Category Archives: Founding Fathers

Founding Fathers

Jonathan Turley, Obama stated that he can have any American Citizen killed anywhere, CSPAN interview, Video, Professor Turley legal scholar

Jonathan Turley, Obama stated that he can have any American Citizen killed anywhere, CSPAN interview, Video, Professor Turley legal scholar

“Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise
that it will last; but nothing in this world is certain but death and
taxes.”...Benjamin Franklin

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar, was interviewed on CSPAN. He was asked by a Democrat caller about Obama’s statement that he can
have any American Citizen killed anywhere.

Jonathan Turley Bio.

“Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, and other schools.

After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades ranging, representing whistleblowers, military personnel, and a wide range of other clients.

In 2010, Professor Turley represented Judge G. Thomas Porteous in his impeachment trial. After a trial before the Senate, Professor Turley (on December 7, 2010) argued both the motions and gave the final argument to all 100 U.S. Senators from the well of the Senate floor — only the 14th time in history of the country that such a trial of a judge has reached the Senate floor. Judge Porteous was convicted of four articles of impeachments, including the acceptance of $2000 from an attorney and using a false name on a bankruptcy filing.

In 2011, Professor Turley filed a challenge to the Libyan War on behalf of ten members of Congress, including Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (R., Md); Dan Burton (R., Ind.); Mike Capuano (D., Mass.); Howard Coble (R., N.C.); John Conyers (D., Mich.); John J. Duncan (R., Tenn.); Tim Johnson (R., Ill.); Walter Jones (R., N.C.); Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio); and Ron Paul (R., Tx). The lawsuit is pending before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Other cases include his representation of the Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada; the nuclear couriers at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the Rocky Flats grand jury in Colorado; Dr. Eric Foretich, the husband in the famous Elizabeth Morgan custody controversy; and four former United States Attorneys General during the Clinton impeachment litigation. In the Foretich case, Turley succeeded recently in reversing a trial court and striking down a federal statute through a rare “bill of attainder” challenge. Professor Turley has also served as counsel in a variety of national security cases, including espionage cases like that of Jim Nicholson, the highest ranking CIA officer ever accused of espionage. Turley also served as lead defense counsel in the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. Turley also served as defense counsel in the case of Dr. Tom Butler, who is facing criminal charges dealing with the importation and handling of thirty vials of plague in Texas. He also served as counsel to Larry Hanauer, the House Intelligence Committee staffer accused of leaking a classified Presidential National Intelligence Estimate to the New York Times. (Hanauer was cleared of all allegations).

Among his current cases, Professor Turley represents Dr. Ali Al-Timimi, who was convicted in Virginia in 2005 of violent speech against the United States. He also represents Dr. Sami Al-Arian, accused of being the American leader of a terrorist organization while he was a university professor in Florida. He also currently represents pilots approaching or over the age of 60 in their challenge to the mandatory retirement age of the FAA. He also represents David Murphee Faulk, the whistleblower who disclosed abuses in the surveillance operations at NSA’s Fort Gordon facility in Georgia. Most recently, Professor Turley agreed to serve as lead counsel representing the Brown family from the TLC “Sister Wives, a reality show on plural marriage or polygamy. He also agreed to serve as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British of Columbia (Canada) Supreme Court. In the latter case, he argued for the decriminalization of plural union and conjugal unions.

Turley has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, including the Florida House of Representatives. He also served as the consultant to the Puerto Rico House of Representatives on the impeachment of Gov. Aníbal Acevedo Vilá.

Professor Turley is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. Professor Turley is also a nationally recognized legal commentator. Professor Turley was ranked as 38th in the top 100 most cited “public intellectuals” in the recent study by Judge Richard Posner. Turley was also found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. He has been repeatedly ranked in the nation’s top 500 lawyers in annual surveys (including in the latest 2010 rankings by LawDragon) – one of only a handful of academics. In prior years, he was ranked as one of the nation’s top ten lawyers in military law cases as well as one of the top 40 lawyers under 40. He was also selected in 2010 and 2011 as one of the 100 top Irish lawyers in the world.

Professor Turley’s articles on legal and policy issues appear regularly in national publications with over 750 articles in such newspapers as the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal. He is a columnist for USA Today. In 2005, Turley was given the Columnist of the Year award for Single-Issue Advocacy for his columns on civil liberties by the Aspen Institute and the Week Magazine. Professor Turley also appears regularly as a legal expert on all of the major television networks. Since the 1990s, he has worked under contract as the on-air Legal Analyst for NBC News and CBS News to cover stories that ranged from the Clinton impeachment to the presidential elections. Professor Turley is often a guest on Sunday talk shows with over two-dozen appearances on Meet the Press, ABC This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox Sunday.Professor Turley teaches courses on constitutional law, constitutional criminal law, environmental law, litigation, and torts. He is the founder and executive director of the Project for Older Prisoners (POPS). His work with older prisoners has been honored in various states, including his selection as the 2011 recipient of the Dr. Mary Ann Quaranta Elder Justice Award at Fordham University.

His award-winning blog is ranked in the ten most popular legal blogs by AVVO.

Professor Turley received his B.A. at the University of Chicago and his J.D. at Northwestern. In 2008, he was given an honorary Doctorate of Law from John Marshall Law School for his contributions to civil liberties and the public interest.”

http://jonathanturley.org/about/

 

Howard Coble and Congress, Irrefutable proof that WhiteHouse.gov image is forgery, Obama birth certificate fake

Howard Coble and Congress, Irrefutable proof that WhiteHouse.gov image is forgery, Obama birth certificate fake

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

“These are the times that try men’s souls.
The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will,
in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country;
but he that stands by it now, deserves the
love and thanks of man and woman.
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered;
yet we have this consolation with us,
that the harder the conflict,
the more glorious the triumph.”…Thomas Paine

From Citizen Wells April 20, 2011.

“The article heading is at least misleading or an outright lie.

“Expert: No Doubt Obama’s Birth Certificate Is Legit”

■Jean-Claude Tremblay ia a Adobe-certified expert. He only addressed the issue of document manipulation.
■No mention was made of whether or not Tremblay was a birth certificate expert.
■Tremblay has not been given access to an original birth certificate.
■Tremblay did not say that the document was an authenticate presentation of Obama’s original birth certificate.”

Read more

From Citizen Wells June 22, 2011.

“The computer graphics expert Fox News relied upon to claim the birth certificate the White House released April 27 was legitimate insists that the network must retract the story, claiming it deliberately misquoted him and continues to ignore his repeated requests.

Jean Claude Tremblay told WND that that none of his comments would permit the conclusion that the Obama birth certificate is an authentic document.”

“I no longer trust Fox News,” he said, expressing anger verging on disdain for the way he feels the network treated him. “Despite my protests, Fox News will not allow me to correct their story.”

Read more

From Citizen Wells June 24, 2011.

“Gary Poyssick, an early employee of software giant Adobe System Inc.,
continues to maintain there is something “fishy” about the Obama
long-form birth certificate released by the White House.

“What the White House released is not a simple scan,” Poyssick told
WND. “Something digital came between the paper and the glass.””

“His initial reaction was to declare the birth certificate an outright forgery.

“I could have done a much better replica myself, if the president had
asked,” Poyssick told The Political Sandbox blog when the birth
certificate first appeared and he opened the document in Adobe
Illustrator. “The guy that did this is a bimbo in that he forgot to
‘flatten’ his works to soften the background edges so the fake letters
blended, softly into the green paper.”

Read more

From Citizen Wells June 29, 2011.

Adobe Expert Mara Zebest at the National Press Club June 29, 2011.

Read more

From Citizen Wells June 30, 2011.

Major General Paul Vallely, 10 CIA Agents say Obama birth certificate forgery.

 
Read more

Document Expert Doug Vogt: Obama’s Forged Birth Certificate

“Doug Vogt, an expert in document reproduction technologies says the creation of the birth certificate released by the White House is a forgery of a public document that constitutes a felony in Hawaii and multiple violations under U.S. Code, and therefore an impeachable offense. Vogt owns Archive Index Systems which sells all types of document scanners worldwide and he also developed document imaging software (TheRepository). What he presents is evidence against Obama and the creators of the document he released on April 27th.”

 Read more

On June 8, 2011 I wrote:
“Several months ago I made a series of at least 3 visits to one of Congressman Howard Coble’s NC offices. I shared my concerns about the Blagojevich trial, Obama’s corruption ties and the facts behind Obama’s birth certificate controversies. I prepared a summary and I was told it was forwarded to Coble’s DC office. I have received no response.”

“I would prefer redressing grievances through channels such as yours and I am fully prepared to confront the entirety of Congress if necessary. I am also prepared to obtain signatures on a petition or to use other vehicles as prescribed in the First Amendment. The cooperation of you and your fellow congressmen is much anticipated and needed.

From the letter I received from Howard Coble on June 29, 2011.

“On April 27, 2011, President Obama presented a Certificate of Live Birth, which was issued by the State of Hawaii. Before seeing this document, many were growing deeply concerned about the possibility that President Obama was not a natural born citizen.

Since the release of the long-form birth certificate, we have received no other inquiries about the legitimacy of President Obama’s citizenship. To the best of our knowledge, President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth was legitimate and is demonstrative proof that he was born in Hawaii. I know you disagree with this statement.”
Mr. Coble  you, as I, are native born North Carolinians, sons of one of the original thirteen colonies and the home state of Sam Ervin, who stood up to Richard Nixon and attempts to thwart the US Constitution. I know that you, as I, hold dear the Constitution and founding precepts of this country. Many have said of congress that you all will not touch this because it might alienate or inflame segments of the population such as blacks. The very Constitution that we must defend and uphold protects all members of our society. The lesson for all is that no person and no office is above the law. Ultimately this should provide comfort and assurances to all.
Mr. Coble and members of Congress, I respectfully submit that I am hereby exercising my First Amendment right to redress Congress for grievances. I can think of no more severe grievance than a violation of the US Constitution and rule of law. I will be contacting Howard Coble’s office again to determine if Mr. Coble or his staff has any questions. The severe and flagrant disregard for the citizens of the United States and US Constitution, exercised by Obama and the White House in the continued use of taxpayer funds to keep Obama’s records hidden and the recent display of a fraudulent image on the WhiteHouse.gov website, require an immediate investigation by Congress. If necessary, we will supply signatures on a petition. I will personally appear before Congress and/or will contact any pertinent witnesses if necessary.

Wells

Time Constitution article, One Document Under Siege, It’s the Constitution stupid, Tenth Amendment

Time Constitution article, One Document Under Siege, It’s the Constitution stupid,  Tenth Amendment
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”…Joseph Goebbels

From Time June 23, 2011.

“Here are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II.
DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare.
Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease.
Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics.
Lady Gaga.

People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say
about some event that is happening today. What would the framers say
about whether the drones over Libya constitute a violation of Article
I, Section 8, which gives Congress the power to declare war? Well,
since George Washington didn’t even dream that man could fly, much
less use a global-positioning satellite to aim a missile, it’s hard to
say what he would think. What would the framers say about whether a
tax on people who did not buy health insurance is an abuse of
Congress’s authority under the commerce clause? Well, since James
Madison did not know what health insurance was and doctors back then
still used leeches, it’s difficult to know what he would say. And what
would Thomas Jefferson, a man who owned slaves and is believed to have
fathered children with at least one of them, think about a half-white,
half-black American President born in Hawaii (a state that did not
exist)? Again, hard to say.”

“Where’s the Crisis?

A new focus on the Constitution is at the center of our political
stage with the rise of the Tea Party and its almost fanatical focus on
the founding document. The new Republican Congress organized a reading
of all 7,200 words of an amended version of the Constitution on the
House floor to open its first session. As a counterpoint to the rise
of constitutional originalists (those who believe the document should
be interpreted only as the drafters understood it), liberal legal
scholars analyze the text just as closely to find the elasticity they
believe the framers intended. Everywhere there seems to be debate
about the scope and meaning and message of the Constitution. This is a
healthy thing. Even the framers would agree on that.”

“If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it
sure doesn’t say so. Article I, Section 8, the longest section of the
longest article of the Constitution, is a drumroll of congressional
power. And it ends with the “necessary and proper” clause, which
delegates to Congress the power “to make all laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of
the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Limited
government indeed.”
“It is true that the framers, like Tea Partyers, feared concentrated
central power more than disorder. They were, after all,
revolutionaries. To them, an all-powerful state was a greater threat
to liberty than discord and turbulence. Jefferson, like many of the
antifederalists, did think the Constitution created too much
centralized power. Most of all, the framers created a weak Executive
because they feared kings. They created checks and balances to
neutralize any concentration of power. This often makes for disorderly
government, but it does forestall any one branch from having too much
influence. The framers weren’t afraid of a little messiness. Which is
another reason we shouldn’t be so delicate about changing the
Constitution or reinterpreting it. It was written in a spirit of
change and revolution and turbulence. It was not written in stone. Its
purpose was to create a government that could unite and lead and
govern a new nation, a nation the framers hoped would grow in size and
strength in ways they could not imagine. And it did.”

“Some opponents of birthright citizenship argue that illegal immigrants
are not under U.S. jurisdiction and therefore their children should
not automatically become citizens, but this argument doesn’t hold up
under scrutiny. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has suggested
he might offer an amendment to overturn the principle of birthright
citizenship. I’ve always thought it odd that a nation united not by
blood or religion or ethnic identity but by certain extraordinary
ideas is a nation where citizenship is conferred on the basis of where
you were physically born. It’s equally strange to me that a nation
that was forged through immigration — and is still formed by
immigration — is also a nation that makes it constitutionally
impossible for someone who was not physically born here to run for
President. (Yes, the framers had their reasons for that, but those
reasons have long since vanished.)”

“The Constitution
works so well precisely because it is so opaque, so general, so open
to various interpretations. Originalists contend that the Constitution
has a clear, fixed meaning. But the framers argued vehemently about
its meaning. For them, it was a set of principles, not a code of laws.
A code of laws says you have to stop at the red light; a constitution
has broad principles that are unchanging but that must accommodate
each new generation and circumstance.”

“We can pat ourselves on the back about the past 223 years, but we
cannot let the Constitution become an obstacle to the U.S.’s moving
into the future with a sensible health care system, a globalized
economy, an evolving sense of civil and political rights. The
Constitution, as Martin Luther King Jr. said in his great speech on
the Mall, is a promissory note. That note had not been fulfilled for
African Americans. But I would say the Constitution remains a
promissory note, one in which “We the People” in each generation try
to create that more perfect union.”

Read more:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2079445,00.html

The primary motive for this article was to make money for Time. I get that.

However, the article is so full of half truths and lies mingled with some truths, lib speak and orwellian speak, it is difficult to react to it in a rationale manner. I do not want to be the proverbial person arguing with the fool .

First, “Here are a few things the framers did not know about:”

What is their point? The founders were intimately familiar with tyranny and far more hardships that I hope that we ever know.

Second, “Tea Party and its almost fanatical focus on
the founding document.”

In typical left wing fashion they insult decent Americans who uphold and defend the Constitution. Is breathing, drinking water and eating fanaticism?

Third, “If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it
sure doesn’t say so.” The founding fathers realized that the original Constitution focused too much power in the federal branch and added the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments. The Tenth Amendment alone makes it clear that the Federal government is not all powerful.

Fourth, “is also a nation that makes it constitutionally
impossible for someone who was not physically born here to run for
President. (Yes, the framers had their reasons for that, but those
reasons have long since vanished.)” In typical left wing arrogant fashion, they know more than the out dated old fuddy duddies.

And lastly, my ending response to the article ending.

“A constitution in and of itself guarantees nothing. Bolshevik Russia
had a constitution, as did Nazi Germany. Cuba and Libya have
constitutions. A constitution must embody something that is in the
hearts of the people. In the midst of World War II, the great judge
Learned Hand gave a speech in New York City’s Central Park that came
to be known as “The Spirit of Liberty.” It was a dark time, with
freedom and liberty under threat in Europe. Hand noted that we are
Americans by choice, not birth. That we are Americans precisely
because we seek liberty and freedom — not only freedom from oppression
but freedom of speech and belief and action. “What do we mean when we
say that first of all we seek liberty?” he asked. “I often wonder
whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon
laws and upon courts.”

If you read the above carefully, they make my point. That is, we had a upheld, intact Constitution that allowed Learned Hand to speak. Perhaps if the good citizens of Nazi Germany had rested their ” hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts” a disaster could have been avoided.

It’s the Constitution stupid!

Not a suggestion.

Obama history best predictor, There are no surprises, Obama birth certificate, Muslim influences, Corruption ties, Radical associations

Obama history best predictor, There are no surprises, Obama birth certificate, Muslim influences, Corruption ties, Radical associations

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

“Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour; a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason. As a long and violent abuse of power, is generally the Means of calling the right of it in question”
“The present state of America is truly alarming to every man who is capable of reflection. Without law, without government, without any other mode of power than what is founded on, and granted by, courtesy. Held together by an unexampled occurrence of sentiment, which is nevertheless subject to change, and which every secret enemy is endeavoring to dissolve. Our present condition is, Legislation without law; wisdom without a plan; a constitution without a name; and, what is strangely astonishing, perfect independence contending for dependence. The instance is without a precedent, the case never existed before, and who can tell what may be the event? The property of no man is secure in the present un-braced system of things. The mind of the multitude is left at random, and seeing no fixed object before them, they pursue such as fancy or opinion presents. Nothing is criminal; there is no such thing as treason, wherefore, every one thinks himself at liberty to act as he pleases.”…Thomas Paine, “Common Sense”

 Common Sense Too

Is anyone who has examined the history of Barack Obama surprised at the chain of events that have played out over the past years? No. Debates, discussions and analyses have continued on about the economy, jobs, foreign policy and even the religion of Obama, when all one has to do is look at Obama’s past. He has kept hidden much of his past but even that is a solid indicator of his intentions and why his past is secret.

Let’s examine one of the simple aspects of Obama, his religion. One cannot look into his heart directly, but regardless of one’s profession, one’s acts are the window to the soul. Obama’s past associations clearly reveal a strong Muslim influence as well as radical theologies such as those espoused by Jeremiah Wright. Ideas that certainly are not Christian and in many cases are anti semitic. So why would anyone be surprised about the turmoil in Egypt?

The economy. Why would anyone paying attention be surprised about the economy and jobless rate. Obama has been enmeshed in socialism and redistribution of wealth for many years. Obama and his liberal, socialist buddies have been spending like drunken sailors with no regard for the impact on hard working Americans. Obama’s involvement with and support from ACORN should have been warning enough.

Now to the core of the problem. It appears that many politicians do not want to touch the Obama eligibility issues. This is not a political issue, it is a constitutional issue. The impression is that the problem will go away with the next presidential cycle. That Obama will be removed then. They are wrong.

The same forces and thought processes that drove Obama to hide his past and associate with Anti American elements still guide him. Obama eligibility issues, his extreme efforts to hide his birth certificate and college records are symptomatic of deeper problems. His utter disregard for the US Constitution is the larger problem and is why Obama must resign or be arrested. It is also why Congress and the courts must take this out of the political realm and into the sanctum of the rule of law. There is no other duty and priority higher than this.

Except Obama, except Obama, Theresa Cao, Obama not Natural Born Citizen, Reading of US Constitution

Except Obama, except Obama, Theresa Cao, Obama not Natural Born Citizen, Reading of US Constitution

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

From Unlawful President January 7, 2011.

“All power to that “cojonuda” grassroots-conservative American woman, Theresa Cao, that so felicitously vocalized our, We the People’s, legitimate right and ineluctable duty to demand unequivocal and unambiguous full compliance with Constitution 215 (i.e., Article 2, section 1, clause 5 of the COTUSA) from anyone who aspires to reside in the White House, particularly from the plausibly suspected impostor now squatting in the Oval Office.

“Except Obama, except Obama, help us Jesus!” Cao most passionately protested –and most earnestly prayed– from the galleries of the U.S. House of Representatives chamber with all the strength she could muster, as –unsuspecting, not knowing what was going to hit him next, as in his very crotch– DemocRat Rep. Frank Pallone read Constitution 215.

DemocRat Pallone was –as all leftists, RINOs and faux-conservatives, for sure, were– left bedazzled and paralyzed in overwhelming awe and astonishment by the daring courage of that extraordinary woman…and all of us –we, non-leftist Americans, and particularly us from the grassroots-conservative genre– were left wholly electrified and reenergized.
What a woman!!! What an American!!!

There is no doubt that grassroots conservative American women are remarkable!!!”

“We the People cannot, absolutely not, sit impassively while all those hardcore Leftists –with the complicity of RINOs, establishment Republicans and phony conservatives– destroy the America our Founding Fathers instituted and bequeathed to us and our children and their progeny, the America which generation after generation shed tears, sweat, blood, limb and life: “America –despite its many imperfections and defects– the most powerful nation history has ever seen, yet the most generous and the first overall superpower ever in human history that liberates and even feeds peoples, and that stands out and excels as the world’s utmost inextinguishable beacon of freedom, everlasting fountain of effective democracy, inexpugnable bastion of individual rights, and inexhaustible mother lode of free entrepreneurism.”

Lincoln well said it: “To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men.” …which We the People must ineluctably do now.

And then, the Great Emancipator, the founder of the Grand Old Party, went on solemnly asserting: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable – a most sacred right – a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.” …which an inalienable right that We the People imperatively must exercise –lawfully and peacefully, of course– on November 6, 2012.”

“Yours in freedom,

Rene Guerra”

Read more:

http://unlawfulpresident.com/?p=214

112th Congress, Ron Paul et al, Do your damn job, US Constitution, Natural born citizen, Obama eligibility

112th Congress, Ron Paul et al, Do your damn job, US Constitution, Natural born citizen, Obama eligibility

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

“If I did that, I would be laughed out of Congress.”…Ron Paul, December 2008

 

All US citizens have a duty, an obligation to obey the law. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Congressmen, as elected officials, have a higher duty to uphold the law and the US Constitution.

We have a patriot Army Officer, LTC Terry Lakin, lanquishing in prison for doing his duty. Now we have a spectator in the US House being arrested and led away for doing her duty to obey the law, the US Constitution, which trumps any House of Representives rule of order. Ordinarily I might agree that someone disrupting the House proceedings should be led away and chastised. However, in this case, Theresa deserves a medal for shouting out “Except Obama, except Obama.” when Rep. Frank Pallone read the part of Article II, Section 1 mandating that only a “natural-born citizen” may be president.

Military officers and ordinary Americans are having to challenge “authority” because Congress did not do their job in January 2009.

January 8, 2009

“Counting Electoral Votes in Congress
Public Law 110-430 changed the date of the electoral vote in Congress in 2009 from January 6 to January 8. This date change is effective only for the 2008 presidential election.
The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes (Congress may pass a law to change the date). The President of the Senate is the presiding officer. If a Senator and a House member jointly submit an objection, each House would retire to its chamber to consider it. The President and Vice President must achieve a majority of electoral votes (270) to be elected. In the absence of a majority, the House selects the President, and the Senate selects the Vice President. If a State submits conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes of the electors certified by the Governor of the State would be counted in Congress.”

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/dates.html

Ron Paul, et al, do your damn job!

In it’s entirety from Citizen Wells December 28, 2008

“Why I ask, should not the ‘injunctions and prohibitions’ addressed by
the people in the Constitution to the States and the Legislatures of
States, be enforced by the people through the proposed amendment?” 
“The oath, the most solemn compact which man can make with his Maker,
was to bind the State Legislatures, executive officers, and judges to
sacredly respect the Constitution and all the rights secured by it.”
Rep. Bingham (See Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1090 (1866))

 
“I 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 duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
Congressional Oath of Office

Natural Born Citizen

Why Barack Obama must be challenged

US Constitution

“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.”

To understand the intent of the founding fathers in using the words
“natural born citizen”, to define presidential eligibility, one must
first examine any influential documents and opinions from those
involved in crafting the US Constitution. What is clear and indisputable
is the following:

  • A naturalized citizen is a citizen by no act of law such as naturalization.
  • A child born to US citizens on US soil is a natural born citizen.
  • The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided the following:

“the children of citizens of the United States that may
be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United
States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”

 
Vattel’s “The Law of Nations”, written in 1758, was a
valuable reference guide for the founding fathers.

Ҥ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by
certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in
its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the
country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and
perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those
children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all
their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what
it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course,
that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the
right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that
of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.
We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they
may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were
born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a
person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a
foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice John Jay, on
July 25, 1787, wrote the following to George Washington:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide
a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration
of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the commander
in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any
but a natural born citizen.”

The Lightfoot lawsuit in CA states the obvious:

“This letter shows that the meaning of natural born citizen, is one
without allegiance to any foreign powers, not subject to any foreign
jurisdiction at birth.”

After the US Constitution was written, further
clarifications can be found

“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign
power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the
United States.”

1866, Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised

“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of
parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the
language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

Rep. Bingham on Section 1992 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

“Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the
time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be
born within the allegiance of the Nation. Bingham had explained that to
be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more
precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign
sovereignty (remember the U.S. abandoned England’s “natural allegiance”
doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance
to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States.” Read more

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, March 28, 1898 Reveals the following:

“Nevertheless, Congress has persisted from 1795 in rejecting the English
rule and in requiring the alien who would become a citizen of the United
States, in taking on himself the ties binding him to our Government, to
affirmatively sever the ties that bound him to any other.”

“It is beyond dispute that the most vital constituent of the English
common law rule has always been rejected in respect of citizenship of
the United States.”

“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution,
I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen”
applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United
States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners,
happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of
royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race,
were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad,
were not.”

“Greisser was born in the State of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German
subject and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned.
After quoting the act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment, Mr. Secretary
Bayard said:

Richard Greisser was no doubt born in the United States, but he was on his
birth “subject to a foreign power,” and “not subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States.” He was not, therefore, under the statute and the
Constitution a citizen of the United States by birth, and it is not
pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.”

“And it was to prevent the acquisition of citizenship by the children of
such aliens merely by birth within the geographical limits of the United
States that the words were inserted.

Two months after the statute was enacted, on June 16, 1866, the Fourteenth
Amendment was proposed, and declared ratified July 28, 1868. The first
clause of the first section reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside.

The act was passed and the amendment proposed by the same Congress, and it
is not open to reasonable doubt that the words “subject to the jurisdiction
thereof” in the amendment were used as synonymous with the words “and not
subject to any foreign power” of the act.”

Perkins v Elg, 307 U.S. 325,328 (1939) differentiates between a US citizen
and a natural born citizen.  Ms. Elg, was born in Brooklyn, NY to an
American mother and a Swedish father was a US citizen, but not a natural
born citizen.

Leo Donofrio explains the basis for his lawsuit:

“The Framers distinguished between “natural born Citizens” and all other
“Citizens”.  And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th Amendment
only confers the title of “Citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”.  The
Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens.  They
put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the
Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document.” 

“The chosen wording of the Framers here makes it clear that they had drawn
a distinction between themselves – persons born subject to British
jurisdiction – and “natural born citizens” who would not be born subject
to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United
States.  And so the Framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution
as being eligible to be President.  But the grandfather clause only
pertains to any person who was a Citizen… at the time of the Adoption of
this Constitution.” 

“It should be obvious that the Framers intended to deny the Presidency to
anybody who was a British subject “at birth”. If this had not been their
intention, then they would not have needed to include a grandfather clause
which allowed the Framers themselves to be President.”

Application of Natural Born Citizen and Citizen to Barack Obama

Barack Obama was born to an American Mother and Kenyan Father.

Is Obama eligible under the Natural Born Citizen provision?

Philip Berg states:

“Even if Obama had and maintained United States citizenship (which Plaintiff
believes he failed to do) he also holds citizenship in Kenya and Indonesia.
Obama has divided loyalties with foreign countries. Thus, Obama carries
multiple citizenships, and is ineligible to run for President of the United
States. United States Constitution, Article II, Section I.”

Leo Donofrio states:

“Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues.  They
are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President.  Since
Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the
jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth,
then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers
of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original
birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be
eligible to be President.” 

“My law suit argues that since Obama had dual citizenship “at birth” and
therefore split loyalties “at birth”, he is not a “natural born citizen”
of the United States.  A “natural born citizen” would have no other
jurisdiction over him “at birth” other than that of the United States.
The Framers chose the words “natural born” and those words cannot be ignored. 
The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, “natural born
citizen”, pertains to the status of the person’s citizenship “at birth”.”

“The other numerous law suits circling Obama to question his eligibility
fail to hit the mark on this issue.  Since Obama was, “at birth”, a
British citizen, it is completely irrelevant, as to the issue of
Constitutional “natural born citizen” status, whether Obama was born in
Hawaii or abroad.  Either way, he is not eligible to be President.  Should
Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii,
it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen “at birth”.” 

“Obama has admitted to being a British subject “at birth”.  And as will be
made perfectly clear below, his being subject to British jurisdiction
“at birth” bars him from being eligible to be President of the United States.”

Lightfoot lawsuit

“Mr. Obama is a son of a citizen of Kenya, that in 1961 was a British
protectorate, whereby regardless of whether he was born in Kenya or US, he
was a foreign citizen based on his fathers citizenship, he was a subject of
a foreign power and foreign jurisdiction and does not qualify as a natural
born citizen.”

“In adherence to the natural born citizen provision, the first presidents
of this country, such as George Washington and John Adams, that were born on
this soil, in Virginia and Massachussetts respectively, had to include an
additional constitution provision in addition to the natural born citizen,
“…or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution…”, in order to allow themselves, as Britizh subjects at the
time of their birth to be sworn as Presidents.  Since Mr. Obama is not 221
years old and was not a US citizen at the time of the Constitution, he, as a
British citizen at birth does not fall under this provision and does not
qualify as a natural born citizen and is not eligible to become the President
regardless of whether he was born in Kenya or Hawaii.”

Barack Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen

It is clear from the above that Obama is not eligible to be president.
For there to even be a ruling contrary to the letter and spirit of the
law, Obama must at least prove that he was a citizen of the US at birth.
This means that Obama would have to prove that he was born in Hawaii.

Unless Obama can prove he was born in Hawaii, he is in fact not a US
citizen and is an illegal alien

At this point, no legal proof of Obama being born in Hawaii has been
provided. The Hawaiian Health Dept. official stated:

STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official
birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits
the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a
tangible interest in the vital record.

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with
the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee
and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified
that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth
certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed
that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital
record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.”

According to Philip Berg:

“There are records of a “registry of birth” for
Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii.”

So, how is it possible to not be born in Hawaii and yet have a
birth certificate record in Hawaii?

[§338-17.8]  Certificates for children born out of State. 
(a)  Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child,
the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or
minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health
that the legal parents of such individual while living without the
Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii
as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the
birth or adoption of such child.

(b)  Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health
in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate.  The director of
health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may
deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth
certificates and to require any further information or proof of events
necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

(c)  The fee for each application for registration shall be established
by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1] Hawaii statute

From the Keyes lawsuit:

“A press release was issued on October 31, 2008, by the Hawaii Department
of Health by its Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino. Dr. Fukino said that she
had “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of
Health has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate on record in
accordance with state policies and procedures.” That statement failed to
resolve any of the questions being raised by litigation and press accounts.
Being “on record” could mean either that its contents are in the computer
database of the department or there is an actual “vault” original.”

“Further, the report does not say whether the birth certificate in the
“record” is a Certificate of Live Birth or a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.
In Hawaii, a Certificate of Live Birth resulting from hospital documentation,
including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a
Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. For births prior to 1972, a Certificate of
Hawaiian Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness
and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up
to one year from the date of the child’s birth. For that reason, its value
as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the
allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained.
The vault (long Version) birth certificate, per Hawaiian Statute 883.176
allows the birth in another State or another country to be registered in
Hawaii. Box 7C of the vault Certificate of Live Birth contains a question,
whether the birth was in Hawaii or another State or Country. Therefore,
the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified
copy or the original vault Certificate of Live Birth and compare the name of
the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor against the
birthing records on file at the hospital noted on the Certificate of the
Live Birth.”

If Obama was born in kenya, his mother had to be nineteen years
old for Obama to be a US citizen. Berg explains:

“If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books at the time of
his birth stated if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen,
which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother would
have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were
after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Obama’s birth, his mother was
only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under
the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship. The laws in effect at the
time of Obama’s birth prevented U.S. Citizenship at birth of children born
abroad to a U.S. Citizen parent and a non-citizen parent, if the citizen
parent was under the age of nineteen (19) at the time of the birth of the
child. Obama’s mother did not qualify under the law on the books to register
Obama as a “natural born” citizen. Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S.C. §1401(b),
Matter of S-F- and G-, 2 I & N Dec. 182 (B.I.A.) approved (Att’y Gen. 1944).”

 Under the best case scenario for Obama, he is a US citizen, not natural
born, and the worst case scenario, Obama is an illegal alien. If Obama
was born in Kenya, he is an illegal alien.

At the time of Obama’s birth, he was a Kenyan citizen and under British
rule. For there to be a ruling on Obama’s potential eligibility for the
presidency based on being a natural born citizen, Obama must provide proof
that he was also a US citizen at birth and that would require proof that
he was born in Hawaii. To date, no legal proof has been provided. In fact,
every effort has been made by Obama to avoid proving his eligibility. He
has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and employed numerous attorneys
to evade his dubious past.

Obama must provide a vault (long form) birth certificate to prove he is
not an illegal alien. Think about it. We know that Obama is not eligible
under the US Constitution.

Are we going to let him steal the presidency as an illegal alien?

 http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/natural-born-citizen-obama-is-not-eligible-obama-birth-certificate-us-constitution-founding-fathers-intent-lawsuits-obama-kenyan-vattel%e2%80%99s-the-law-of-nations-john-jay-berg-donofrio-k/

112th Congress sworn in, Oath of office, US Constitution, Natural born citizen vs citizen

112th Congress sworn in, Oath of office, US Constitution, Natural born citizen vs citizen

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

The 112th Congress was sworn in yesterday, January 5, 2011 using this oath of office.

“I, AB, 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 faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

If any members of Congress do not understand this part:

“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;”

Please let us know.

Also, if you do not know the difference between citizen and Natural Born Citizen, and why the founding fathers chose this special clasification of citizen with two US Citizen parents, let us know. We will explain it to you.

John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker of the House. In his speech he dedicates the 112th Congress to following the will of the American People and US Constitution. I heard John Boehner’s speech yesterday after he became Speaker of the House. I smiled then. As I watched the video and listened to his words, I came close to tears myself. Tears are not a bad thing. Apathy is.