Category Archives: Vermont

Vermont

Vermont Cruz Rubio eligibility lawsuit update January 18, 2016, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio served summons and amended complaint, H. Brooke Paige hired process servers Baker Investigations

Vermont Cruz Rubio eligibility lawsuit update January 18, 2016, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio served summons and amended complaint, H. Brooke Paige hired process servers Baker Investigations

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“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

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

Just in from Mr. H. Brooke Paige, plaintiff in the complaint against the State of Vermont, Secretary of State James Condos and Attorney General William Sorrell.

“Superior Court Judge Timothy Tomasi granted Plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint. The State filed an opposition brief limited to the issue of the Motion for a TRO, they have yet to Answer the Verified Complaint and have
been given until January 26 to answer or be found in default. Plaintiff
filed his amended brief naming Cruz and Rubio as indispensable parties
since their Petitions and Consent Forms were confirmed by the Secretary of
State. ”

“Wednesday the Judge scheduled a hearing on the TRO for Friday the 15th. On Friday the Plaintiff filed his Response to Defendant’s Opposition Brief and the Hearing was attended by Plaintiff and State Defendants who had summoned the Director of Elections to testify. Substantive evidence was provided by the Plaintiff and confirmed under oath by the Director of Elections under cross-examination revealing numerous defects and errors in the process and procedures including counting signatures of many individuals who were not registered. In dozens of instances were not even residents (or inhabitants) of Vermont including the citizens of  CT, NY, NJ, MA and even FL who because the
Petitions were not labeled as for the Vermont Primary did not required the
signatories to certify that they were in fact registered Vermont voters.
Incredibly the Director of Elections testified that his office did not
believe they were required to confirm that the petition signatories were
on the voters rolls in Vermont, rather that they were only required to
determine that the signatures were legible and nothing more. Welcome to
Vermont’s Wild West of Elections where few care about the integrity of the
election process, in fact most probably do not even understand the
concept. In the end the Judge did not grant the TRO citing that the
public interest and concerns over voter disenfranchisement outweighed the
injury to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff will receive the Return of Service and
the executed Summonses on Tuesday for the new Defendants and will file
them with the Court that day, starting the 20 day clock for the new
Defendants to answer or otherwise file a response with the Court.”

Mr. Paige hired Baker Investigations and Process Servers to serve
the Summons and Amended Complaint on the out-of-state Defendants Cruz and
Rubio during their visit to Charleston SC in advance of their appearances
on the Fox Business News Republican Debate. Owner Elizabeth Baker
personally served both Cruz and Rubio on Wednesday January 13, as they
arrived in Charleston.

Photos courtesy of Baker Investigations and Process Servers.

PaigeSummonsCruz

PaigeSummonsRubio

According to Mr. Paige, Elizabeth Baker described the Rubio campaign folks as very accommodating and congenial while the Cruz folks were willing to
cooperate although they seemed less cordial and Boston lawyers contacted
the Plaintiff attempting to substitute “electronic service” for personal
service required by the Court.

Original complaint:

Ted Cruz Rubio and Jindal eligibility challenged in Vermont, H. Brooke Paige complaint filed December 9, 2015, Natural born citizen status requires US birth and 2 citizen parents, Attorney Mario Apuzzo explains founding fathers intent

Vermont Ted Cruz eligibility challenge update January 1, 2016, H. Brooke Paige v State of Vermont, Attorney General Bill Sorrell neglects to file timely answer, Notice of Default, Court request for Secretary of State Jim Condos to take appropriate actions

Vermont Ted Cruz eligibility challenge update January 1, 2016, H. Brooke Paige v State of Vermont, Attorney General Bill Sorrell neglects to file timely answer, Notice of Default, Court request for Secretary of State Jim Condos to take appropriate actions

“According to the  US Citizenship and Immigration Services Ted Cruz was not a US citizen at birth and consequently not a natural born citizen.”…Citizen Wells

“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 are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

Just in from Mr. H. Brooke Paige, plaintiff in complaint against the State of Vermont, Secretary of State James Condos and Attorney General William Sorrell.

“Vermont’s Attorney General Neglects to File Timely Answer in Paige v.
State of Vermont, et al (2015) – An Unexpected and Encouraging Event that
Could Expedite the Case !

It Appears the Vermont’s Attorney General Bill Sorrell has gotten cold
feet when it comes to the issue of the “natural-born Citizen” question and
numerous deficiencies in Vermont’s Primary and General Election process
(Title 17),

In the case currently before the Vermont Superior Court, Washington Unit,
Paige v. State of Vermont, et al, Civil Docket #780-12-15, was filed with
the court on December 8, 2015 and service of process was executed by the
Washington CO. Sheriff’s on December 11, 2015 with an Answer or Motion
required by the court 20 days after service today, December 31.

Mr. Paige visited the court clerk’s office at midday today (12/31/15) and
was informed that no communications had been received by the court from
the VT A/G’s office. The clerk confirmed that the answer was  required by
the close of business (4:30 PM) and suggested that he stop back then and
she would provide him with a copy of the filing – which both the clerk and
Mr. Paige were certain would be filed on time.

Mr. Paige arrived just before closing and was informed that the Attorney
General had not yet filed his answer and the clerk suggested he wait until
the office closed.  Mr. Paige waited until the bailiff came by to lock up
the courthouse – no timely response was by A/G Sorrell’s office on behalf
of the State, Secretary of State Jim Condos or Attorney General William
Sorrell (who is himself named as a co-defendant as a result of his
intentional misconduct in Mr. Paige’s prior ballot challenge before the
court)

Mr. Paige informs Citizen Wells that he will be filing his “Notice of
Default” with the court on Monday morning and will subsequently ask the
court for an expedited hearing on the merits, a directed verdict based
upon the Plaintiff’s Complaint and the issuance of an Order by the Court
directing Secretary of State Jim Condos to take appropriate actions to
mitigate and resolve the errors and deficiencies presented in his
Complaint.”

H. Brooke Paige

The complaint:

http://citizenwells.com/2015/12/30/ted-cruz-rubio-and-jindal-eligibility-challenged-in-vermont-h-brooke-paige-complaint-filed-december-9-2015-natural-born-citizen-status-requires-us-birth-and-2-citizen-parents-attorney-mario-apuzz/

 

Ted Cruz Rubio and Jindal eligibility challenged in Vermont, H. Brooke Paige complaint filed December 9, 2015, Natural born citizen status requires US birth and 2 citizen parents, Attorney Mario Apuzzo explains founding fathers intent

Ted Cruz Rubio and Jindal eligibility challenged in Vermont, H. Brooke Paige complaint filed December 9, 2015, Natural born citizen status requires US birth and 2 citizen parents, Attorney Mario Apuzzo explains founding fathers intent

“According to the  US Citizenship and Immigration Services Ted Cruz was not a US citizen at birth and consequently not a natural born citizen.”…Citizen Wells

“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 are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

I agree with H. Brooke Paige, CDR Charles Kerchner, Attorney Mario Apuzzo and many others that the the founding fathers understood the definition of natural born citizen meant birth on US soil to 2 US citizen parents.

Yesterday Mr. Paige presented Citizen Wells with a complaint filed against the State of Vermont, Secretary of State James Condos and Attorney General William Sorrell.

Here are some exerpts:

“10. While it may seem counterintuitive that such a weighty question as
that of the definition of the constitutional meaning of a presidential
qualification and the other questions raised in this action, should
originate in a state superior court – it is not only entirely
appropriate, it is an absolute necessity as no other authority or
jurisdiction is available to the Plaintiff and is the most logical,
constitutionally permissible jurisdiction in light of the federal
Constitution’s protections of the coequal branches of the federal
government and the principle of Separation of Powers embodied in said
Constitution of the United States (1790).

11. In 2008, Dr. Daniel Tokaji, Professor of Law at Ohio State
University, explained this essential legal pathway in his “The
Justiciability of Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President?”
(Exhibit D) which, after extensive analysis of question relating to the
constitutional qualification cases relating to Senator John McCain of
Arizona and then Senator Barack Hussein Obama of Illinois, concluded:

“(F)ederal lawsuits challenging the presidential candidates’ eligibility
to serve as president are not justiciable, and it is questionable whether
any justiciable case could be brought in federal court as an initial
matter. Fortunately, there are alternative means to adjudicate this matter
that are consistent with the U.S. Constitution. The most promising is a
pre-election state-court lawsuit seeking to keep an allegedly unqualified
candidate off the ballot. In the event that a renegade state court rejects
a candidate who is, in fact, eligible or that two or more state courts
reach conflicting conclusions on a candidate’s eligibility, U.S. Supreme
Court review should be available as a backstop. This avenue seems less
fraught with peril than congressional resolution of the matter, given
Congress’ dubious legal authority to not count electoral votes of a
candidate it believes ineligible. Those who seek to challenge a
presidential candidate’s eligibility would thus be well-advised to dust
off their state election codes and head to state court.”

“14. In the prior action the Defendants’ council, Attorney General Sorrell
through his assistant Todd Daloz,  attempted to obfuscate and confound
both the Plaintiff and the Court  with the issues of “ripeness” and
“mootness” of the issues raised. First arguing that the answers sought
could not be raised until AFTER the election had been conducted – a
tortured interpretation of 17 V.S.A. § 2732 and shortly thereafter, with
equal absurdity, arguing that the issues had become moot with the passage
of time.”

“22. In the 2016 Presidential Election, in addition to Socialist Party
candidates Lindsay and Osorio, who have vowed to run in every election
regardless of their constitutional qualification debility; three of the
Republican Party candidates are known to have birth circumstances that
preclude their qualifying for the office they are seeking.
(a) – Texas U.S. Senator, Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz, was born in Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, to a Cuban citizen father, Rafael, who became a
naturalized U.S. citizen in 2005, long after his son’s birth.
(b) – Louisiana Governor, Piyush (Bobby) Jindal, was born in Baton Rouge,
LA to Indian nationals who had recently arrived in the U.S. on visas at
the time of their son’s birth. His father, Amar, was in the U.S. on a P3-1
professional work visa while his mother, Raj, was in the U.S. on a student
visa: neither was a U.S. citizen at the time of their son’s birth. (c) –
Florida U.S. Senator, Marco Antonio Rubio, was born in Miami, FL to two
Cuban nationals who came to the U.S. before Castro came to power. Mario
Rubio Reina and Oriales (Garcia) Rubio left Cuba in 1956 and continuously
resided in Miami, however they did not become naturalized citizens until
1975, when Marco was already four years old.

None of the above mentioned candidates meet the “natural born Citizen”
qualification set forth in the U. S. Constitution for serving as President
of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Military. Mario Apuzzo,
Esq. has written a dissertation delineating the debilities of each of
these candidates which bars their serving:  “Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio,
and Governor Jindal Should Not Be Allowed to Participate…(2015)”  (Exhibit
H).”

Exhibits:

Some legal scholars maintain that being a citizen at birth qualifies as being a natural born citizen.

Even by that standard, according to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, Cruz is not a natural born citizen.

http://citizenwells.com/2015/12/14/ted-cruz-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen-and-not-eligible-for-presidency-not-a-citizen-at-birth-not-born-after-november-14-1986-media-and-democrats-are-waiting-to-challenge-cruz-ted-cruz-must-reque/

Obviously, the US Supreme Court needs to do their duty and settle this matter once and for all, irrespective of the impact on Barack Obama.

 

Vermont Supreme Court Justices should be impeached, Mootness of Presidential eligibility, Obama not natural born citizen, Paige V State of Obama, US code on vacancy due to failure to qualify

Vermont Supreme Court Justices should be impeached, Mootness of Presidential eligibility, Obama not natural born citizen, Paige V State of Obama, US code on vacancy due to failure to qualify

“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

“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.”

“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.”
“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.”

“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?”… Marbury versus Madison

 

 
Why is no one talking about this?

When I first read the Vermont Supreme Court decision on the appeal in Paige V State of Vermont, I was dumbfounded.

I will focus on the core stupidity of the decision:

“Recognized principles of mootness apply to the present case because it no longer involves a live controversy. Plaintiff has no legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Barack Obama’s name was on the ballot, and he is now the President of the United States.”

http://info.libraries.vermont.gov/supct/current/op2012-439.html

A) If Obama is not a natural born citizen he is not president. Period!
B) An individual otherwise appearing to be president can create a vacancy due to not being qualified. This is spelled out in the US Code.

3 U.S. Code § 19 – Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act

“(a)
(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.

(2) The same rule shall apply in the case of the death, resignation, removal from office, or inability of an individual acting as President under this subsection.

(b) If, at the time when under subsection (a) of this section a Speaker is to begin the discharge of the powers and duties of the office of President, there is no Speaker, or the Speaker fails to qualify as Acting President, then the President pro tempore of the Senate shall, upon his resignation as President pro tempore and as Senator, act as President.

(c) An individual acting as President under subsection (a) orsubsection (b) of this section shall continue to act until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, except that—

(1) if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the failure of both the President-elect and the Vice-President-elect to qualify, then he shall act only until a President or Vice President qualifies; and

(2) if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the inability of the President or Vice President, then he shall act only until the removal of the disability of one of such individuals.

(d)
(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is no President pro tempore to act as President under subsection (b) of this section, then the officer of the United States who is highest on the following list, and who is not under disability to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President shall act as President: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Education, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Secretary of Homeland Security.

(2) An individual acting as President under this subsection shall continue so to do until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, but not after a qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to act, except that the removal of the disability of an individual higher on the list contained in paragraph (1) of this subsection or the ability to qualify on the part of an individual higher on such list shall not terminate his service.

(3) The taking of the oath of office by an individual specified in the list in paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be held to constitute his resignation from the office by virtue of the holding of which he qualifies to act as President.

(e) Subsections (a), (b), and (d) of this section shall apply only to such officers as are eligible to the office of President under the Constitution. Subsection (d) of this section shall apply only to officers appointed, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, prior to the time of the death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, of the President pro tempore, and only to officers not under impeachment by the House of Representatives at the time the powers and duties of the office of President devolve upon them.

(f) During the period that any individual acts as President under this section, his compensation shall be at the rate then provided by law in the case of the President.”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/19

One or more of the VT Supreme Court Justices should be impeached.

Paige V State of Vermont has been presented to the US Supreme Court.

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/paige-v-state-of-vermont-et-al-us-supreme-court-writ-of-certiorari-march-7-2014-update-mario-apuzzo-and-counsel-obama-eligibility-natural-born-citizen-deficiency/

 

Vermont Supreme Court Obama eligibility, October 18, 2013, H. Brooke Paige appeal, VT justices rule case is moot, Obama already president???

Vermont Supreme Court Obama eligibility, October 18, 2013, H. Brooke Paige appeal, VT justices rule case is moot, Obama already president???

“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

“Barack Obama, show me the college loans.”…Citizen Wells

“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.”

“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.”
“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.”

“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?”… Marbury versus Madison

I received the email from H. Brooke Paige last night.

“VT Sup Court ruled today. Interesting decision that will allow us to
proceed to SCOTUS.”

Instead of expediting this case the lower court and VT Supreme Court dragged their feet thus making their decisions after the election.

In essence, the case is moot because Obama is already president and cannot run again.

“BURGESS, J. Plaintiff H. Brooke Paige appeals a decision by the Washington Superior Court, Civil Division, granting a motion to dismiss by the State and its Secretary of State James Condos.[1]
Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in dismissing the suit on jurisdictional grounds because injury to his life, liberty, and property confers standing, as do Vermont election statutes, 17 V.S.A. §§ 2603 and 2617. Plaintiff
also asserts that the past presidential election does not render his case moot because this Court can still provide declaratory relief. We disagree, and dismiss the appeal as moot.”

“¶ 6. The central question now before this Court on appeal is whether the mootness doctrine bars review of plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff argues this case is not moot because the Court can provide relief by declaring that Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen, and asserts that a controversy continues through plaintiff’s efforts to safeguard his life, liberty and property. Plaintiff also contends that this case satisfies two exceptions to the mootness doctrine. First, plaintiff anticipates that a situation involving an ineligible presidential candidate is capable of repetition yet evades review because President Obama may run for a third term if Congress repeals the Twenty-Second Amendment, or other presidential candidates not born of two U.S. citizens are likely to run
for president in the future. Second, plaintiff asserts that he suffers negative collateral consequences as a result of Barack Obama’s presidency that impact his life, liberty, and property.

¶ 7. The case is moot. Neither exception advocated by plaintiff applies here. Accordingly, this Court need not address plaintiff’s other arguments on standing or the merits.”

“¶ 9. Recognized principles of mootness apply to the present case because it no longer involves a live controversy. Plaintiff has no legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Barack Obama’s name was on the ballot, and he is now the President of the United States. President Obama is also unable to seek re-election.
U.S. Const. amend. XXII. The issuance of an advisory opinion assessing the merits of plaintiff’s argument about the meaning of “natural born Citizen” is beyond this Court’s constitutional prerogative. See In re Keystone
Dev. Corp., 2009 VT 13, ¶ 7, 186 Vt. 523, 973 A.2d 1179 (mem.) (explaining that this Court lacks authority to render an advisory opinion).”

Vermont Supreme Court Ruling.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/177342305/Vermont-Supreme-Court-ruling-on-H-Brooke-Paige-appeal-on-Obama-eligibility

 

Vermont Supreme Court Obama eligibility case, Obama not natural born citizen due to foreign father, H. Brooke Paige, Vattel Law of Nations cited

Vermont Supreme Court Obama eligibility case, Obama not natural born citizen due to foreign father, H. Brooke Paige, Vattel Law of Nations cited

“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

“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.”

“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.”
“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.”

“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?”… Marbury versus Madison

From the Burlington Free Press April 23, 2013.

“Vt. Supreme Court hears case challenging legality of Barack Obama’s run for re-election”

“President Barack Obama may be the “de facto” president of the United States, but that doesn’t mean he was elected legally, a former Republican U.S. Senate hopeful told the Vermont Supreme Court on Tuesday.

H. Brooke Paige, appearing without a lawyer before the state’s highest court, said Obama does not meet what the framers of the U.S. Constitution meant when they decreed that a person holding the presidency must be a “natural born citizen.”

Paige has contended historical papers that the framers relied on at the time the Constitution was written indicated a natural-born citizen was someone who was born of parents who were both American citizens. Obama’s father, now deceased, was a citizen of Kenya.

The argument was rejected by Washington Superior Court Judge Robert Bent in a ruling in November. Bent, in a seven-page decision, said Paige had no real proof to support his definition of the term natural-born citizen.

Paige, of the town of Washington, appealed to decision to the high court. At Tuesday’s hearing he told the justices he was not challenging Obama’s citizenship, as the so-called “birthers” group has contended.

“Don’t pay any attention to them,” he told the justices. “The birther argument is just a sheer flight of fancy.”

Obama, who was named in Paige’s original lawsuit, was not represented at Tuesday’s hearing. Paige said he was unable to get anyone to successfully serve Obama with his lawsuit, a predicament Justice John Dooley said concerned him.

“How can the court issue an order when he is not a party to the case,” Dooley asked. Paige said Obama “chose not to be present” and that copies of all of the filings in the case had been sent by registered mail to the White House.”

“As the hearing ended, Paige called out to the justices and began walking toward them as they were departing the courtroom, hoping to give each of them copies of “The Law of Nations,” the 867-page book first published in 1773 by Emer de Vattel.

Paige has claimed the framers relied on “The Law of Nations” when they inserted the term natural born citizens into the Constitution as a presidential requirement.”

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013304230018&nclick_check=1

The media and the Obama camp have striven to obfuscate the eligibility issue  and malign anyone questioning Obama. Therefore it comes as no surprise that Mr. Paige ( or possibly the reporter ) made several inaccurate statements.

First of all, no one is questioning Obama’s citizenship. After all, we will give that to anyone.

It is the Natural Born Citizen requirement for the presidency that is the concern. Mr. Paige accurately questions Obama’s status because he did not have 2 US citizen parents.

The other concern is Obama’s birthplace, which has not yet been proven. The Sheriff Joe Arpaio investigation is moving forward with evidence that the purported birth certificate image placed on Whitehouse.gov is fraudulent. It is believed that they will cooperate in a pending Alabama Supreme Court case.

Vermont liberals enable gun violence, Liberals help create gun violence blame guns, Existing laws not enforced, Vermont leniency leads to shooting, VT most liberal state

Vermont liberals enable gun violence, Liberals help create gun violence blame guns, Existing laws not enforced, Vermont leniency leads to shooting, VT most liberal state

“Liberals, lacking accountability for their failed policies, and reason for their irrational fear of guns, blame guns and conservatives for gun violence.”…Citizen Wells

“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”…Heinrich Himmler

“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good”…George Washington

Vermont, formerly a conservative state, began morphing into a liberal state in the 60’s.

I have been to Vermont multiple times. Despite being the home or college campus of many wacko liberals, I encountered quite a few normal nice people there.

Spend some time in Burlington VT or read about wackos in Brattleboro threatening to arrest Bush and Cheney (been there too) and you will get the picture.

From the NY Times October 1, 2012.

“‘New’ Vermont Is Liberal, but ‘Old’ Vermont Is Still There”
“Vermont is a quirky state, politically speaking. It was President Obama’s second-best state in 2008, behind only his home-state of Hawaii. But Vermont is also the most rural state and the second whitest, normally strong predictors of Republican leanings.”

“Vermont’s political landscape began to change in the 1960s and 1970s. City dwellers from nearby states like Massachusetts and New York began fleeing struggling metropolises like Boston and New York City. Heading north, these migrants had a choice of where to settle, and some self-sorting took place.

More conservatives tended to choose New Hampshire, attracted to its low taxes and “Live Free or Die” ethos. Vermont, where cows outnumbered people before 1963, tended to attract young, left-leaning and outdoors-loving professionals, both Mr. Nelson and Mr. Johnson said.”

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/new-vermont-is-liberal-but-old-vermont-is-still-there/

From NPR February 25, 2011.

“Mississippi Most Conservative State, Vermont Most Liberal: Gallup”

“The most liberal state as measured by the percentage of voters who claim that label was Vermont at 30.5 percent. Again, not a surprise for a state that could send Sen. Bernie Sanders to the Senate.”

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/02/25/134054868/mississippi-most-conservative-state-vermont-most-liberal

From the Greensboro News Record February 23, 2013.

“Editorial: Vermont leniency leads to shooting”

“Vermont has 1,000 offenders on furlough and most of them are doing fine, a probation official said this week.

But not Mikel Brady.

“Human behavior is incredibly difficult to predict, and obviously, we were really taken aback by what happened,” Bill Soule, a probation and parole district manager, told The Valley News of White River Valley, Vt. “We didn’t see it coming down the pipe. We were quite surprised.”

They should be ashamed, not surprised. Their criminal-justice system granted Brady a light sentence for a violent, sadistic crime, then released him on furlough even though he had once jumped bail and had to be chased to Mexico by federal marshals.

This time Brady ended up in North Carolina, where he allegedly shot a state trooper four times following a routine traffic stop near Durham Monday. Thank goodness, Michael Potts is recovering and Brady was arrested the next day in Raleigh.

Although he’s only 23, he has a frightening criminal history that nevertheless did not convince Vermont authorities that he posed a danger to anyone.

At 18, Brady embarked on a “two-year crime spree that police believe included more than 100 burglaries,” The Herald of Randolph (Vt.) reported in January 2011. “Crimes included … the alarming theft of enough dynamite from the Rock of Ages quarry in Bethel in August 2008, that it triggered a federal anti-terrorism investigation.”

In 2009, he and another man broke into a home looking for marijuana and cash and beat the occupants with baseball bats. One of the victims, who used medical marijuana to control pain from a previous injury, said in court that Brady cut her arm repeatedly with a knife as he demanded money.

Yet, by the time of his sentencing in January 2011, Brady had convinced even prosecutors that he was no longer a threat. The judge acknowledged she was giving him a “remarkably good deal” because he had turned his life around while in custody “to a degree that is unusual and deserving of consideration,” according to The Herald of Randolph. Only 18 months later, last June 25, he was out of prison on furlough.

Vermont authorities continued to show leniency. Brady was arrested by wildlife officials in October for attempted poaching. Despite having a loaded rifle — obviously not allowed — he was still not taken into custody. Then, when he failed to report to his probation officer, he was listed by the Vermont Department of Corrections as having escaped.

Soon afterward, he became North Carolina’s problem. He is not being treated leniently here. He’s in the Durham County jail with bond set at more than $10 million, facing serious charges.

And in Vermont, “An incident like this leaves a mark on all of us,” probation manager Soule told The Valley News.

A mark that was painfully felt in North Carolina.”

http://www.news-record.com/opinion/786421-94/editorial-vermont-leniency-leads-to