Category Archives: Founding Fathers

Founding Fathers

Obama ballot challenges, Natural born citizen deficiency, Courts must decide, US Constitution rules, Supreme Court must provide ruling

Obama ballot challenges, Natural born citizen deficiency, Courts must decide, US Constitution rules, Supreme Court must provide ruling

“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

Once again, as in 2008, we are confronted with the eligibility of Barack Obama for the presidency and to be on ballots nationwide. Once again, we have debate
among concerned citizens as well as legal scholars about the definition of natural born citizen, one of the requirements of the US Constitution. Once again
we have judges avoiding rulings, making excuses such as lack of standing and using inappropriate “precedents” for their decisions. Once again, as in 2008, we
have a Supreme Court that has not done their job, to clarify the law, the definition of natural born citizen.

Marbury v Madison is perhaps the most quoted US Judicial Opinion in US History. I have quoted it often myself. It is fitting and proper that I present it now.

“Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the court.

In the order in which the court has viewed this subject, the following questions have been considered and decided:
1st. Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?
2dly. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?
3dly. If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court?

The first object of enquiry is: Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?

His right originates in an act of congress passed in February, 1801, concerning the district of Columbia. This law enacts, “that there shall be appointed in
and for each of the said counties, such number of discreet persons to be justices of the peace as the president of the United States shall, from time to
time, think expedient, to continue in office for five years.”

It appears, from the affidavits, that in compliance with this law, a commission for William Marbury as a justice of peace for the county of Washington, was
signed by John Adams, then president of the United States; after which the seal of the United States was affixed to it; but the commission has never reached
the person for whom it was made out.

In order to determine whether he is entitled to this commission, it becomes necessary to enquire whether he has been appointed to the office. For if he has
been appointed, the law continues him in office for five years, and he is entitled to the possession of those evidences of office, which, being completed,
became his property.

The 2d section of the 2d article of the constitution, declares, that “the president shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the senate,
shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not otherwise provided
for.” The third section declares, that “he shall commission all the officers of the United States.” An act of congress directs the secretary of state to keep
the seal of the United States, “to make out and record, and affix the said seal to all civil commissions to officers of the United States, to be appointed by
the President, by and with the consent of the senate, or by the President alone; provided that the said seal shall not be affixed to any commission before
the same shall have been signed by the President of the United States.”

These are the clauses of the constitution and laws of the United States, which affect this part of the case. They seem to contemplate three distinct
operations:
1st, The nomination. This is the sole act of the President, and is completely voluntary.
2d. The appointment. This is also the act of the President, and is also a voluntary act, though it can only be performed by and with the advice and consent of the senate.
3d. The commission. To grant a commission to a person appointed, might perhaps be deemed a duty enjoined by the constitution. “He shall,” says that
instrument, “commission all the officers of the United States.”

This is an appointment by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, and is evidenced by no act but the commission itself…. The last
act to be done by the President, is the signature of the commission. He has then acted on the advice and consent of the senate to his own nomination. The
time for deliberations has then passed. He has decided. His judgment, on the advice and consent of the senate concurring with his nomination, has been made, and the officer is appointed. This appointment is evidenced by an open, unequivocal act; and being the last act required from the person making it,
necessarily excludes the idea of its being, so far as respects the appointment, an inchoate and incomplete transaction.

The signature is a warrant for affixing the great seal to the commission; and the great seal is only to be affixed to an instrument which is complete. It
asserts, by an act supposed to be of public notoriety, the verity of the Presidential signature.

It is never to be affixed till the commission is signed, because the signature, which gives force and effect to the commission, is conclusive evidence that
the appointment is made.

The commission being signed, the subsequent duty of the secretary of state is prescribed by law, and not to be guided by the will of the President. He is to
affix the seal of the United States to the commission, and is to record it.

This is not a proceeding which may be varied, if the judgment of the executive shall suggest one more eligible; but is a precise course accurately marked out
by law, and is to be strictly pursued. It is the duty of the secretary of state to conform to the law, and in this he is an officer of the United States,
bound to obey the laws. He acts, in this regard, as has been very properly stated at the bar, under the authority of law, and not by the instructions of the
President. It is a ministerial act which the law enjoins on a particular officer for a particular purpose….

The discretion of the executive is to be exercised until the appointment has been made. But having once made the appointment, his power over the office is
terminated in all cases, where, by law, the officer is not removable by him. The right to the office is then in the person appointed, and he has the
absolute, unconditional, power of accepting or rejecting it.

Mr. Marbury, then, since his commission was signed by the President, and sealed by the secretary of state, was appointed; and as the law creating the office, gave the officer a right to hold for five years, independent of the executive, the appointment was not revocable; but vested in the officer legal rights, which are protected by the laws of his country.

To withhold his commission, therefore, is an act deemed by the court not warranted by law, but violative of a vested legal right.

This brings us to the second enquiry; which is, 2dly. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?

The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury.
One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.

By the constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own
discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience. To aid him in the performance of these duties, he
is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act by his authority and in conformity with his orders.

In such cases, their acts are his acts; and whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists,
and can exist, no power to control that discretion. The subjects are political. They respect the nation, not individual rights, and being entrusted to the
executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive. The application of this remark will be perceived by adverting to the act of congress for establishing
the department of foreign affairs. This office, as his duties were prescribed by that act, is to conform precisely to the will of the President. He is the
mere organ by whom that will is communicated. The acts of such an officer, as an officer, can never be examinable by the courts.

But when the legislature proceeds to impose on that officer other duties; when he is directed peremptorily to perform certain acts; when the rights of
individuals are dependent on the performance of those acts; he is so far the officer of the law; is amenable to the laws for his conduct; and cannot at his
discretion sport away the vested rights of others.

The conclusion from this reasoning is, that where the heads of departments are the political or confidential agents of the executive, merely to execute the
will of the President, or rather to act in cases in which the executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear
than that their acts are only politically examinable. But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that
duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured, has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy.

If this be the rule, let us enquire how it applies to the case under the consideration of the court.

The power of nominating to the senate, and the power of appointing the person nominated, are political powers, to be exercised by the President according to
his own discretion. When he has made an appointment, he has exercised his whole power, and his discretion has been completely applied to the case.

The question whether a right has vested or not, is, in its nature, judicial, and must be tried by the judicial authority. If, for example, Mr. Marbury had
taken the oaths of a magistrate, and proceeded to act as one; in consequence of which a suit had been instituted against him, in which his defence had
depended on his being a magistrate; the validity of his appointment must have been determined by judicial authority.

So, if he conceives that, by virtue of his appointment, he has a legal right, either to the commission which has been made out for him, or to a copy of that
commission, it is equally a question examinable in a court, and the decision of the court upon it must depend on the opinion entertained of his appointment.

That question has been discussed, and the opinion is, that the latest point of time which can be taken as that at which the appointment was complete, and
evidenced, was when, after the signature of the president, the seal of the United States was affixed to the commission.

It is then the opinion of the court: 1st. That by signing the commission of Mr. Marbury, the president of the United States appointed him a justice of
peace, for the county of Washington in the district of Columbia; and that the seal of the United States, affixed thereto by the secretary of state, is
conclusive testimony of the verity of the signature, and of the completion of the appointment; and that the appointment conferred on him a legal right to the
office for the space of five years. 2dly. That, having this legal title to the office, he has a consequent right to the commission; a refusal to deliver
which, is a plain violation of that right, for which the laws of his country afford him a remedy.

It remains to be enquired whether, 3dly. He is entitled to the remedy for which he applies. This depends on, 1st. The nature of the writ applied for, and,
2dly. The power of this court.

1st. The nature of the writ.

If one of the heads of departments commits any illegal act, under the color of his office, by which an individual sustains an injury, it cannot be pretended
that his office alone exempts him from being sued in the ordinary mode of proceeding, and being compelled to obey the judgment of the law. How then can his
office exempt him from this particular mode of deciding on the legality of his conduct, if the case be such a case as would, were any other individual the
party complained of, authorize the process?

It is not by the office of the person to whom the writ is directed, but the nature of the thing to be done that the propriety or impropriety of issuing a
mandamus, is to be determined. Where the head of a department acts in a case, in which executive discretion is to be exercised; in which he is the mere organ
of executive will; it is again repeated, that any application to a court to control, in any respect, his conduct, would be rejected without hesitation.

But where he is directed by law to do a certain act affecting the absolute rights of individuals, in the performance of which he is not placed under the
particular direction of the President, and the performance of which, the President cannot lawfully forbid, and therefore is never presumed to have forbidden; as for example, to record a commission which has received all the legal solemnities, it is not perceived on what ground the courts of the country are further excused from the duty of giving judgment, that right be done to an injured individual, than if the same services were to be performed by a person not the head of a department….

It was at first doubted whether the action of detinue was not a specified legal remedy for the commission which has been withheld from Mr. Marbury; in which case a mandamus would be improper. But this doubt has yielded to the consideration that the judgment in detinue is for the thing itself, or its value. The
value of a public office not to be sold, is incapable of being ascertained; and the applicant has a right to the office itself, or to nothing. He will obtain
the office by obtaining the commission, or a copy of it from the record.

This, then, is a plain case for a mandamus, either to deliver the commission, or a copy of it from the record; and it only remains to be enquired, Whether it
can issue from this court.

The act to establish the judicial courts of the United States authorizes the supreme court “to issue writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles
and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.”

The secretary of state, being a person holding an office under the authority of the United States, is precisely within the letter of the description; and if
this court is not authorized to issue a writ of mandamus to such an officer, it must be because the law is unconstitutional, and therefore absolutely
incapable of conferring the authority, and assigning the duties which its words purport to confer and assign.

The constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as congress shall, from time to time,
ordain and establish. This power is expressly extended to all cases arising under the laws of the United States; and consequently, in some form, may be
exercised over the present case; because the right claimed is given by a law of the United States.

In the distribution of this power it is declared that “the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction.”

It has been insisted, at the bar, that as the original grant of jurisdiction, to the supreme and inferior courts, is general, and the clause, assigning
original jurisdiction to the supreme court, contains no negative or restrictive words; the power remains to the legislature, to assign original jurisdiction
to that court in other cases than those specified in the article which has been recited; provided those cases belong to the judicial power of the United
States.

If it had been intended to leave it to the discretion of the legislature to apportion the judicial power between the supreme and inferior courts according to
the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial powers, and the tribunals in which it
should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage, is entirely without meaning, if such is to be the construction. If congress remains
at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction, where the constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original; and original jurisdiction
where the constitution has declared it shall be appellate; the distribution of jurisdiction, made in the constitution, is form without substance.

Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed; and in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given
to them or they have no operation at all.

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such a construction is inadmissible, unless the
words require it.

When an instrument organizing fundamentally a judicial system, divides it into one supreme, and so many inferior courts as the legislature may ordain and
establish; then enumerates its powers, and proceeds so far to distribute them, as to define the jurisdiction of the supreme court by declaring the cases in
which it shall take original jurisdiction, and that in others it shall take appellate jurisdiction; the plain import of the words seems to be, that in one
class of cases its jurisdiction is original, and not appellate; in the other it is appellate, and not original. If any other construction would render the
clause inoperative, that is an additional reason for rejecting such other construction, and for adhering to their obvious meaning.

To enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise
appellate jurisdiction.

It has been stated at the bar that the appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in a variety of forms, and that if it be the will of the legislature that a
mandamus should be used for that purpose, that will must be obeyed. This is true, yet the jurisdiction must be appellate, not original.

It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction, that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create that
cause. Although, therefore, a mandamus may be directed to courts, yet to issue such a writ to an officer for the delivery of a paper, is in effect the same
as to sustain an original action for that paper, and therefore seems not to belong to appellate, but to original jurisdiction. Neither is it necessary in
such a case as this, to enable the court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction.

The authority, therefore, given to the supreme court, by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States, to issue writs of mandamus to public
officers, appears not to be warranted by the constitution; and it becomes necessary to enquire whether a jurisdiction, so conferred, can be exercised.

The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but,
happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well
established, to decide it.

That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own
happiness, is the basis, on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor
ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is
supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns, to different departments, their respective powers. It may either stop here; or
establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be
mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if
these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is
abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a
proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the
constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a
level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written
constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power, in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the
theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.

If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it
effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was
established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

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.

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that
case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of
these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such
ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining
that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of
our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden,
such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the
same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at
pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions — a written constitution — would of itself be
sufficient, in America, where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of
the constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favor of its rejection.

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to
say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the
instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to be maintained.

In some cases then, the constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read, or to
obey? There are many other parts of the constitution which serve to illustrate this subject. It is declared that “no tax or duty shall be laid on articles
exported from any state.” Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour; and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered
in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the constitution, and only see the law. The constitution declares that “no bill of attainder or ex
post facto law shall be passed.”
If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it; must the court condemn to death those victims whom the constitution
endeavors to preserve?

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official
character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to
support!

The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on the subject. It is in these words, “I do
solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and
impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of
the United States.”

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if
it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written
constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marbury.HTML

I find the following statements to be particularly relevant today and to posterity.

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect;”

“Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a
level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written
constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power, in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the
theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.”

“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.”

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if
it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written
constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

Obama Missouri Ballot Challenge, Hector Maldonado, Former US Senate candidate, Combat veteran, MO Secretary of State challenged Maldonado in 2010

Obama Missouri Ballot Challenge, Hector Maldonado, Former US Senate candidate, Combat veteran, MO Secretary of State challenged Maldonado in 2010

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“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

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

From The Post & Email February 13, 2012.

“Obama Ballot Challenge Filed in Missouri”

“BY FORMER U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE AND COMBAT VETERAN”

“Dear Patriots,
I am dedicated to the ideal that each of us can impact the outcome of the 2012 elections. This Tuesday ironically Valentine’s Day 2012, at 08:15am in hearing room 5, in the basement of the Missouri state capitol building there will be a hearing on the second attempt to force the Missouri Secretary of State to properly have vetted and certify with best evidence available, the credentials of the President and the Vice President in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

In 2010, during my campaign for the U.S. Senate; I was required to provide evidence of eligibility to run for office. If I had failed to do so by such date, I was going to be removed from the primary ballot by the Secretary of State. In my case she was doing her job and I proudly obliged. Later, I found out that I was singled out or flagged according to the person at the elections office.

The president continues to profess that we are all to play by the same set of rules. As such I have taken it my personal responsibility to ensure that all candidates running for federal office this year play by the same set of rules. All candidates, including the President and Vice President need to provide irrefutable proof of eligibility. Furthermore, in spite of the 2000 report from the inspectors general office published in Kansas City, all documents must be submitted and verified for authenticity. No exceptions will be made if we are all to truly play by the same set of rules.”

“Today we are more divided than we ever have been in American history.  We find elected state and federal officials take an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution but then turn a check to suit political interest. As an officer in the United States Army, I have taken that same oath five times in my 15 years of service.  The first time I took the oath was on August 14, 1995 when I became an American citizen.  American Military men and women like me take that oath seriously and we are willing to give our lives to defend it.  It’s a personal insult to Veterans when politicians ignore their duty to support and defend the U.S. Constitution and they don’t.   There is a complete lack of true transparency and oversight in our political process.”

“This hearing to me is not about any single person.  Rather it’s about the integrity of our complete governing system.  As evident in the 2000 report, document fraud is prevalent in all aspects of our lives. Of which the most prevalent is birth certificate fraud and identity theft.   Document fraud cost Missouri Taxpayers millions of dollars every year, it cost the U.S. Government billions of dollars every year.  If we are to protect our political, economic, and national security interest whilst at the same time save tax-payer dollars by cracking down on welfare fraud, voter fraud, identity theft, healthcare fraud what better place to start than at the top if we are all to play by the same set of rules?  We have established long ago, during the Nixon Administration that no one, including the President is above the law.”

Read more:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/02/13/obama-ballot-challenge-filed-in-missouri/

Thanks to commenter observer.

January 3, 2012, Obama eligibility press conference, New Hampsire House of Representatives, Laurence Rappaport, Obama not Natural Born Citizen

January 3, 2012, Obama eligibility press conference, New Hampsire House of Representatives, Laurence Rappaport, Obama not Natural Born Citizen

“Why did Obama, prior to occupying the White House, employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to assist him in avoiding the presentation of a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“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

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

From the Post & Email January 1, 2012.

“New Hampshire House of Representatives Members to Hold Press Conference on Obama’s Eligibility on January 3″

“WE NEED TO INFORM THE PUBLIC”
“On January 3, 2012, several members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives will hold a press conference with the primary purpose of informing New Hampshire citizens and registered voters that Barack Hussein Obama may not be eligible to serve as president and therefore should not have his name appear on the 2012 presidential ballot.

The time and place are tentatively set for 10:00 a.m. outside of the Legislative Office Building in Concord.

The website of the New Hampshire House of Representatives provides the following history regarding its beginnings:

Although threatened with reprisals from the British Crown and a bitterly divided constituency, New Hampshire’s leaders set the course for self-government in January 1776. Determined to keep the government close to the people, our forefathers fixed the size of the House of Representatives as a direct ratio to the state’s population. The first House consisted of 87 members, each one representing 100 families. As time passed and the population increased, the number of Representatives grew, until there were 443. In 1942, a constitutional amendment limited the size of the House to 400 but not less than 375 members. As a result, the New Hampshire House is the largest state legislative body in the United States.
New Hampshire has the largest House of Representatives in the nation. The Concord Monitor has stated that New Hampshire has “the most localized representation of any state in the country.”

On November 15, 2011, Atty. Orly Taitz filed a complaint with the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission regarding the placing of Obama’s name on the state ballot, citing his use of a social security number not assigned to him as well as having presented two forged birth certificates as proof that he was born in Hawaii. Several state representatives joined the complaint, and citizens from around the country filed challenges as well. A U.S. Army reserve retired colonel has launched a campaign to prevent Obama’s name from being included on the New Hampshire ballot.
The New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission responded to Taitz by holding a hearing on November 18, during which Taitz presented her case challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility, focusing on the crimes which she alleged he committed.

Although the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s office has disallowed candidates from running for the presidency due to foreign birthplaces in the recent past, the decision of the Ballot Law Commission was that because Obama completed the application and paid the requisite $1,000 fee, it could not prevent his name from appearing on the 2012 ballot.

Atty. Taitz has since stated that “massive election fraud” is occurring in New Hampshire because it appears that in 2008, boxes of ballots were left out on tables rather than locked in a vault, which Gardner admitted in a video to be a deviation from standard protocol.

Nine members of the New Hampshire House attended the hearing of the Ballot Law Commission, one of whom was Rep. Laurence Rappaport (R-Coos). Rappaport stated that there were nine representatives present at the Ballot Law Commission hearing and that some or all of them organized the press conference to be held on Tuesday, January 3, 2012.

We first asked him about his reaction to the outcome of the Ballot Law Commission hearing, he responded, “I was extremely disappointed.”
We then asked him about the investigation called for by Attorney General Michael Delaney regarding alleged misconduct on the part of some of the representatives at the Ballot Law Commission hearing. Rappaport’s response was, “There were two investigations. One was by the House Security, run by Randy Joyner, and he reported to the Speaker of the House, and the Attorney General asked the State Police to investigate. Neither one of them contacted me, probably because although I was there, I never said anything. The results of the investigation, as I understand it, were that there were no threats made, and it was basically a non-event.”

Rappaport said that at the time we spoke with him on December 31, a statement to be made at the press conference was in second-draft format. Working on the statement with him are Reps. Lou and Carol Vita and Harry Accornero.

“What we really need to do is emphasize that Barack Obama was not eligible and is not eligible to become president. At the Ballot Law hearing, the Commission and the Assistant Secretary of State said publicly, under oath, on the record, that their authority was only to see that the paperwork was properly filled out and that the $1,000 fee was paid. If you go back a little farther, you find out that they had disqualified a man named Sal Mohamed and another named Abdul Hassan. There are letters, of which we have copies, signed by Karen Ladd, the Assistant Secretary of State. So we applied for a rehearing, which was denied, and we applied to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and last week they denied us a hearing. We can provide complete copies of all of these challenges.””

Read more:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/01/new-hampshire-house-of-representatives-members-to-hold-press-conference-on-obamas-eligibility-on-january-3/

Thanks to commenter Imuha.

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.