(video h/t Jan)
Now is NOT the time to succumb to this pressure. De-fund and de-fang this government!
Thoughts on Our Constitutional Republic
3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Guts, America, and Common Sense: The 25th Amendment. Do. It. Now.
This is Presidential disability based on being unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office, for any number of reasons the first of which is always that Obama is not eligible for the job under Article II of the Constitution. As is well known, there are other underlying reasons that behaviorally disable Obama, and why the 25th Amendment remains an important tool to be used in his removal:
The Vice President, cabinet, Speaker of the House and all of Congress know Obama is ineligible. They have lied as thick as thieves to preserve this secret. For these people, Amendment 25 saves their face…and ass temporarily. They know through their feeble ‘investigations’ of Obama’s gun running and the Benghazi cover up that Obama and his administration are lying. Obama has openly provided comfort, aid and shelter to our enemies, specifically the Muslim Brotherhood whose goal is the destruction of the United States.
For Obama, it ‘saves’ him –albeit temporarily–from charges of and the penalty for sedition and treason, from impeachment, from charges of deliberately polluting the Gulf of Mexico, and from a lengthy jail term and fine…and the associated ‘shame’ of being outed for who he truly is. He can still be ‘acting 44′ while his ‘disabilities‘ are
Let’s face it. Obama does not want the job, and his wookie wife and mother-in-law want out of the ‘dingy’ White House, made more dingy by their trashing of America’s history, beauty, accomplishments, and exceptionalism. On has to ask the question if Obama is even a sane man? Or if he is ever clean and sober. He looks stoned or high all the time to me.
Your thoughts on the 25th?
© drkate 2012
The wheels are finally coming off the Obama wagon. His campaign is having a fire sale of all items; disgusting ads are being aired by the official campaign (be sure to look at the comments); and his Benghazi lies in which people died are being exposed with no let-up.
In the meantime, dogs everywhere are lining up for early voting.
What’s going on in your part of the country?
Pass it on!
Here is an earlier post written at the 912 rally in DC:
“Hope and Change? Nah…its more like Rope and Chains, get it?” ~speaker, 912 March on Washington
The CSPAN coverage of the 912 Rally (yes, I know I am shamelessly plugging it once again) included the speakers, one of whom uttered the above gem about ‘hope and change’.
This is a pictorial essay in support of this keen observation and a commentary on the great American awakening.
The first awakening probably happened when Barack Obama met Joe the Plumber:
When America found out about ‘redistribution of wealth’
but we voted them in, didn’t we?
Satire sometimes tells the truth
To the one obot I saw at the march, I said, “how’s that hopey-changey thing goin’ for ya?”, and snapped this photo:
smart, or smart ass?
“I create two shovel-ready projects a day!”
Abdul Karim Hassan is a naturalized citizen who wishes to run for the Presidency of the United States. This even though the Constitution says “[n]o person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Hassan v Scott Gessler, Colorado SoS
Business Insider reported on September 5, 2012, Abdul Karim Hassan’s series of lawsuits claiming his right to run for the Presidency have been denied in the Second, Third, and now Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. A similar ruling was issued September 28, 2012 for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The significance of these rulings cannot be underestimated as they affirm that the natural born citizen clause of Article II of the U.S. Constitution has not been trumped, abrogated, or implicitly repealed by the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment nor the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. These arguments are the same ones used by Obama’s lawyers in fending off the legitimate challenges to Barack Obama’s candidacy and presidency; by the secretaries of state to refute ballot challenges, and by the media, pundits, Congress and the academics to cover up the usurpation of the presidency by Obama/Soetoro. Of course, the corrupt SCOTUS hears nothing, sees nothing, and says nothing.
Obama and his supporters, the Congressional eligibility deniers, and the media have been soundly defeated and Obama is still ineligible to hold or run for the office he seeks. What is more interesting is that the legal rulings lend support to the charges of misprision of felony that all members of Congress, and all the secretaries of state face in contributing to the overthrow of the White House.
This article briefly reviews the history of this case and its rulings.
The FEC Filing
Hassan, a Guyana-born naturalized American citizen, filed papers with the Federal Election Commission to run for the presidency. Astoundingly, the FEC ruled in September 2011 that Hassan 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. However, the agency’s decision stopped short of addressing the constitutional issue of whether someone born outside the United States can be president.
Importantly, the FEC made clear that it was outside it’s jurisdiction to decide the constitutional merits of Mr. Hassan’s candidacy, saying that vetting was up to the States:
“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.” (emphasis added)
Democratic FEC Commissioners had ‘trepidation’ in issuing this unanimous opinion because of how it might be perceived. They attempted to qualify and explain their rationale:
“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.”
To address this problem, 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.’”
Ballot Access Denied in Colorado, New Hampshire
Hassan then proceeded to set up a website and attempted to get on the ballot in New Hampshire and Colorado. When denied access by both Secretaries of State of each state, he sued. He has filed five lawsuits which argued that:
… the Constitution’s natural-born-citizen requirement is a vestige of our less noble past, before we decided that discrimination based on national origin is a grievous wrong. (He points in his briefs to Dred Scott v. Sandford.)The lawsuits say the Constitution’s admonition that “[n]o person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President” violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Hassan initiated other lawsuits aimed at the natural born citizen requirement based on these assumptions, and filed against the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act (26 U.S.C. §§ 9001-9013) which provides public funding to Presidential nominees of major or minor political parties after the FEC issued an advisory opinion that Hassan did not qualify for any matching funding because he was not a natural born citizen. Hassan argues that the Presidential Campaign Fund Act is:
(1) unconstitutional and invalid, and (2) the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution1 is irreconcilable with, and has been“trumped, abrogated and implicitly repealed” by, the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment and the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Now this is where it gets interesting. The FEC as defendant submitted a motion to dismiss the case based on the same premises that have been used to try to defeat challenges to Obama’s eligibility. That is,
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), or in the alternative, for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (emphasis added)
The FEC also argued that Defendant argued that this Court should deny Plaintiff’s Application because
the Complaint fails to present an Article III case or controversy, and alternatively, because it does not present a substantial constitutional question. (emphasis added)
The government moved to dismiss the case–using the same arguments it has used to dismiss other cases against Obama–(1) failure to present a claim upon which relief can be granted, (2) lack of jurisdiction, (3) failing to present an Article III case or controversy, and (4) failure to present a substantial constitutional question.
The one argument missing from the government’s defense? STANDING.
American Jurisprudence and Constitutional Legal Thinking
The DC circuit court dismissed Abdul Hassan’s case. The judge’s ruling denying Abdul Hassans suit against the FEC is illustrative for the process the Judge followed in making its conclusions. As opposed to ducking jurisdiction and ducking its Article III responsibility to hear cases involving constitutional questions, the court determined:
Because subject matter jurisdiction focuses on the court’s power to hear the claim, however, the court must give the plaintiff’s factual allegations closer scrutiny when resolving a Rule 12(b)(1) motion than would be required for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Macharia v. United States, 334 F.3d 61, 67-68 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Thus, to determine whether it has jurisdiction over a claim, the court may consider materials outside the pleadings where necessary to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts. Herbert v. Nat’l Acad. of Scis., 974 F.2d 192, 197 (D.C. Cir. 1992). (emphasis added)
Regarding FRCP Rule 12 (b), the court determined:
A court need not, however, “accept inferences drawn by plaintiffs if such inferences are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint. Nor must the court accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations.” Id. In addition,“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” (emphasis added)
In other words, the Court actually took on the issue, was legally entitled to review additional information, and ruled it did not have to accept inferences or ‘legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations’. Every one of the Obama challenge cases was thrown out first, on standing, and second, using the measly excuses such as failure to present a case, lack of Article III jurisdiction, or the ‘political question’.
Article II Still Stands
I hope everyone who has been involved in the eligibility movement can appreciate the significance of these rulings for the Constitution, the requirements of the Presidency, and all the work we have accomplished over the last several years. It is critical to inform your friends who are skeptical of the ‘birthers’ or disappointed in the perceived failure of the 100+ cases challenging Obama that several courts have affirmed the natural born citizen requirement of the presidency–that it still stands, and that we are right and always have been on this issue.
Significantly the FEC believes the States are responsible for the determination of eligibility, just as the Article II Superpac, the Obama Ballot Challenge, the extensive legal work of many scholars, and many, many others have indicated. The 2009 Continental Congress recommended vetting laws at the state level were required, and the Article II Superpac will continue its efforts after this election and into 2013 to ensure a vetting process is in place at multiple levels, to make sure the usurpation of the White House by an unknown, unvetted foreign national never happens again.
Please donate to the Article II Superpac to ensure its efforts continue through and beyond the 2012 election. The national security of our Nation is at stake.
In another bold move, the Article II Superpac challenged the Commission on Presidential Debates to live up to their charter and set forth their criteria for determining whether a presidential candidate is a natural born citizen. Quietly working behind the scenes to place three full page ads in the Washington Times, and planning more critical advertisements at the Democrat National Convention in Charlotte next week, this is a powerful reminder to the Commission on Presidential Debates that one Barack Hussein Obama should not even be allowed to debate on the national stage, as he is not constitutionally eligible for the job.
Do we expect the CPD to do anything? No. But it is one more nail in the coffin where those who are anti-American and anti-Constitution are exposed for the public to really see. We have seen Congress fail to vet Obama and wipe clean the Congressional Record through the Congressional Research Service; we’ve seen the judiciary time and time again refuse to follow the law, and we’ve seen the media turn into high-pitched desperate shillers for the penultimate failure known as Barack Obama. Apparently the Supreme Court doesn’t have the intellectual capacity to deal with Obama’s usurpation of the Presidency.
Head on over to the Article II Superpac site…please take the survey/petition and if you can, donate $1 to the effort at the address listed on the site!
The Superpac is not done. Key media buys will be made in the certain-swing states of Ohio, Florida and Virginia in the fall campaign to inform as many people as possible–including the electors–of the Constitutional crisis facing our Nation in form of Obama. Send Obama and the wookie packing!!!
Article II Super PAC, Letter to Commission on Presidential Debates, 8-30-2012
RE: Commission on Presidential Debates: 2012 Nonpartisan Selection Criteria
Dear Mr. Fahrenkopf and Mr. McCurry:
As advocates for the Framers’ original intent, establishing in Article II, Section 1 that every President must be a “natural born Citizen,” the Article II Super PAC wishes to extend our sincere thanks to the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) for the proper priority you place on the faithful observation of this national security provision of the Constitution by citing it in the first of your 2012 Nonpartisan Selection Criteria.
It has come to our attention that CPD may not recognize or apply any specific definition for “natural born Citizen” in the process of qualifying candidates’ satisfaction of Presidential eligibility. If this is in error, we would appreciate any information on how you qualify Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates’ eligibility as natural born Citizens.
We are deeply concerned with the efficacy of our electoral process in general since we learned in recent years that no known state or federal government office, nor any agency or elected official makes any effort to authenticate Presidential or Vice Presidential candidates’ constitutional eligibility prior to their name appearing on the ballot. Instead, we are genuinely alarmed to find that stewardship of this keystone of our national security is deferred to the same biased, unelected and unaccountable political parties which advance their respective nominees. Furthermore, no official examination to substantiate any party’s claims of their candidate’s eligibility is ever conducted or even sought. For example, it is the FBI’s position that they do not presume to contravene the will of voters, so no background checks are conducted on candidates for any office.
As you are aware, a simple majority vote cannot overturn Constitutional requirements.
This utter failure of ballot security and blatant voter disenfranchisement, still unknown to most of the US electorate, represents a profound breach of public trust. Questions raised by the electorate in the 2008 presidential election cycle as to candidates’ true legal identity have exposed a lethal vulnerability in the Constitutional integrity of the Presidential election process. These unanswered questions remain an issue in the ongoing 2012 election cycle and must be addressed immediately.
Citizens pay for elections with their taxes and rely on elected officials, the media, and non-profit entities such as CPD to ensure the integrity of our election process. Voters harbor a very reasonable expectation that the true legal identity of all candidates be authenticated, that candidates are eligible for the office they seek, and that the elections, and the debates which precede and shape them, are incontrovertibly legitimate. In 2008, the media completely failed to meet its obligation in this process and, as we have already stated, our elected officials do not seem willing to accept the responsibility.
CPD performs a key leadership role as organizers of the Presidential debates and has a unique opportunity now to help mend this rift in our social fabric. Consequently, CPD’s working definition of “natural born Citizen” plays a central role in this unprecedented controversy.
Obviously, Presidential debates are, and have always been, an integral part of the election process. Because these iconic events have fallen under the direct control of the CPD since 1988, we urge you to take very seriously the ethical obligation established by your charter, your mission statement, and your candidate selection criteria to assertively act in the public interest to ensure that all Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates are constitutionally eligible for office.
Toward that end, please be aware that, at this time, surveys consistently show that at least one-third of American voters either are suspicious of or completely reject representations of Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the office of President. A considerably smaller number question whether or not Mitt Romney’s parents were US citizens when he was born, partly because his father was born in Mexico. That concern merits equal examination and resolution.
The point is that the issue of presidential constitutional eligibility persistently plagues the electoral process and aggravates the relationship between taxpayers/voters and their representative government.
Supreme Court precedent, recorded in Minor v. Happersett, recognizes a natural born Citizen as one who is “born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” This definition is a logical extension of the progressively restrictive citizenship requirements for House Representatives (seven years) and Senators (nine years). It is also the definition most in keeping with the underlying intent of the Framers to avoid, to the greatest possible extent within a free society, the insinuation of any foreign influence on the power vested in the Oval Office.
The idea that “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” are equivalent in status completely ignores the fact that the Constitution itself distinguishes between these two citizenship classes in the same paragraph of Article II Section 1 that establishes Presidential eligibility qualifications. It is important to bear in mind that the Constitution has never been amended to eliminate this distinction, and that the Fourteenth Amendment does not address natural born citizenship at all. (For more information, see: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html)
Some suggest that any “anchor baby” is a natural born Citizen, regardless of citizenship status of the child’s parents. However, Article II Super PAC absolutely rejects that any such interpretation could be reconciled with the Framers’ original intent. The Founding Fathers intended that a person who would be President after the founding generation had passed must be born with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance at birth. The President must have sole allegiance to the United States and natural born citizen status is the Constitution’s primary tool to secure that objective.
To say that every child born in America is a natural born Citizen is also to say that any foreign citizen whose child was born in the US could be allowed to raise that child abroad as an enemy of the US and return that child to this country in time to meet the Constitution’s 14-year residency requirement for President. By that reasoning, world class terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki, born in Las Cruces, NM to Yemeni parents, but raised and trained in the culture of Al Qaida, should have been eligible as a natural born Citizen at some point, assuming only that his tactics had remained law-abiding.
The assertion that mere place of birth or length of residency establishes natural born Citizen status flies in the face of repeated attempts over decades by numerous members of Congress – all failed – to modify the definition of “natural-born Citizen” to that very effect, or to abolish the requirement entirely. However, most recently, non-binding Senate Resolution 511, dated April 30, 2008 and ironically co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama, recognizes Sen. John McCain as a natural born Citizen, partly on the basis that he “was born to American citizens” (plural) which would seem to contradict Obama’s claim to eligibility.
Despite his full knowledge of and participation in this controversy, and his avowed credentials as a Constitutional law professor, Barack Obama has never publicly claimed to be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. His eligibility has appropriately remained in question since he admits that he was born with dual citizenship by virtue of the fact that his father’s citizenship was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948. In addition, various corroborating evidence indicates that Obama may have become a citizen of Indonesia as a youth.
His repeated denials and ridicule for those who question his constitutional eligibility notwithstanding, Mr. Obama’s birthplace remains unknown since the “documentation” offered to authenticate his birthplace has been determined to be an outright forgery by the only duly-elected law enforcement officer in America who has ever conducted an official investigation into the matter, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, of Maricopa County, Arizona. Rather than an official certification, it is believed to be an electronic composite of selected data from his birth records and possibly from other sources. Sheriff Arpaio has pointedly asked Congress to investigate.
In summary, we ask that the CPD clarify its official position on this national security issue and explain how the CPD qualifies Presidential candidates’ constitutional eligibility as natural born Citizens of the United States.
We look forward to the opportunity to share your response with our membership and associated organizations.
Helen Tansey, Executive Director
Article II Super PAC
The crime of the century has been committed on our watch, though it has its roots in the 20th century scoundrels that destroyed the U.S. dollar, enslaved and dumb-downed citizens through ‘government schools, and terrorized generations with war, terrorist attacks, economic depressions, poverty, and disease.
The stunning end result of 20th Century madness is the usurpation of the White House by the foreigner Barack Hussein Obama/Soetoro, in my view, a clear act of war against the United States.
Congress’ fingerprints at the White House crime scene
The facts are in. We know, definitively, that the alleged Obama
birth certificate on the White House Website is fraudulent.
Congress must admit their culpability in this. They faced a
Presidential candidate with credentials based almost entirely
on two autobiographies full of composite characters, errors,
and outright fiction. Rather than step up and do their job, the
Democrat-controlled Congress failed to properly vet their
candidate’s fairytale narrative. Now the chickens have come
home to roost and Congress is desperately evading the issue
while trying to sustain the illusion of themselves as defenders
of the Constitution.
The shock of this usurpation turned to the finality of Congress’ participation in the cover up and to the useless, unconstitutional judiciary heeding instructions to ignore the constitution. Yet the judiciary in particular is that crowd of 20th century lawyers who went to the ‘finest’ law schools that served only to undermine, avoid, diminish, and ridicule the constitution in favor of ‘case law’, made-up opinions with little or no founding in the principles of Constitutional law. The death of Lady Liberty, brought to you by the politicians that scammed your vote while stabbing you in the back, all the time pretending to be defenders of the Constitution.
Representative Peter King shows us how:
And Commander Charles Kerchner reminds us how those two newspaper announcements prove absolutely nothing:
Open thread on the usurper, his crimes and cronies.
The fundamental election fraud committed by the Democratic Party and the Democratic National Convention in 2008 is documented in the nomination papers submitted to every Secretary of State. In 2008 Nancy Pelosi swore that Obama met the constitutional requirements for the Presidency when he did not. After the nomination convention, then-Chair of the DNC Pelosi certified to the States that Obama was duly nominated the office as specified by the Democratic Party with the exception of Hawaii, where Nancy Pelosi swore that that Obama was constitutionally eligible–i.e., a natural born citizen.
The Democrats will commit the same kind of fraud in 2012 after the nomination of Barack Obama when Debbie Wasserman-Schultz in her private capacity as Chair of the DNC, a private club, certifies to every state that Obama is constitutionally qualified for the Presidency. This will happen in early September, and at that point DWS commits the same fraud as Pelosi did in 2008 on the SoS of your state, which is a prosecutable crime. Follow the paperwork.
Next up in the Obama ballot challenges is Florida’s case Voeltz v. Obama set for hearings on June 18 on the defendants move to dismiss the case. Voeltz advances the ballot challenges on an important front challenging the authority of the Democratic Party to defraud the citizens of Florida by fraudulently advancing Obama’s name on the ballot. Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been subpoenaed to appear.
The Voeltz v Obama case is finally getting its first day in court Monday, June 18. Like all such cases, it challenges the right of the man who calls himself “Barack Hussein Obama” to be on the state ballot, because he hasn’t established that he is a natural born Citizen. The U.S. Constitution and Florida law require that, although they don’t specify how that is to be verified.
Florida is a must-win “swing state” for “Obama.” If he is not on the ballot, he simply cannot win. If he is successfully challenged here, or even nearly-successfully, it will create a host of problems in other states. Win or lose, millions will learn that they have been lied to– by the Democrats, Republicans, media, causing mass revulsion and rejection of Obama and any Democrats foolish enough to be closely identified with him.
Win or lose, these ballot challenges are important for the public education and the attention it provides. The more the courts ignore the issue and the media fail to cover Obama’s lack of Constitutional eligibility, the more they are exposed as complicit and demonstrate their unworthiness to hold any position of public trust. The more attention raised in key states the more each of those states’ Senators and Congressmen
have cover for are obligated to object to the certification of electoral votes come the joint session of Congress on January 9, 2013.
Of political parties or factions George Washington warned, citing in his farewell address :
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
Corruption is an equal opportunity player in today’s charade of the republicans v democrats. As the “old democratic party” witnessed its hijack in 2008 by the extreme left and other interests, so too are the GOP rank and file witnessing and challenging the republican establishment’s hijack of binding delegates to the establishment choice at the Republican Convention. How far will the establishment republicans go?
It will be a fatal blow to the republicans if they choose a constitutionally ineligible candidate for the Vice Presidency…both parties are then officially
dead adverse to the Constitution. None of the information or evidence on Obama is going away, and options for prosecuting Obama while he is in and after he is out of office still exist, with more information developed every day. There are no more rugs to sweep this under. That is why we can continue to expect many false flags this summer from the Obama regime.
The more Obama/Soetoro is exposed and his criminal activities revealed, the more desperate the diversion tactics will become. The murders already completed have already rather blatantly revealed their hand and identity; any more will just confirm the information and further expose the network.
Hawaii verified two things that are fatal to Obama’s qualifications for the presidency: first, he has a foreign father who was never an American; second, Obama is a dual citizen.
Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett’s Milquetoast email request for Hawaii to confirm the ‘information on Obama’s birth in Hawaii, and to accept an email response, got him what he, the republicans, and Obama wanted: another false ‘official’ statement from Hawaii’s Department of Heath (HDOH) supposedly validating Obama’s birth in Hawaii. Ah, more ‘stuff’ that they can hide behind, claiming ‘due diligence’ has been done.
Hoping to put an end to the story,those pesky ballot challenges and Sheriffs, Hawaii and the AZ SoS perpetuate the myth and meme of ‘born in the USA”, or “American citizen”–as the only qualifying factor for President– to deceive the voting public. The Hawaii release did not authenticate Obama’s 2011 electronic version of the Birth Certificate, leaving Sheriff Arpaio’s investigation in tact and relevant. Hawaii also did not verify anything about Obama’s adoption.
What no one expected was to have Barack Obama’s dual citizenship confirmed, again, by listing the name and birthplace of the father Barack Obama Senior and Kenya, East Africa (lots of name changes there since the 2008 short form). Barack Obama junior was born a dual citizen of Britain and the United States. The failure for Mr. Obama is that once born a British citizen, one cannot lose that citizenship unless it is specifically renounced. His Kenyan citizenship may have expired unless he claimed it in 1983-but not his original British bonafides.
Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution requires the president to be either in either one of two citizenship categories:
No 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Solid Constitutional, legal, and historic information support the definition of natural born citizen that must be used until the United States Supreme Court says differently. A natural born citizen is born in the United States of parents who are American citizens. Not a single parent; not the mother or the father, but both parents.
Obama has a foreign father thus fails the two-citizen parent test.
The consistent mistakes made by all deniers of Article II include citing erroneous case law, the 14th Amendment, or stating Article II reads that ‘citizens’ are allowed to be President, ignoring the necessary phrase ‘at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution’ in context. Other mistakes are made in looking to English Common Law’s definitions of and rules for acquiring ‘citizenship’. A British citizen-subject is not an American natural born citizen.
But even if these common mistakes that Obama supporters and attorneys make are allowed to stand in court, no one can say that Article II permits a dual citizen to be the president.
You have to be ‘natural born’ or, a ‘citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution’. The Constitution does not add that category dual citizen as eligible for the Presidency. Nothing in any further legislation or amendment makes the Presidency open to being filled by a ‘naturalized’ American citizen.
The bottom line is that even if you think there is ambiguity in the definition of ‘natural born citizen’, there is NO AMBIGUITY that a dual citizen cannot be president or vice president of the United States.
Bennett’s Mistake is an Opening
Bennett makes his first mistake by asking only if Obama was born in Hawaii. In doing so, Bennett actually takes it upon himself to define natural born citizen as ‘born in the USA” in contrast to 200 years of Constitutional law and Supreme Court case law in the United States. Furthermore, by ignoring the citizenship of Barack Obama’s father and Obama’s resulting dual citizenship, Bennett is unlawfully expanding the definition of natural born citizen to include dual citizens. As the State’s top election official, he has no authority to change the definition of natural born citizen nor to expand the classes of citizens qualified to hold the office.
After informing Secretary Bennett of Mr. Obama’s statement admitting the British Nationality Act governs his citizenship, the next series of questions for Secretary Bennett could include:
These are questions Secretary Bennett should forward to the Attorney General. An honest investigation will find that unless the Constitution is formally amended or the Supreme Court rules on these questions, Mr. Obama cannot qualify for Arizona’s ballot.
(update) This information, coupled with his publicist’s printing of his biography raises significant doubt as to the legal validity or wisdom of placing Barack Obama on the ballot. After all is said and done, this is misprision of felony!
Let this be the due diligence Arizonan’s require and their public servants provide. Let this effort lock him out of our White House forever!
Information Special Update by Jerome Corsi
Start at 2 hours, 15 minutes till end for news on the Obama investigation, and much more, from Jerome Corsi (h/t j2j2):
PSST Democrats…throw Obama under the bus now and get another candidate.
Now we find more obvious proof of Obama’s deception all along: ‘born in Kenya, raised in Indonesia and Hawaii”. In true Mockingbird fashion, this shifts the discussion again to place of birth. Lest you believe the White House denial that Obama never saw this, or that his agent was exaggerating to make his story look exotic, take a look at this interview with Jack Cashill (h/t Troy)
So, did he lie about being born in Kenya or being born in Hawaii? Will he pull a ‘gee, my mommy never told me’ trick? Did he simply forget to change his name? Will Hawaii produce anything available for forensic examination? And what about this theory?
What is a
self-respecting self-delusioned democrat to do?
The more perplexing question is, will this finally awaken Americans to alarm, thought or action?
Obama is the worst of those who take advantage of everything America has to offer–including scholarships to good schools, preferential placement in key positions due to affirmative action and not merit, walking inside the halls of political power…and turned around and bit the hand that fed him. He is shameless in his denigration of America.
There are more than enough factors to suggest that Republicans will lose handily to Obama in the upcoming presidential election. Here are just a few:
How many actually believe Romney will win? Clearly these guys don’t:
Better watch out. A Gideon strategy may come around and bite you in the butt.
Collectively, these actions, questions, investigations and research militate for and require the representatives and senators in each state where these actions have been undertaken to raise objections to the electoral college vote count on January 9, 2013.
This post will look far off into the future, and assumes for the moment that none of the legal and proper efforts Constitutionalists have undertaken since 2008 to have Barrack Obama Soetoro investigated and removed from office based on his lack of constitutional eligibility will have worked. We have created letter-writing campaigns, demonstrations, multiple lawsuits, ballot challenges, treason charges and trials, and citizen grand jury investigations. History will record the efforts of American patriots to fight this injustice done to our country, and the world already knows of our efforts and knows that Obama is a usurper. Obama has used tax dollars, drugs, weapons, or CIA threats to bribe Kenya, Indonesia, Pakistan, the muslim community, individual states, and so many others to keep silent about his illegality. He is a legend–in name only–and history and God will judge all of those complicit as traitorous individuals not worthy of the spit on a street corner.
While we have been able to fully expose Obama/Soetoro and the network of criminals inside and outside of government who have enabled this usurpation, our efforts to have action taken on behalf of our Country and American citizens have been thwarted by the media, the judiciary, the Congress, law enforcement, the military, and the legion of insaneobots paid to harass Americans. Assuming Obama and the democrats/republicans, in concert with the media will rig the 2012 presidential election and put Obama in the office again, our last line of defense will be the counting and certification of the electoral college votes by a joint session of Congress on January 9, 2013.
Amendment 12: Choosing the President
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Appointment of the Electors. States appoint the electors and the number of electors is based on the number of house and Senate seats in each state. 48 States and the District of Columbia “appoint” their Electors on a winner-take-all basis (that is, the presidential/vice-presidential ticket with the plurality of the Statewide vote [= most votes from the State] is intended to get all that jurisdiction’s Electors). In each of the two remaining States, Maine and Nebraska, the presidential/vice-presidential ticket that receives the plurality of the vote in each Congressional District is intended to get the vote of the 1 “district” Elector from that CD, while the presidential/vice-presidential ticket receiving the most votes Statewide is intended to get the votes of 2 “at-large” Electors from the State. The candidate that wins the popular vote in the other 48 states receives all of that state’s electoral college votes. This site describes the number of electoral votes in each state.
In most states, electoral college members are required to vote for the person who won the popular vote in the state, and in some cases there are financial and other penalties involved if one doesn’t follow that rule. In 2008 there were attempts to file lawsuits at that point in time to prevent the vote for Obama, but the courts ruled that ‘the process had to be completed’ before any lawsuit on the merits could be filed (cough, cough).
Challenging the Vote in the Joint Session of Congress
The next point in time that we have to challenge the vote for Obama is on January 9, 2013, during a joint session of Congress to count the electoral college votes as specified in the Twelveth Amendment.
A few times in history this electoral vote counting was challenged by members of the House and Senate. In 2000, while then VP Gore was presiding over the joint session of Congress, the vote was challenged by democrats, the black congressional caucus, and a few Senators based on the Florida recount debacle, where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bush by taking away the State’s presumed jurisdiction over the vote count. The objection was based on a possible fraudulent vote count.
In 2008, there were several reasons why the vote could have been challenged, including:
But no one challenged the electoral college vote, in fact I heard Nancy Pelosi was so drunk with power that she rushed the vote improperly, aided and abetted by VP Dick Cheney, without the requisite analysis of citizenship status or calling for objections. All those who could have challenged this vote were too afraid to do so, and yes that includes Ron Paul. They made a calculation that their paychecks and perks were more important than defending the Constitution from all enemies, domestic and foreign.
Every member of Congress, and every Senator on January 8, 2009, violated their oath of office and failed to protect America. They will be held accountable in this lifetime, or clearly when they stand before their maker and try to explain away their treason.
The 2013 Scenario
As of this date, there have been millions of letters written to Congress, no less than 100 lawsuits that have never been heard on the merits, a dozen ballot challenges, a law enforcement investigation, citizen petitions to investigate, proven fraudulent ballot access in 2008 by Obama, proven voter intimidation, and public opinion polls that continue to demonstrate that most Americans do not believe Obama and want his status investigated.
Collectively, these actions, questions, investigations and research militate for and require the representatives and senators in each state where these actions have been undertaken to raise objections to the electoral college vote count on January 9, 2013.
Remember that the Twelveth Amendment provides a legal, constitutional procedure to select the President and Vice President should the presidential candidate fail to meet the qualifications of the office.
The problem with John McCain’s campaign ‘against’ Obama in 2008–and all the republicans–was that he intended to lose all along. When he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, he almost won the election because of her popularity. So he had to undermine her and his republican, luciferian, and banking cabal had to manufacture an economic crisis quickly, and engineer his poor response, to make sure Obama ‘won’ the election. Not to mention that McCain lost more than 10 million republican votes because they simply stayed home and wouldn’t vote for him. It will be just the same with Mitt Romney–we don’t want him as our candidate but the republicans have once again engineered their own defeat just to play games with the demon-crats.
Its time that John McCain was confronted and recalled. There are many of us in Arizona that will be initiating a recall campaign of John McCain very soon, and soon enough you will see our fundraising efforts posted everywhere. We will need about a quarter of a million signatures–Maricopa County alone could provide most of them…considering McCain’s obvious treason involved in purposely losing to, failing to expose, and current collaboration with Obama.
Here is an open letter to McCain from Dr. David Earl-Graef LtCol USAFR, (h/t Jeff Lichter)
Open letter to: Sen. John Sydney McCain III:
Not so long ago in the military there were certain acts looked upon with such disdain that we seldom even spoke of them. In fact, we seldom actually encountered them, so there was no need. One is cowardice and another is worse, much worse –treason.
For the sake of others reading this letter, I point out that all service members enlisted and officer alike takes an Oath. While the Oaths are slightly different we are individually bound to them. What follows is the Oath taken by the Officers:
“I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
It is important for those seeing this for the first time to note, the Oath for officers specifically states that the Constitution will be supported and defended against all enemies and it acknowledges that the enemy may be found on foreign soil or in one’s own backyard. I would even say an enemy can arise in oneself if the desires of personal gain or power or sense of self importance are allowed to become greater than the desire to honor ones Oath. Perhaps indeed, this is the greatest enemy for none are immune to it and it is insidious in is appearance.
Would you not agree, Senator McCain, it is implicit that a United States Military Officer or Public servant who takes this oath and then conspires or is a party to an act or actions that seeks to undermine by purpose of evasion, the spirit and intent of the Constitution of the United States would fit the definition a traitor? Would you not also agree that those who take the Oath are not at liberty to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they will defend while choosing to ignore others? One part is not separable from the others just as we, as a Nation, are not separable from the sovereignty of our creator from which our rights come.
Some time ago, I wrote you a personal letter pleading with you to honor your oath you took as a Military officer and then again as a United States Senator. The letter cover was clearly marked that the contents were personal and for you only. While it was initially returned unopened- the second mailing was not, so I must assume you received it.
In my letter I pleaded with you to once again display the courage you did as young Naval Aviator and then as a POW in Vietnam. I asked you to stop and consider if you had put your own ambitions and sense of self importance in front of your duty. I asked you to step forward and apologize to the Nation for not being honest with us. I assured you and I had full confidence that such an act of humility would be accepted and the American People would forgive you of your trespass, for your action would spare us from an ongoing injustice of such proportion our Nation has never seen before. I pleaded with you for the good of our Nation and even for your own redemption to come forward and expose the greatest fraud that has been and is being perpetrated on the American people; a fraud in which you yourself played a part. I acknowledged how difficult it would be and I also acknowledged the necessity of it just the same. I NEVER received an answer-nothing from you, not so much as single word. Not an explanation-nothing. The same silence you exhibited during the 2008 campaign.
So now I am given no choice but to write this for all to see. I cannot find the words to describe the extent of my disappointment but only state that it grieves me immensely as I trusted you and respected you as a fellow military officer. Before I discovered what I am about to tell the Citizens, I even gave you something that was precious to me, my vote for you to become the President of the United States. In this moment, I would rather have suffered total disenfranchisement from my right to vote, than to bear the shame and embarrassment that I gave my vote to you.
As a US Military officer, in keeping with my oath of office I demand that you, Sen. John Sydney McCain III, answer not to me but to the to the Citizens of the United States why you are not guilty of treason. Please show them that I am in error and that you did not betray your Oath as an Officer and as a Representative of the People. Explain to them why your name and that of Barrack Hussein Obama BOTH appear on Senate resolution 511 declaring you John Sydney McCain III a “Natural Born Citizen” by virtue that BOTH of your parents were US Citizens regardless you were not born on sovereign US soil.
I am not going to belabor myself explaining to you the basis for my assertion that neither you or Barack Hussein Obama meet the Constitutional requirements to hold the office of POTUS. I am certain you know what defines a “Natural Born Citizen “and America is leaning quickly. What I am clearly stating is that both you and Barak Obama had SERIOUS questions regarding your qualifications under Art. II section 1 of the United States Constitution. I am clearly stating that BOTH your names are in the Congressional record of SR 511. Tell me how this does not show that there was collusion between you and Barack Hussein Obama to undermine the Constitution of The United States. Why is Barack Hussein Obamas name on that document with yours? Is this what bought your silence during the campaign?
Many people believe that if Barack Obama was not qualified to hold the office YOU would have brought this up during the campaign. Those that are less informed and support Barack Obama use this claim as “proof” that Barack Obama is himself qualified. They use this to ridicule and demean the very citizens you represent and you do absolutely nothing except remain silent on the issue and let them bear the brunt of the insults. You stood by while Lt Col Terry Lakin was stripped of his honor, everything taken from him to include his freedom just as you were in Vietnam and you did NOTHING. Do you not think the People have a right to an explanation? Tell them plainly why YOU would not be BEHOLDING to Barack Obama on the very issue of eligibility?
It is not now nor ever was my intent to publically humiliate you, or in any way bring disrespect upon the office of the Senate that you occupy. I hope you see that you have given me no choice but to move this to the public arena. I will not remain silent while I see our Constitution shredded before my eyes by what appears to be an act of treason. You were elected to serve the people not yourself and you are not above them. I am certain that this letter will make you angry but I am not the one who betrayed my Oath, you are. Please, I am asking you again to step forward and do what is right for yourself and the country. We all have made mistakes and we all are entitled to forgiveness but only when we confess those mistakes and ask for it.
If I am wrong I will withdraw my demand and offer you a public apology and I will ask for forgiveness from you. If I am right however I remind you that Judas Iscariot had his price, the promise of 30 pieces of Silver. For him, in the end, he lost everything to include his soul. No price is worth that. Certainly not the Presidency, not your Senate seat – not even if one were to gain the entire world. Was a Quid pro Quo in the form of a promise of silence regarding the illegal candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama your price? Did you commit treason or were you duped? I still believe you have an opportunity to reconcile yourself to your Oath of office and to the American people and to God; but the open door to this opportunity will at some point close FOREVER and no amount of pleading to the people will redeem you. The cloak of darkness that has kept this from the American people is rapidly coming unraveled. This fraud WILL BE EXPOSED and your part in it will not be forgotten. You will be held accountable to the American people in a court of law or before the Congress. Do not miss the opportunity to step forward -the time is now not later.
Dr. David Earl-Graef LtCol USAFR
For more information:
(Author’s Note. Update from reader Troy, h/t Katie: Katie says:
January 18, 2012 at 11:28 am (Edit)
That video about Romney was put out by a Newt SuperPAC, and it’s name is based on the book Gingrich published “Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract With America” in May of 2006. I just verified it at Amazon, and remember when the WH came out with their WtF slogan, Hot Air was all over the stupidity of it, not least of which it plagiarized the Gingrich title.
Thanks to reader Troy, we have to consider that the whole republican field is another set-up and illusion of an election, where Romney will be the nominee and he will lose to Obama. Please study the comments and this video, and think long-term. The ‘surge’ of this republican or that one is just what it is: a mirage to make us think we have a choice. While you may not like Ron Paul, I do not believe he is a part of this as are Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, and Huntsman. Cain presented the illusion of a threat and had to be eliminated by innuendo. Huntsman dropped out and endorsed Romney. Will Bachman be the next traitor to show her part of this charade? )
The notion that Mitt Romney routinely makes statements lacking a factual basis should not come as a surprise to anyone who has followed the campaign. On the left, Paul Krugman has marveled that no other candidate has ever “lied so freely, with so little compunction.” On the right, The American Conservative‘s Daniel Larison wondered about why he lies, concluding that the former Massachusetts governor is “so contemptuous of the people he tells lies to that he never thinks he will be found out.”
Alarm bells should be ringing in everyone’s ears when Karl Rove, the establishment RINOs, GHW Bush, and democrats ‘praise’ Mitt Romney, or in the case of Nancy Piglosi, jeer at the republicans for their infighting over him.
Mitt Romney can’t climb above 25% in public opinion polls (to the extent that those are believable, it’s actually probably less than 25%), is endorsed by losers and NDAA sponsors like John McCain, and has been running for president for five years. He’s playing it safe, trying to ‘look presidential’ and ‘grown-up’ and demonstrates his deception with every word he speaks. His campaign slogan is deception pure and simple: ‘let’s fight for the America we love” (?)
While trying to run as a “CEO”, and ‘someone who has been in business’, and ‘knows how to create jobs’, let’s hear about Mitt Romney’s “creative destruction” of American business and jobs (h/t Bill):
Can you hear the guffaws as Romney lied in last night’s debate saying “get rid of Obamacare”? Like the guffaws in the film above when he said that the money in corporations goes to the people? Can you hear the democrats focusing on Romney’s corporate savagery as a convenient distraction from Obama’s savaging of America?
There are no degrees of separation between Obama and Romney. They both think they are entitled to the presidency, and they both have the media doing everything in their power to enable the continued destruction of the Constitution. The rinos, dinos, Rovians all want Romney to be the nominee because he will lose to Obama….and if by some miracle he wins, so that the continued theft of America and destruction of the Constitution will escalate.
By the way, did you notice that a questioner in the South Carolina debate asked Romney about his father being born outside the United States, and segued that into a discussion of immigration? Do you notice they will never ask what a ‘natural born citizen’ is? How many of us tweeted that question to be totally ignored? The media and republicans are scared to death of that subject.
C H I C K E N S.
America would be in better shape if we had more statesmen discussing the issues in light of constitutional argument and not through political labels used to dumb-down the thought process of choosing a candidate.~Timothy N. Baldwin, J.D.
The virulence with which the so-called ‘Patriots’, ‘Conservatives’, and ‘Constitutionlists’ dismiss Ron Paul is a fine measure of their utter lack of knowledge of and respect for the Constitution, liberty, and history; it is also an indicator of their moral collapse and intellectual bankruptcy. Unable to mount any critique Ron Paul’s positions, his record, or ideas, they search for the false promise of an idea that Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, or Huntsman could ‘beat’ the disaster known as Obama/Soetoro–why vote for any of them when their ideas are just like Obama’s? Do you think any of these ridiculous RINOs would, if elected, eliminate Obamacare, stop the spending, return power to the states, or make Congress follow their oath of office? Do you think any of them would not pardon Obama for his crimes against Americans and crimes against humanity for using our weapons to overthrow governments that are of no threat to the United States?
I was stunned when listening to a blog talk radio show which claims to be about the constitution to hear the speakers totally eviscerate the Constitution’s provisions on who is to declare war…“drkate says that the Constitution says only Congress can declare war–that is absolutely wrong!!!” So I had to ask them if they thought Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Vietnam, and Granada, and El Salvador actions were ‘cool’ with them.
Equally stunning is the absolute silence when mentioning the reality of the Federal Reserve and the related Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments; while agreeing an audit of the federal reserve is necessary, and that both amendments were unconstitutional–there is no application of that constitutional thinking to the selection of candidates for the White House. Stating that there was no difference between the republicans and democrats brought jeering responses like “that sounds like a Ron Paul line”. Who are these people who claim to love America?
It is hard work to right the ship of state known as America, and to finally and permanently eliminate the forces that want to destroy us. It is outside of most people’s comfort zone, and when faced squarely with themselves, people do not want to admit they have been duped or that their own studies tell them that a one Dr. Ron Paul has been right all along. So they resort to name-calling and outright lies, all the while claiming to be Patriots…even leading so-called Patriot’s organizations.
Here’s an answer:
(Posted with permission)
J.B. William’s article attacking Ron Paul, released on December 30, 2011 on NewsWithViews.com, perhaps deserves (I use the word loosely) a response. Williams’ assumes a lot and qualifies virtually nothing. He takes for granted the meaning and understanding of words like “conservative” and “liberal” and uses them to pigeon hole politics and pit people against Ron Paul. It is this kind of miniscule attention to detail that spreads misinformation and disinformation masqueraded as “fact.”
Let us consider Williams’ attacks on Ron Paul in order, and I will offer a critique for the sake of integrity in journalism and truth in politics.
1. Williams says, “Ron Paul remains totally MIA (Missing In Action) on Obama’s Article II ineligibility, which disqualifies Obama for office and every member of congress, including Ron Paul!”
This is a useless tool against Ron Paul and benefits no voters. There is not one Republican candidate taking on this issue. One has to ask, what difference does it make that Ron Paul is not leading the charge in this regard? If no one is taking on this issue as a part of their campaign, then everyone’s score is “zero to zero.” Williams’ use of “fact” is a tongue-in-cheek, sarcastic jab at Ron Paul as a “constitutionalist.” But this jab can be made universally to all the candidates; thus, this information is useless and irrelevant to persuade the voters and distinguish the candidates.
2. Williams says, “Mr. Constitution would know the primary function of the Federal Government is to protect and defend the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. – To do that in a 21st Century world, you better have one hell of a standing Military, which Mr. Constitution also opposes.”
Williams obviously mocks Ron Paul as “Mr. Constitution.” Williams steps outside of the objective and enters into the subjective and emotional. Williams’ credibility as an objective journalist diminishes significantly. We need less emotion in politics and more statesmanship. This mockery fails in that attempt.
As to Paul’s stance on defending the United States (while also supporting and defending the United States Constitution), Williams’ offers no support of his insinuation that Paul will fail at protecting the United States, and he offers no references as to what Paul’s plan is for the military and our entanglement in foreign affairs.
It is difficult to take journalism like this seriously when there is not one reference to a reliable source about Paul’s plan. Nor does Williams generate a comparative analysis of Paul’s plan versus the other candidate’s plan and how those plans conform to the constitution and to good policy as it relates to all of the factors affecting America right now (i.e. depressed economy, over-taxation, federal bureaucracies, unemployment, etc.). It amounts to, “ok, children, the sky is green because I say it’s green,” tautology.
3. Williams says, “Obama likes running unopposed. He has won every political race by eliminating his opponents, leaving him unopposed in the general election.”
What Obama likes has nothing to do with Ron Paul’s positions and his viability as an opponent.
4. William says, “Hillary Clinton was a lock for the DNC nomination in the 2008 primaries. Then the nobody from nowhere with a blank résumé and no birth certificate, stole the show. In the end analysis, the left always marches forward in lockstep, despite their many internal disputes. But the political right is more divided and scattered than ever in U.S. history, and they are no match for the unified international left that has already eliminated any real opposition for Obama in 2012.”
Williams makes an observation (“the political right is more divided and scattered than ever in U.S. history”) that offers a reality check about our political condition. Perhaps the reason for this so-called division is because the Democrat-Republican monopoly is finally starting to crumble and the people are getting sick of the same ol’ politics as usual.
Indeed, competition of ideas and real policy critique are resulting because of people like Ron Paul who are willing to think and act independently of political party. The spirit of independence was seen as a good thing in America, and political parties were seen as a potential hazard to that independence of thought. Attacking Ron Paul on these “divisive” grounds does little to convince the American who sees a problem with Democrat-Republican elitism corrupting what we want in leaders.
To Williams, marching in “lockstep” with the political party of choice is more important than one’s responsibility to the Supreme Law of the Land. Yet, for many people, Ron Paul’s breakup of the party monopoly is a long-awaited answer to prayer.
5. Williams says, “Ron Paul will not rule out a third-party run.”
So what? This has nothing to do with Ron Paul’s positions as a constitution-protector and nothing to do with his current candidacy as a Republican. Williams does not develop this thought at all but just throws it out there and presumably hopes that it will stick on the wall for people to draw their own (sinister) conclusions.
6. Williams says, “The Ron Paul campaign is built on a foundation of social liberals, chronic anti-war misfits, modern day peaceniks seeking legalized drugs, atheists, and Democrats and Independents with libertarian leanings. Nowhere in there is ‘conservatives…’ who oppose Paul as much as they oppose Obama. If Ron Paul were a constitutionalist, he would attract the conservative vote.”
Williams demonstrates the epitome of prejudice and incredibility on a political level. The tone of his statement rings of personal offense. Williams’ mis- and over-characterization of Ron Paul’s “foundation” should warn any person (who cares about logical argument) reading his article to be cautious about his premises and conclusions.
Williams uses only key-word titles as “proof” of his arguments against Ron Paul; terms like, “liberal,” “misfits,” “peaceniks,” “atheists,” “conservatives.” Perhaps Williams should have included a glossary of terms in his article, because these words have very little relationship in understanding and applying the Supreme Law of the Land.
America would be in better shape if we had more statesmen discussing the issues in light of constitutional argument and not through political labels used to dumb-down the thought process of choosing a candidate. Williams’ argument using this description amounts to a fifteen second commercial of a candidate explaining why you should “vote for me: I’m a conservative republican!”
And by induction of Williams’ random comments, the word “conservative” only includes those who would use the federal government to force “morality” on the people even though the U.S. Constitution leaves the matters of morality, health, property, contracts, marriage, etc., to the States. Williams’ attack on Ron Paul in this regard is as much an attack on the United States Constitution.
7. William says, “Ron Paul is at odds with conservatives on numerous key issues.
1. Paul supports same-sex marriage
2. Paul opposes the death penalty for violent criminals
3. Paul opposes mandatory sentencing for three-time losers
4. Paul supports legalizing illicit drugs
5. Paul opposes firm enforcement of immigration laws
6. Paul opposes free trade
7. Paul opposes a strong U.S. Military and National Defense
8. Paul opposes foreign diplomacy and prefers isolationism
9. Paul opposes stricter limits on criminal campaign finance
10. Paul opposes the Patriot Act, but also insists on letting terrorist live amongst us
11. Paul supported the arbitrary withdrawal from Iraq that resulted in deadly terror attacks hours later.”
Williams presupposes an “opposition” between Ron Paul and “conservatives”, even though he does not define the terms he uses repeatedly to try to prove Ron Paul is not “conservative.” And should Williams decide to define the term “conservative,” it would do America well to compare the term “conservative” with the original textualism and intention of the constitution.
When the President swears the oath of office, it is to protect the constitution, not someone’s subjective understanding of “conservative” or “liberal.” Are we not past the years when these terms are used as a basis for any understanding deeper than a Hallmark card?
Williams’ analogy of what Paul “supports” and “opposes” reminds me of the arguments made against the ratification of the United States Constitution. The argument went like this, “since the constitution specifically named items outside the jurisdiction of Congress to regulate (i.e. Bill of Rights), then all items not included in that list are subject to federal control.” That is, since item A through E was specifically excluded from their jurisdiction, the remaining items F through Z are included by implication. The Federalist Paper writers, of course, smashed that argument.
Williams’ illogical argument is similar against Ron Paul: since Paul will not use the federal government to create and enforce laws regarding marriage, drugs, and other domestic issues, he therefore supports gay-marriage, high crimes, stoned druggies, etc. If one is a supporter of the constitution, this should excite us—putting power back where it belongs, allowing the democratic process to reflect the will of the people in a more localized, controlled manner.
In reality, Ron Paul’s position mirrors what the Federalist Paper writers said concerning the powers to regulate the general welfare of the people: the States will retain “a very extensive portion of active sovereignty…[whose powers] are numerous and indefinite”; and the “powers delegated…to the federal government are few and defined” (James Madison, Federalist Paper 45). Apparently, to Williams, this is not acceptable.
Additionally, Williams mischaracterizes Ron Paul’s positions. Williams references no credible sources and gives the reader nothing to hang his hat on. He expects people to rely on his word alone. I would hope that people reading Williams’ article would do their own homework and find that his descriptions are inaccurate and distorting at best.
7. Williams says, “As a result, he cannot muster the conservative vote in November 2012, without which, he cannot defeat Barack Obama.”
This statement is based upon Williams’ own definition of “conservative,” whatever that is supposed to mean. Undoubtedly, these terms “conservative” and “liberal,” which describe people in a one-dimensional image, are not accurate to describe the true multi-dimensional makeup of America. Williams ignores the nationally-known cases where people see Ron Paul as the only true conservative. The pigeon-holing simply will not work in 2012. America needs more substance. Williams’ conclusion lacks any analysis based upon any facts.
8. Williams says, “Most of Paul’s ‘social conservative’ congressional votes are actually Tenth Amendment votes, which sidestep the actual issue at hand and redirect the discussion to states right. While conservatives are strong on Tenth Amendment states right, they are also strong on founding principles and values grounded in the moral laws of nature, at the foundation of our Constitutional Representative Republic. Paul is actually a liberal leaning populist candidate, rather than a Jeffersonian libertarian.”
I seriously question Williams’ understanding of or appreciation for the U.S. Constitution at this point. Williams tries to make Paul appear antithetical to the “founding principles and values grounded in the moral laws of nature…of our Constitutional Representative Republic”; however, it was that very generation that left matters of morality, police power, and domestic regulation to the States—the same matters Ron Paul says are the States to govern.
Williams also attempts to separate Paul’s political ideology from Thomas Jefferson’s. He does so in the attempt to disenfranchise those who would support Paul for his support of States’ rights. Yet, Williams does nothing to support his statement.
To Williams, it is not enough that the President of the United States would leave these matters to the States to regulate, as the constitution requires; he would rather use the President to enforce laws of morality even though that exercise of unconstitutional power goes against the “principles and values [which founded] our Constitutional Representative Republic.” Williams is more concerned about enforcing (federal) laws he likes as a “social conservative” than getting the country on the right track of constitutional governance.
Williams’ logic and conclusions are irreconcilable.
9. Williams says, “He has little in common with American conservatives and that presents a serious problem for him when conservative voters are looking to reverse course in America. Paul has been MIA on far too many constitutional issues to call himself a constitutionalist with a straight face.”
How Williams can make such a broad statement as to claim to know the characteristics of the “common American conservative” demonstrates a less-than-statesman approach. Williams displays the “he is not on our team” fallacy. Furthermore, Williams fails to acknowledge the Americans who would not place themselves into the two small pigeon holes used to control political outcomes.
10. Williams says, “Beyond lower taxes and less government, he has literally nothing in common with conservatives and even his smaller government leanings can’t work in a socially and morally bankrupt society.”
Within this statement Williams demonstrates Neo-Con ideology, wittingly or not. Williams says that Paul’s “smaller government leanings can’t work in a socially and morally bankrupt society.” This should warn every reader of a dangerous political philosophy.
Williams says that since “America is socially and morally bankrupt,” the federal government must be big and strong enough to police the United States because without it, America would decay into anarchy and chaos.
Williams’ suggested constitutional model was rejected in 1787 at the constitutional convention and follows the argument advanced by advocates of a monarchy: that is, people of large populations are incapable of adequately governing themselves and require an executive to rule over every aspect of their lives.
It is for this reason that Ron Paul is doing so well throughout the country. Americans want a President who is willing to put power back into the hands of the people. It is called self-government.
11. Williams says, “Then we have the issue of white supremacists and anti-Semites in his past. Remember, Obama must run unopposed… and the U.S. press will tear Paul from limb to limb long before next November.”
Again, William acts as a “drive-by” media and throws out a loaded statement with no evidence or credible references to support his statement.
12. Williams’ says, “Voters who grasp the reality that the nation is on the brink of total collapse and the world is on the verge of WWIII, are looking for who can defeat Obama and who might have the backbone to protect the nation from eminent danger on several fronts. I’m not sure such a candidate exists in the 2012 election, but I am certain that Ron Paul isn’t it. Facts don’t have any friends, but so far, Paul fans don’t seem too impressed by facts. Paul is unqualified for the job he seeks on this single issue alone! His anti-Semitism and poor-pitiful misunderstood jihadists, blame America first and often rhetoric should be enough to end his campaign… but do the facts matter anymore?”
Williams recognizes that the United States is in serious trouble, but he ironically fails to recognize that much of our troubles derive from a corrupted monetary system and the only candidate calling this fact out is Ron Paul. If there is a premier problem, it is in the area of economics and finance—a fruit of a bitter root most politicians are not willing to address.
Above all, Ron Paul is a proven statesman in this area and has identified the root of the counterfeiters and the evils within economic and financial institutions of the United States and World banks. Paul knows what it will take to rid us of these wrongs and to put America back on the path of social and financial-economic prosperity. It will take Ron Paul as President and governors in the States who recognize these matters to restore America to where it should and must be for a successful future.
If Williams does not recognize the seriousness of our monetary problems and Ron Paul’s obvious and fitting statesmanship and accuracy in this area, then it is no wonder he does not like Ron Paul.
Williams needs to know that Ron Paul only started what will continue until remedy is made in the matters of corrupted economics and finance, unjust foreign entanglement, and unconstitutional governance. Talk all you want about “social conservatism” and “military strength,” the United States will not be able to adequately solve and resolve any of major problems on any level without an economy to fund it.
Upon Williams’ conclusion, he makes a reference to “facts,” yet he barely refers to one fact in his entire article, which is based upon presumptions, presuppositions, mischaracterizations, and generalizations—without even a hyperlink to direct the reader to learn more about what Ron Paul would do as President.
I ask Williams the same question he asks, “do the facts matter anymore?,” with an additional question, “does the United States Constitution matter anymore?”
Please see more of Mr. Baldwin’s work and his latest book– Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission
Tim Baldwin will be a guest on Revolution Radio, Thursday evening January 12, 2012, starting at 9 pm eastern
And, what if the powers that be are lying to you about Ron Paul?
In addition to the more than 250 comments on the last post, a collection of articles, videos, media fumbles, endorsements, and presidential candidates’ statements have reaffirmed that the establishment bosses of the GOP are terrified of Ron Paul. By authentically focusing ideas rooted in the constitution and conservatism, Paul shines a light on the depth to which his opponents are not constitutional conservatives.
The political elite’s charade, the New World Order’s game, all the puppetry is on parade,
The GOP bosses are so afraid that they have actively begun to threaten the American people:
This inappropriate Bachman statement caught my eye because it seemed ‘programmed’ from daddy Bush, who recently publicly endorsed Romney, and is the sure sign of the globalist, NWO, GOP elite plan to maintain the status quo. The political elite with their media lap dogs are in full gear staging ‘actions’ and sounding tough on ‘the system‘. And my only hope is that if Ron Paul wins, the rinos revolt and resign from congress in protest…
The endorsement of Romney by GHW Bush (aka George Shertoff) was expected, and is most worrisome at the same time. We all knew that the stooge Karl Rove shilled for Obama, beat up Palin, and is now strongly telling us all that Romney is the nominee. So GHW Bush confirms that Romney is the NWO choice, and
Bachman Bush essentially tells Americans that a nuclear bomb will be set off in an American city if you don’t vote for Romney. Or, if you even try to defeat Obama.
Birds of a Feather exposed the absolute commonality of Bush I, Clinton(s), Bush II, and Obama in adhering to, promoting, pouring money into, and facilitating the New World Order a treasonous racket. Assassination is a hallmark of the Bush-Clinton-Obama NWO cabal, and mass destruction of the American economy, its defenses, manufacturing, and energy industries has been used to accomplish these goals. Usurpation of the presidency of the U.S. was a crown achievement for it represented the complete purchase of the government. Creating chaos on the streets of America just like in the Middle East is another favorite tool of the de-stabilizers.
Bush I’s endorsement of Romney is the first sign of how serious they are in stopping Ron Paul. And remember that it is really not Ron Paul–it is what he is talking about and symbolizes–America, the Constitution, the rule of law, and the return to sound money.
Returning to our national defense, returning to our constitutional sense.
Mike Huckabee sponsored an excellent two-hour Presidential forum on December 3, 2011, where the republican candidates had a great opportunity to speak their minds on questions posed by several of the states’ Attorneys General. The same questions were asked of all the candidates. There are 7 parts to this video which can be found here.
Ron Paul’s interview is here:
To be frank, I was a little disappointed that Dr. Paul missed an opportunity to really show how much he knows about the Constitution and its amendments. In particular, he was given an opportunity to talk about the “worst amendment”…and he mentions Prohibition…not the Sixteenth or Seventeenth Amendments, for example, which I know he has mentioned as unconstitutional at other times.
I realize no ‘debate’ offers the whole view of the man, but I have a few questions as to missed opportunities.
Was this strategy? An oversight? An agreement not to mention it?
How could Ron Paul improve on his ability to speak the Constitution to Americans, not just his supporters?
What do you think were his best moments, and, can you find a video that answers the questions above?
One of the most obvious reasons the Supreme Court has refused to take any eligibility case is that it -the Supreme Court- has already decided the matter of Obama’s eligibility for office–in 1875. Reaffirmed several times since then and even by Congress in 2008, there is no need for a ‘clarified’ definition of ‘natural born citizen’, and Obama can be removed right now…not by impeachment, not by a
Congressional wimps ‘r us hearings, not by the 25th Amendment–but by his immediate arrest.
“No 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v Happersett 1875
“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” Luria v. U.S., 1913
The Fourteenth Amendment was definitively a statement about slaves becoming citizens of the United States; and the arguments from the flat-earth eligibility deniers have been thoroughly discredited. They have managed to distract the general public away from this dangerous threat to our national security…and those that continue to cover for him will one day have to tell their children–from their own jail cell– how they allowed this mess to go on.
Until Minor v. Happersett is overturned, the SCOTUS holding stands: Obama is not eligible to be president of the United States. He is only a usurper.
The Provost Marshal is nominated by the President and Defense Secretary…and the Defense Secretary would have to give the order to arrest…what to do when the usurper has control ?
Put on your big boy pants and arrest him or resign.
In the rush to find a suitable constitutional candidate for the President of the United States, far too much emphasis is placed on the individual candidate(s) who are usually full of empty promises and old ideas cast as new ones. They all have different records, strengths, weaknesses, speaking abilities, ‘charisma’ to excite or bore the electorate, and punchlines to attack their opponents.
They also all have the lines to attack Obama, but the truth is that all of them have failed to mention Obama’s lack of eligibility, preferring instead to fight him on policy, or ‘his own merits’… Romney refuses to fight Obama’s ineligibility because he won’t fight him on what Romney considers ‘innuendo’. None have presented a complete picture of the failure to enforce the constitution and its impact on our nation.
There are plenty of excuses we offer them…’its not the right time’, or ‘its a question of strategy’, or ‘they’ll be attacked as being a racist’, or ‘other things are more important’. We hope they are constitutionalists, but are they? Do we trust them to do what they say?
Who Surrounds You?
Everyone understands that the people one associates with, and puts around them, “all the President’s men’, are more important than the President himself….for these are the people who do the work and implement the policies. Obama’s choices include criminals, pedophiles, racists, communists, liars, cronies, foreign agents, suspected murderers, terrorists, bankers, fear mongers, incompetents, and stooges with no brains in their heads at all.
How has that worked out for us?
Is it time for a different starting point? With a hat tip to Papoose, I say yes. For me, it is about the constitution, restoring the balance of power between the states and the federal government. The starting point for this voter consists of the following basic questions, and demands:
The point here is that we must determine the direction we want to go in, the kind of people we want to see in an administration, and the focus we want our government to have. Such a perspective forces us to think beyond a single person and his/her rhetoric and promises to see what the shape of the future is.
So, candidates, tell me who is in your cabinet, why, and what your practical goals are. Don’t tell me what you think I want to hear, or nice sound bites, tell the truth about how you will contribute to our Constitutional Republic.
You want my vote? Tell me who your people are going to be.
What are your questions? Who are your ideal people for the Cabinet and why? Can we leverage these ideas into an effective vetting tool?
In November 2008, our country elected as its president, a man who not only had no verifiable qualifications for the job, but was also constitutionally ineligible to hold it. The only proof he offered the public was an image that was thoroughly debunked as a computer-generated abstract that was not what it was purported to be. In the time since that election, a groundswell of Americans asked for nothing more than an independent investigation into a document that nobody had any empirical evidence even existed, and were stonewalled at each step.–Birther Summit
The Constitutional crisis that has enveloped America since the election of 2008 is unmatched by any save the Civil War. The crisis was initiated by the nomination and election of the constitutionally ineligible Barack Hussein Obama to the Presidency. That he has been able to remain in office three years on is a testament to the depth of constitutional crisis in America: the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches of government, along with the military, not only have failed to protect or defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic, they have participated in the usurpation of the Presidency.
While Americans continue efforts to investigate and remove Mr. Obama from office or disqualify him from the 2012 ballot, efforts are underway to organize a Birther Summit–the largest gathering of Americans in the Nation’s Capitol since the 912 taxpayer March of September 2009. The events, materials, and contact information can be found at the Birther Summit website.
The Birther Summit draws a line in the sand for America.
I love Michelle Obama’s Mirror…! Talk about ‘capturing’ the First “Lady” in all her glory! (h/t Attilla’s Daughter)
Now…try captioning this photo captured by Michelle’s Mirror as BO & MO await the Queen at a State Dinner…
…and then look here to find out what Michelle’s Mirror said!
Caption contest and open thread!
Almost 100 years later, the destructive events of 1913 have come to fruition as the excruciating moment we are living in the united States, and in the form of the direct usurpation of the White House by foreigner Obama.
That a usurpation has happened in our Country, given the protections outlined in the Constitution, means that fundamental components of the republic have been severely damaged and are broken–the monetary system, the proper role of a federal government, state sovereignty, national security, and individual responsibility. A perfect storm.
A great deal of that destruction began during the year 1913, when the progressive era ushered in by Teddy Roosevelt became ‘reality’ with the arrival of Woodrow Wilson in March 1913. Legislation and two Constitutional Amendments were rushed through in 1913 that would set the stage for the erosion of fundamental cornerstones and institutions of our Republic.
The president is not our teacher, our tutor, our guide or ruler. He does not command us, we command him. We serve neither him nor his vision. It is not his job or his prerogative to redefine custom, law and beliefs; to appropriate industries; to seize the country, as it were, by the shoulders or by the throat so as to impose by force of theatrical charisma his justice upon 300 million others. It is neither his job nor his prerogative to shift the power of decision away from them, and to him and the acolytes of his choosing.~ Mike Pence 9/20/10
This is one of the most inspiring and strengthening speeches I have ever heard.
The full text of the speech can be found here.