Category Archives: Citizen News

Ted Cruz poll natural born citizen ruling, FEC and/or US Supreme Court, Cruz born in Canada with 1 US citizen parent, Advisory opinion and/or court ruling, Is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?

Ted Cruz poll natural born citizen ruling, FEC and/or US Supreme Court, Cruz born in Canada with 1 US citizen parent, Advisory opinion and/or court ruling, Is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?

 

Whereas:

  • Ted Cruz was born in Canada with 1 US Citizen parent.
  • The US Constitution states: “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 . . . .”
  • The US Supreme Court has not settled the definition of natural born citizen.
  • Despite what you may have read, there is much disagreement among legal scholars about the definition and as to whether or not Cruz is eligible.
  • Some media reports say he is and others he is not.
  • The country does not need another presidential election cycle with this question not being settled.
  • Ted Cruz and other candidates need to know where they stand.
  • PolitiFact stated: “That lack of precision has given rise to controversy and legal challenges, but has never resulted in a definitive determination by the U.S. Supreme Court. For that reason and others, the Ohio researchers called Cruz’s eligibility legally unsettled.”
  • The US Supreme Court must do their job. Marbury v Madison: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”
  • Ted Cruz can request an advisory opinion from the FEC. Example: HASSAN v. FEC, October 1, 2012. “Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail.”

Cheryl Chumley WND article omits constitution eligibility words, Who paid Chumley?, 2013 Cheryl Chumley wrote Ted Cruz not eligible due to Canadian birth, Author of Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare is Becoming our Reality???

Cheryl Chumley WND article omits constitution eligibility words, Who paid Chumley?, 2013 Cheryl Chumley wrote Ted Cruz not eligible due to Canadian birth, Author of Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare is Becoming our Reality???

“The Founding Fathers wouldn’t recognize America today….The Constitution has been tossed on the same trash pile as the Bible.”…Amazon description of Cheryl Chumley book “Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare is Becoming our Reality”

“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 . . . .”…US Constitution

“‘It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well…..In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words — in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.’s idea originally, of course,’ he added as an afterthought.”…George Orwell “1984”

 

 

I can’t wait to get the answer to this enigma.

On March 24, 2015, Cheryl Chumley, writing for WND, wrote the following:

“DONALD TRUMP GOES BIRTHER ON TED CRUZ”
“Section One, Article Two of the Constitution states “no person except a natural born citizen, or citizen of the United States … shall be eligible to the office of president.””
Read more:
Why did she leave out:
“at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”
which is crucial to the statement and to differentiate between citizen and natural born citizen?
She left out 9 words.
9 very important words.
I can only think of one plausible answer.
The same conclusion you are arriving at.
Who paid Cheryl Chumley to do that?
On  August 12, 2013 Cheryl Chumley wrote the following:
“Donald Trump, staunch birther: ‘Nobody knows’ yet where Obama was born”
“The two then discussed the birthplace of Sen. Ted Cruz, who’s been talked about as a potential GOP frontrunner for the White House in 2016. Mr. Cruz was born in Canada, which would make him ineligible for the office under the provisions of the Constitution.”
Read more:
Those were her words.
From her blog:
“A blog of Cheryl K. Chumley’s conservative and Christian views of the state of the nation, the Constitution and current day politics, policies, legislation and culture.”
“Thought police, coming to a community near you”
“Thought police, in George Orwell’s dystopian 1949 work, “1984,” were government authorities tasked with rooting out thought crimes – or, the basic mental patterns that were believed to be the genesis for criminal actions – using omnipresent surveillance technologies and intelligence gathering techniques.”
“But the technology brings some queasiness – and constitutional concerns.”
Why did Cheryl Chumley, as someone with concerns about the US Constitution and Orwellian actions, leave out 9 crucial words from the presidential eligibility clause?
Who controlled the editing?
Who paid Chumley to do this?
Cheryl Chumley, please respond.
Wells

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glenn Beck comedy show WND media lie about natural born citizen and Constitution, Citizens not eligible, Ted Cruz eligibilty in question, Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines Natural Born Citizen in 1789

Glenn Beck comedy show WND media lie about natural born citizen and Constitution, Citizens not eligible, Ted Cruz eligibilty in question, Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines Natural Born Citizen in 1789

“In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents.”…Attorney Mario Apuzzo

“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 . . . .”…US Constitution

“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

 

 

At the time the US Constitution was drafted and ratified there were 2 classifications of citizens, natural born citizens and everyone else.

That is why non natural born citizens, just citizens, had to be grandfathered in to run for president.

The US Constitution states:

“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 . . . .”

There was no naturalization law and no naturalized citizens by law.

Natural born citizen was understood at the time and needed no further explanation.

However, a prominent historian and founding father, David Ramsay did, in the same year the Constitution was ratified, 1789, define natural born citizen.

From Citizen News March 25, 2015.

“Yes, the Glenn Beck Radio Show is mostly comedy. Occasionally they inject facts and outrage.
Glenn Beck once again insulted legal scholars and concerned Americans with his entertainment culture low information media use of “citizen” interchangeably with “natural born citizen.”
 “One of his parents is American. That’s all it takes. For the love of heaven, if illegal aliens can come to the America and give birth, and that birth child is a citizen, then so is Ted Cruz, for the love of heaven. Stop it!” Pat said. The Immigration and Nationality Act states that a person is a citizen by birth if they are born to a parent with U.S. citizenship, ”
Perhaps the explanation for Beck and his lackeys doing so comes from commenter JayJay.
Submitted on 2015/03/25 at 3:18 am
““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 . . . .”
Sadly, Americans are so lacking in grammar, they don’t get the significance of the comma after ‘states’.”
Yesterday on WND, writer Cheryl Chumley omitted a crucial sentence of the US Constitution that states who is eligible to be president.
Words matter.
Especially in the US Constitution.
Especially when they define the eligibility for president of the US.
So the question is, why did Cheryl Chumley omit them?
From WND March 24, 2015.
“DONALD TRUMP GOES BIRTHER ON TED CRUZ”
“Section One, Article Two of the Constitution states “no person except a natural born citizen, or citizen of the United States … shall be eligible to the office of president.””
Read more:
Why did she leave out:
“at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”
which is crucial to the statement and to differentiate between citizen and natural born citizen?
Much of the tone of this article is atypical for a WND article.
It resembles work from the left or “1984.”
Read the full article and let me know.
She left out 9 words.
9 very important words.
I can only think of one plausible answer.
The same conclusion you are arriving at.”
“Patriot and legal scholar Mario Apuzzo has provided some of the best information on the definition of natural born citizen from  the year the Constitution was ratified.

From Mario Apuzzo:

 

“Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789″
“In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen. ” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.” David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). “During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task….” http://www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay/.

In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay’s History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. “The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,” Professor Smith concluded, “are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.” In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a “natural born citizen.” ”

http://citizenwells.net/2015/03/25/glenn-beck-wnd-media-lies-about-natural-born-citizen-and-constitution-citizens-not-eligible-ted-cruz-eligibilty-in-question-founder-and-historian-david-ramsay-defines-natural-born-citizen-in-1789/

 

Thanks to CDR Charles Kerchner for his ongoing assistance and dedication to this country.

 

 

 

Ted Cruz another Harvard Law graduate and Harvard Law Review editor like Obama?, Ignoring constitution, Cruz states he is a natural born citizen when having a US mother only gives him citizenship, Let’s get a ruling from FEC and Supreme Court

Ted Cruz another Harvard Law graduate and Harvard Law Review editor like Obama?, Ignoring constitution, Cruz states he is a natural born citizen when having a US mother only gives him citizenship, Let’s get a ruling from FEC and Supreme Court

“The term, “natural born Citizen” has been so bastardized, that even logic, and precedence, play no part in the definition liberals use to circumvent the requirement for POTUS eligibility.”…Citizen Wells commenter bob strauss

“No matter what one thinks of his politics, Ted Cruz is NOT constitutionally eligible. And the two major political party lawyers Katyal and Clement can spin and put out disinformation to lend support to constitutionally ineligible people in both major parties, but they cannot change the original intent, meaning, and understanding of who is a “natural born Citizen” which comes from Natural Law and not man-made laws or acts of Congress. Both major political parties are out to dilute and abrogate the original intent, meaning, and understanding of the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II of our Constitution and why it was put there. Being simply ‘born a Citizen’ was proposed and not accepted. The founders and framers added the adjective “natural”. And that adjective comes from Natural Law. Adjectives mean something. Look up the meaning of the adjective “natural” when it comes to legal meaning in front of a noun.”…CDR Charles Kerchner

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

 

Presidential candidate Ted Cruz on an interview by Sean Hannity on March 23, 2015 stated that he is a natural born citizen. The argument that he used, having a US citizen mother, only makes him a citizen and not natural born citizen.

“I was born in Calgary,”

“My mother is an American citizen by birth … [and] by federal law, the child of an American citizen born abroad is a citizen at birth, a natural born citizen, which is what the Constitution requires.”

Starting at minute 4:47.

Ted Cruz continues to talk about the constitution but is ignoring and disrespecting it when he claims to be a natural born citizen.

If Ted Cruz believes in the US Constitution, is a patriot and intelligent, he will get this matter settled as soon as possible.

As I recently wrote, a simple request from the FEC for an advisory opinion as to his eligibility for federal matching funds will get the ball rolling. He has to be a natural born citizen to receive those funds.

Ultimately the US Supreme Court needs to do their job and settle the matter once and for all.

Getting a nod from your cronies at Harvard and the Law Review will not suffice.

We are not fooled.

We are also fed up with the chicanery of your fellow Harvard alumnus Barack Obama.

If you want our support, put your actions where your mouth is.

No more smooth talking attorney speak.

Wells

Citizen Wells Request of Cruz January 27, 2015.

“For the good of the country I am requesting that Ted Cruz, at the earliest possible moment, request an advisory opinion from the FEC about his eligibility for Federal Matching funds and therefore the presidency.”

http://citizenwells.com/2015/01/27/ted-cruz-eligible-for-presidency-ted-cruz-natural-born-citizen-cruz-a-patriot-ted-cruz-advisory-opinion-from-fec-natural-born-citizen-not-citizen-naturalized-citizen-abdul-hassan-not-eligibl/

Some recent comments at Citizen Wells.

CDR Charles Kerchner.

“No matter what one thinks of his politics, Ted Cruz is NOT constitutionally eligible. And the two major political party lawyers Katyal and Clement can spin and put out disinformation to lend support to constitutionally ineligible people in both major parties, but they cannot change the original intent, meaning, and understanding of who is a “natural born Citizen” which comes from Natural Law and not man-made laws or acts of Congress. Both major political parties are out to dilute and abrogate the original intent, meaning, and understanding of the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II of our Constitution and why it was put there. Being simply ‘born a Citizen’ was proposed and not accepted. The founders and framers added the adjective “natural”. And that adjective comes from Natural Law. Adjectives mean something. Look up the meaning of the adjective “natural” when it comes to legal meaning in front of a noun. See section 212 of this legal treatise on the Principles of Natural Law which was written in 1758 Vattel, the 1775 edition which was edited and published by Dumas and was much used by the founders and framers: http://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/ Read:http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html and http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2015/03/ina-post-on-harvard-law-review-forum.html and http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html CDR Kerchner (Ret) – ProtectOurLiberty.org”

“If Ted Cruz (and/or his CruzBots or the Obots pumping indirectly to help Cruz to help provide cover for Obama in case it surfaces that Obama really was not physically born in HI) wish to point to the 1790 or 1795 Naturalization Acts as a way of claiming “natural born Citizen” status, then they also are admitting that Cruz is a “naturalized” Citizen by the very title of those man-made laws. “natural born Citizens” are created by the laws of nature and natural law and need no statutory law or act of Congress to recognize them as such. See again how the 1795 naturalization act repealed and replaced the 1790 act removing what children born overseas to U.S. citizen parents are considered to be at to type of Citizenship: http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html CDR Kerchner (Ret) – ProtectOurLiberty.org”

Commenter bob strauss.

““Again, at first glance this appears to provide a neat little soundbite for Obama supporters. But it doesn’t. The quote above is taken out of context. The Court’s opinion goes on to state:”

“Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided…that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since.”

Here, the Minor Court cites the first naturalization act of 1790 to the effect that persons born of US citizen parents – outside the jurisdiction of the US – are “considered as natural-born citizens”. So, here we can see that while the Minor Court only recognizes two paths to citizenship, birth and naturalization… it is clear that some persons who, at the time of their birth, are US citizens, require naturalization for such status.

So, it’s clear that while there are only two paths to US citizenship, birth and naturalization, those two paths sometimes merge. But naturalized citizens are not eligible to be President. (The Minor Court failed to mention that the words “natural-born” were repealed from the naturalization act of 1795.)

Additionally, the current US Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, at “7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency“, comments on the 1790 act as follows:

“This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.”

https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

Read more comments here:

http://citizenwells.com/2015/03/24/wnd-article-omits-critical-words-from-us-constitution-on-presidential-eligibility-cheryl-chumley-replaces-at-the-time-of-the-adoption-of-this-constitution-with-why-joseph-farah-seen-this/

WND article omits critical words from US Constitution on presidential eligibility, Cheryl Chumley replaces at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution with …, Why?, Joseph Farah seen this?

WND article omits critical words from US Constitution on presidential eligibility, Cheryl Chumley replaces at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution with …, Why?, Joseph Farah seen this?

“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

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

 

Words matter.

Especially in the US Constitution.

Especially when they define the eligibility for president of the US.

So the question is, why did Cheryl Chumley omit them?

From WND March 24, 2015.

“DONALD TRUMP GOES BIRTHER ON TED CRUZ”

“Section One, Article Two of the Constitution states “no person except a natural born citizen, or citizen of the United States … shall be eligible to the office of president.””

Read more:

http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/donald-trump-goes-birther-on-ted-cruz/

Why did she leave out:

“at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”

which is crucial to the statement and to differentiate between citizen and natural born citizen?

Much of the tone of this article is atypical for a WND article.

It resembles work from the left or “1984.”

Read the full article and let me know.

She left out 9 words.

9 very important words.

I can only think of one plausible answer.

The same conclusion you are arriving at.

24 hours within Glenn Beck using citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably.

“‘It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn’t only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take “good”, for instance. If you have a word like “good”, what need is there for a word like “bad”? “Ungood” will do just as well — better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of “good”, what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like “excellent” and “splendid” and all the rest of them? “Plusgood” covers the meaning, or “doubleplusgood” if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already. but in the final version of Newspeak there’ll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words — in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.’s idea originally, of course,’ he added as an afterthought.”…George Orwell “1984”

Donald Trump questions Ted Cruz eligibility, Cruz born in Canada, Not natural born citizen, Section one article two US Constitution, McCain 2 US citizen parents born on US base

Donald Trump questions Ted Cruz eligibility, Cruz born in Canada, Not natural born citizen, Section one article two US Constitution, McCain 2 US citizen parents born on US base

“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

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

 

Why did WND leave out part of the constitution below:

“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 . . . .”

From WND March 24, 2015.

“Billionaire businessman Donald Trump – who’s recently made moves toward a 2016 White House run – reacted swiftly to Sen. Ted Cruz’s announced presidential campaign kick-off, saying on MyFoxNY the fiery Texan still has a substantial obstacle to overcome: His birth place.

“Well, he’s got, you know, a hurdle that nobody else seems to have at this moment,” Trump said, in reference to Cruz’s Canadian place of birth. “It’s a hurdle and somebody could certainly look at it very seriously. He was born in Canada … if you know … and when we all studied our history lessons … you’re supposed to be born in this country, so I just don’t know how the courts would rule on it. But it’s an additional hurdle that he has that no one else seems to have.””

“Cruz isn’t the only presidential candidate to have his eligibility questioned in regards to birth place. Sen. John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father served in the military, fought off a brief court challenge to his eligibility to serve as president during his run for the high office in 2008, Politifact reported. And of course, President Obama’s stated birth place of Hawaii has been an item of controversy for years, with many – including Trump, at points – insisting he was born in Kenya.

Section One, Article Two of the Constitution states “no person except a natural born citizen, or citizen of the United States … shall be eligible to the office of president.” But the document doesn’t define “natural born citizen,” and that’s where the differences of opinion arise. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has never clarified.

“The origins of the Natural Born Citizenship Clause date back to a letter John Jay (who later authored several of the Federalist Papers and served as our first chief justice) wrote to George Washington, then president of the Constitutional Convention, on July 25, 1787,” wrote Sarah Helene Duggin, professor of law and director of the Law and Public Policy Program at Columbus School of Law at Catholic University of America, in a 2013 post for the National Constitution Center.

She went on: “At the time … framers worried about ‘ambitious foreigners who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.’ … [So] the natural-born citizenship language appeared in the draft Constitution the Committee of Eleven presented to the Convention. There is no record of any debate on the clause.””

Read more:

http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/donald-trump-goes-birther-on-ted-cruz/

 

Blagojevich appeal status March 24, 2015, Sentence shortened or Obama pardon?, Obama cronies Rezko and Blagojevich know corruption details, Will Rod Blagojevich rat on Obama?

Blagojevich appeal status March 24, 2015, Sentence shortened or Obama pardon?, Obama cronies Rezko and Blagojevich know corruption details, Will Rod Blagojevich rat on Obama?

Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

 

You don’t suppose…

Two Obama cronies are languishing in prison.

Tony Rezko and Rod Blagojevich.

Tony Rezko has indicated that he would not rat out his buddy Obama.

Rod Blagojevich, in the approx. 3 percent of wiretaps released, inadvertently ratted out Obama.

You don’t suppose that Rezko, of Syrian birth, made a deal with Obama related to Syria?

I do suppose that Obama and Blagojevich have a deal. It probably involves others including former prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

Despite the lies told by Fitzgerald about the rapid arrest of Blagojevich, the prosecution and legal process of his trials and appeals has dragged out forever.

Remember, the feds knew about and began investigating the Blagojevich Administration by at least late 2003.

I stated some time ago that I believe that Blagojevich’s sentence would likely be reduced, that is, if Obama doesn’t pardon him first.

From Citizen Wells January 1, 2014.

“So far no one has ratted on Obama.

Tony Rezko said that he wouldn’t.

Some never had the chance.

Orlando Jones
Donald Young
Quarles Harris Jr.
Christopher Kelly
Bill Gwatney
Andrew Breitbart
Loretta Fuddy

I believe that Rod Blagojevich made a deal with Obama. Probably beginning in 2006.

I believe that Blagojevich, who was deeper under investigation than Obama, agreed to take the heat for a reduced or pardoned sentence.

ObamaBlagoNov2008

A lot of interesting things can happen in 2014.

We will know the results of the Blagojevich appeal ruling within a few weeks.

I believe that he will get a sentence reduction or a new trial.

This will determine what Obama does next. And of course Obama not being impeached or arrested will too.

If Obama does not lose senate control in 2014, I believe that he will pardon Blagojevich.

Of course the AL Supreme Court may rule that Obama is ineligible.

The Sheriff Joe Arpaio investigation may convince enough congressmen to investigate Obama.

Dead men don’t talk or do they?

There are plenty still alive who may talk. Even Tony Rezko.

The economy has been propped up by smoke and mirrors. That can only work so long.

Despite the best efforts of the media to talk of an economic recovery the economy on your street, not Wall St. has been heavily impacted.

Millions are unemployed, working part time, receiving food stamps and now being charged more for their healthcare insurance.

The media and Obama camp are trying to prop up the economy through the 2014 elections. They have to win.

By their own admission Obama could be impeached otherwise.

My hope for 2014 is that Obama is arrested and removed from office.

Survival of our nation depends on it.

http://citizenwells.com/2014/01/01/2014-obama-blagojevich-rezko-economy-collapse-arpaio-investigation-of-obama-fraud-al-supreme-court-ruling-fuddy-death-wall-st-vs-your-street-democrats-need-to-win-2014-elections-may-get-trumped/