds to the traditions of Islam.

        In 1954, Islam was being taught in Hartford, Hasan said, and there were many requests for Islam to be explained in the New Haven area.


        • Thanks. I thought I saw that he was born in NJ but my mind remembered Connecticut, too, and since my browser crashed and I had to get offline, I had to look again this morning. But then I couldn’t remember exactly what I was searching on when I found the NJ birth place.

      • I haven’t found anything about the guy from Guyana.. Might this be a total ploy by Hassan. They wanted to see what the FEC would say and just used Guyana when they might have used any other country instead.

  14. Just up for your reading pleasure! And when I say just up…Sept. 4th!


    This is the presidential website of Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. I am an attorney by profession and a candidate for the presidency of the United States in the 2012 general elections. I initially announced my candidacy to the public on this website before commencing a lawsuit on March 5, 2008 in federal court to clear a major legal obstacle in my presidential run. As a naturalized American citizen, the natural born provision of the Constitution prevents me from becoming President. However, in my view, this prohibition has been trumped by the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution which prohibits the sort of national origin discrimination that is contained in the natural born provision.



    • He’s an attorney? Did he represent himself? I read the brief and it’s lame, to say the least. Anybody with logic and common sense would reject his arguments. Go back to law school, Hassan! Another affirmative action lawschool grad POTUS? No thanks.

    • Funny, a photo of the Oval office but not of the man running for office. What a farce. Yeah, send him your money. Only an idiot would do so.

      • I think he forgets to mention that he’s Muslim. And he’s all for the Federal Reserve. We should “buy” our own “debt”. That sounds logical.

        In the Jacobs autobiography of BHO Sr., she talks about how, after Ruth left them, Auma was still in the private school but her dad was a deadbeat so didn’t pay her tuition. She’d be sent home with the bill and BHO Sr. would write a check, knowing there was no money, as if writing the check would “magically” make the money appear. Then Auma would have to take the check back to the school, expecting humiliation because SHE knew the check would bounce, too. But, wonder of wonders! Just like Zeituni and the rest, SUDDENLY a mysterious, anonymous “benefactor” appeared and arranged for a “scholarship” to pay Auma’s tuition at the private school! (Maybe the same benefactor that paid for Barry’s “scholarhip” at Punahou, Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard?) But doesn’t this sound like Hasan’s scheme? Imagine doing that yourself. You’re broke. You’ve borrowed money from a bank. So what do you do? You borrow money from yourself to buy your debt from the bank? How exactly does that work in the real world? It makes my head spin, but it sure sounds like a scheme BHO Sr. would cook up. Or his son.

  15. The FEC hearing archived video is a must hear. The report from Roll Call is missing many details about what was said during the hearing and the concerns about Abdul Hassan raising funds under false pretenses.

    • Interesting audio. One commissioner says it’s wrong to collect money under false pretences. DUH.

      Another plays the game that they aren’t charged with “vetting” candidates and have no authority to do so, therefore even if they allow a person to collect money AS a “candidate”, it doesn’t mean that the person can use the FEC decision to prove he’s eligible to get on the ballot. So he weasels out–it’s the job of the state to “qualify” candidates for the ballot. So that guy’s take on it is that just because the FEC says he’s a “candidate for purposes of that agency doesn’t make him a candidate” who meets state ballot requirements.

      Don’t these people EVER take into account the SPIRIT of laws and especially the CONSTITUTION? The FEC considers a “candidate” to be someone who collected money and reported to the FEC about his collections. Little consideration of FRAUDULENTLY being allowed to collect money under false pretences?

      Their “jurisdiction” is limited. Pass the buck time. That commissioner says the FEC shouldn’t make those decisions, but the FEC doesn’t have to make it easy for the ineligible. Instead of deciding something in this ridiculous fashion, they might go back to the legislature OR the courts to ask for a decision, once and for all.

      The fourth speaker, a woman, says those who wrote the rules never THOUGHT or IMAGINED (DUH!) that a person who’s obviously ineligible would even TRY to collect money and run. She’s not sure the FEC has the “power” to say a person’s ineligible. Don’t the members have free speech? An opinion is not a ruling.

      Audacity, I think, would be the apt word because not only have we seen an ineligible person have the gall to run for POTUS, knowing his ineligibility, he’s been allowed, because of his gall, to take office, against the Constitution.

      It’s interesting that they seemed surprised by the input from the public that pointed out that this seems cut and dried–Hassan’s known to be ineligible, by his own admission, and yet they’ll stand aside and allow him to collect money.

      Another female commissioner says “nobody” is saying he’s right to collect money, but they haven’t the power to decide he can’t. This is insane. The buck has to stop somewhere.

      Another guy says “the Constitution kicks in when you’re sworn in.” [NO IT DOESN’T, as we’ve seen with Barry!] They talk about the allegation that the 14th amendment trumps the natural born provision of the Constitution, but say it’s for the courts to decide. Can’t they ASK for a ruling?

      If it’s not in their power to decide eligibility, then how can they later deny Hassan matching funds?

  16. Another EXCLUSIVE BY WND! Right. Only WTPOTUS reported on it 23 Days ago! I guess if they wait long enough it can become an exclusive..for the week!

    Washington reinterprets constitutional eligibility
    FEC rules naturalized citizens are same as ‘natural born’ in presidential votes

    September 26, 2011

    A Guyana-born naturalized American citizen fits the Federal Elections Commission’s requirements to run for president, the FEC announced in a ruling.

    The case involves New York lawyer Abdul Hassan, who was born in the South American country in 1974. Hassan argues it is discriminatory to not allow him to run for office.
    Responding to criticism of possible dual-loyalty issues, Hassan said in a radio interview that a person’s place of birth should not determine his patriotism or presidential eligibility.


  17. breaking~~ !!

    the only video in the whole wide world that has yet to be photoshopped with barky’s afro pictures.

    On topic:

    Kudos… 23 days. Glad they ain’t in charge of the milk and bread. ya know.
    Rock On!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s