Stephen Pidgeon update, January 15, 2009, Plains Radio, TheRightSideOfLife.com, Broe V Reed attorney, Press release, Eligibility issue will not go away, Obama not qualified

Here is an update from Stephen Pidgeon, the attorney that filed suit in
Broe V Reed. Thanks to the Right Side Of Life for the update.

“>> Currently we have the following activities taking place:

* A London Solicitor is working on the UK connection
* We have Operatives on both coasts looking for the POE information
* We have SERIOUS leads in Seattle
* A few leads in DC are being followed
* Related to the Document number released earlier, there is follow-up
underway. (Nope, no document yet… but this is NOT discouraging news….)

>> Stephen is scheduled to be on Plains Radio tonight. He is in the middle
of a trial that has gone longer then expected. He will call in once he gets
out of court. There is a 2 hours time zone difference… So I am not able to
say exactly what time he will be on.

>> Stephen met with some of the Plaintiffs on Broe vs Reed last night. He
has a second meeting planned. He will update us on this meeting.

>> Stephen says “Let everyone know, that this issue will never be moot as
long as Obama is President.” He does not want us to get into a feeding
frenzy over the looming inauguration.

>> If you have questions or research for Stephen, please direct it to me
( Chalice [at] comcast [dot] net ). Because of the flood of email, he is
behind in responding to email.

Please feel free to quote me on this release.

Chalice”

Read more here:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2816

35 responses to “Stephen Pidgeon update, January 15, 2009, Plains Radio, TheRightSideOfLife.com, Broe V Reed attorney, Press release, Eligibility issue will not go away, Obama not qualified

  1. mntruthseeker

    God be with you all

    To all the people that think this is wrong, go read Alex Jones today. Are you ready to have “forced abortions” illegal searches become legal?

    Pay attention. Our love for peace and God can and will support us. Pray like you have never done before. There is no time and I’m not crazy…………God is all we have to help save our world from Evil

  2. End of the American Dream

    My heart breaks for those wonderful optimists who are still holding hope for a last minute deliverance from the crime about to be committed upon America. Somehow, some way, justice riding a white horse will stop the inauguration proceedings of President Elect Obama and America will be saved from the horrendous disaster! If wishing made it so, then I too wish the same.

    The reality is slapping America in the face! It ain’t gonna happen! America has been betrayed! The power grabbers are not going to give up without a bloody fight. We the people were caught unprepared for the fight. The dream is over. The nightmare has begun.

    Even if the challenge continues after Obama is sworn into office, it will be like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped.

    Start thinking about how you are going to survive under the new America. Start planning how to save your own lives. It’s a new dawn. It’s a new day. I’m feeling scared!

    Usa patriots shout

  3. I pretty much agree with Therese.

    The evil triumvirate of 0bama, Pelosi and Reed and the near super-majority in Congress are pretty much above the law at this point.

    Even if by some miracle he is stopped, what will result?

    Congress will just choose another, maybe Biden, maybe Clinton. While less evil, still bad.

    Wake up people. Life changes on Jan 20 and we need to figure out what we are going to do about it.

  4. ORLY FILES THIS TODAY !! OBAMA NOT QUALIFIED BY DEFAULT !! Exellent.

    Thursday, January 15, 2009
    Important, This motion was filed today
    No. 08A524

    In The
    Supreme Court of the United States

    GAIL LIGHTFOOT, NEIL B. TURNER, KATHLEEN FLANAGAN,
    JAMES M. OBERSCHAIN, CAMDEN W. MCCONNELL,
    PAMELA BARNETT, & EVELYN BRADLEY
    Petitioners;

    v.

    DEBRA BOWEN, Secretary of State of California

    Respondent.

    On Petition For A Write Of Certiorari
    Before Judgement To The
    Supreme Court of California
    Case Nos.:(S168690)

    MOTION TO DECLARE THAT BY DEFAULT,
    THE PRESIDENT ELECT RESPONDENT
    BARACK OBAMA HAS FAILED TO QUALIFY
    UNDER US CONSTITUTION ARTICLE II §1, &
    AMENDMENT 20, PER RULE 21 (2)(B) & (4)

    Attorney of Record
    Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

    26302 La Paz
    Mission Viejo CA 92691
    949-683-5411

    January 15, 2009

    QUESTIONS PRESENTED

    Question I: Does the burden of proof lie with the Petitioner to prove standing and evidence lack of qualification by a candidate/President elect, where election officers rely on a candidate’s declaration? OR Does the CONSTITUTION amend. 20 place the burden of proof on the President elect to provide objective government certified witnessed proofs, with election officers under oath to challenge, examine and declare that the President elect has or has not qualified, enforceable by petition for redress of grievances?

    Question II: Should the “natural born citizen” presidential qualification be interpreted expansively to expand civil rights under the 14th Amendment? OR Should it be interpreted restrictively as an essential guard against tyranny by ensuring the Commander in Chief has only had undivided allegiance to the U.S.A., to safeguard the Constitution and the Republic?

    MOTION TO DECLARE THAT BY DEFAULT, THE PRESIDENT ELECT RESPONDENT BARACK OBAMA HAS FAILED TO QUALIFY UNDER US CONSTITUTION ARTICLE II §1, & AMENDMENT 20, PER RULE 21 (2)(B) & (4)
    I. Motion to file Under Rule 21 (2) (b), and 21(4).
    The Petitioner requests leave of this Court to file this Motion under Rule 21, (2) (b) which empowers Petitioner submit “any motion the granting of which would dispose of the entire case or would affect the final judgment to be entered”. By Rule 21 (4), “the Court may act on a motion without waiting for a response.”
    To the Petitioner’s knowledge, the following two questions have not been brought to the attention of this Court by the parties or have not been adequately discussed:
    Question I: Does the burden of proof lie with the Petitioner to prove standing and evidence lack of qualification by a candidate/President elect, where election officers rely on a candidate’s declaration? OR Does the CONSTITUTION amend. 20 place the burden of proof on the President elect to provide objective government certified witnessed proofs, with election officers under oath to challenge, examine and declare that the President elect has or has not qualified, enforceable by petition for redress of grievances?
    Recent events strongly changed the circumstances relating to the Respondent relative to the Petition.
    A. Respondent declared President elect
    Congress in joint session recorded the Electoral College votes on January 8, 2009. It declared Respondent Barack Hussein Obama II to be the President elect. This event now brings to bear U.S. CONST. Amendment 20.
    B. Burden of Proof on Respondent
    The clause “have failed to qualify” in U.S. CONST. Amend. 20, place the burden of proof directly on the President elect, the Respondent in this case.
    C. Respondent has failed to submit proofs
    Per the Petitioner’s petition and to his belief and knowledge, the Respondent has to date failed to present to any constitutional election officer, any government certified proofs attested to by reliable witnesses, for any of the qualifications required under U.S. Const. Art II §1.
    D. Respondent has hindered discovery
    Respondent has actively hindered election officers and We the People from obtaining and examining proofs of his qualifications for President comprising government certified proofs attested to by reliable witnesses, and certified copies of military, public and educational records.
    Per the Petitioner’s petition and to her belief and knowledge, the Respondent has, at great cost, systematically opposed in court every effort to require him to provide such proofs, including those presented before this Court by the Petitioner.
    E. President elect has failed to qualify, by default and by opposition.
    The Petitioner submits that, both by default and by active hindrance to officers and to petitioners seeking that evidence, Respondent, Barack Hussein Obama II, the President Elect, has “failed to qualify” as per U.S. Constitution Amendment 20.
    F. Immediate Constitutional Remedy
    In light of the importance of upholding the CONSTITUTION as supreme law, these changed circumstances bring Amendment 20 to bear, and because of the very high pubic importance of this matter, Petitioner prays that this Court provide the following immediate constitutional remedy to better satisfy the prayer of the Petitioner:
    Find that the President elect has failed to qualify by default, under U.S. CONST. Article II §1 & Amendment 20.
    This remedy would rely on observation of the Respondents actions of not supplying proofs that he qualifies, both by omission and commission, rather than on the merits of the Petitioner’s case.
    The Petitioner’s previous and present prayers may then be molded to communicate that finding to Congress, which then would have constitutional business of the highest privilege to elect a President who does qualify.
    G. Presidential candidates can then qualify.
    This constitutional remedy would then return to the Electoral College and to Congress the constitutional duty to elect a President who did qualify from all the available candidates.
    Question II: Should the “natural born citizen” presidential qualification be interpreted expansively to expand civil rights under the 14th Amendment? OR Should it be interpreted restrictively as an essential guard against tyranny by ensuring the Commander in Chief has only had undivided allegiance to the U.S.A., to safeguard the Constitution and the Republic?
    Petitioner submits an underlying constitutional principle of undivided loyalty to distinguish the stringent qualifications of “natural born citizen” essential for the Commander in Chief for the common defense in time of war, and preserving domestic tranquility, versus upholding civil rights of “citizens”.
    Petitioner appeals to the primacy of upholding the Constitution as invoilable supreme law, and preserving the essential protection of presidential qualifications to preserve the Republic.
    Petitioner prays that the Court provide clear guidance on this question of interpreting this critical qualification of the President elect before the Inauguration on January 20th. This would enable election officers to examine proofs submitted by the President elect, or on lack thereof, to properly conduct their constitutional duty to declare that the President elect has qualified, or has failed to qualify, before the date of the Inauguration.
    The Petitioner’s prayer could then be molded to communicate that finding to Congress, which then would have constitutional business of the highest privilege to elect a President who does qualify. The Petitioner comes bearing the burden of upholding our Constitution and protecting our Republic against tyranny, on behalf of We the People in this and future generations. Standing before the Judge of all the world for the rectitude of her ways:
    “I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject
    to punishment.” ___________________________, January 15, 2009
    Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ, 949-683-5411
    26302 La Paz, Mission Viejo CA 92691

    MOTION FOR WAIVER OF RULE 37(2)(A) OF THIS COURT
    The Petitioner humbly requests waiver of Rule 37(2)(a) of this Court, requiring timely filing of a motion with specified notice to all parties. Petitioner appeals to the unique over riding change in circumstances created by the formal election by the Electoral College of the Respondent, Barack Hussein Obama II, and his delayed declaration on Thursday, Jan. 8th, 2009, by Congress in joint session, to be the President elect. This uniquely brings to bear the constitutional actions prescribed by U.S. CONST. Amend. 20.
    Per the Petitioner’s case, the motion, and to her belief and knowledge, to date the Respondent has failed to submit to constitutional election officers the necessary government certified witnessed proofs verifying that he qualifies to be President. He has further opposed all efforts by election officers and by We the People to obtain such certified proofs.
    Furthermore, to date, all State and Federal election officers appear to have committed misprision of their duties under U.S. CONST. amend. 20, by failing to examine the qualifications of the President elect, and thence by failing to declare that the President elect has qualified, or has failed to qualify.
    The delayed declaration of the President elect left but five (5) working days to observe this misprision, prepare this Motion, and to submit it, before this Court meets in conference on Friday January 16th to consider the Petitioner case After that conference this Court has no (0) working days before the inauguration of the Respondent as President on Tuesday January 20th. That event without word from this Court would give the impression of fait accompli creating such enormous political barriers as to possibly prevent effective redress by the Petitioner.
    Inauguration of the President elect having a popular majority while preventing his qualifications from being examined would nullify U.S. art. II §1. Conversely, declaration that the President elect had qualified or failed to have qualified would be of very high public import.
    Were this Court to provide the recommended remedy, of declaring that the President elect had failed to qualify, that would provide obvious immediate constitutional relief for the Petitioner. This would cause far less political trauma by clearly upholding constitutionally defined procedures than any redress by granting existing prayers after the inauguration.
    Petitioner presents analysis regarding critical safeguards to the Constitution that could be of existential importance to preserving the Republic. The constitutional principle of sole allegiance underlying the restrictive qualification of “natural born citizen” for Commander in Chief to protect the Constitution rather than civil rights of citizens, does not appear to have been so identified in the Petitioner’s case nor in other petitions to the Court.
    The Motion would further support the cause of numerous subsequent Petitioners including Berg v. Obama No. 08-570 distributed for the Court’s conference on January 16th, who are committed to submitting petitions for similar issues.
    I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
    Executed on January 15, 2009. ______________________________
    Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

    TABLE OF CONTENTS
    QUESTIONS PRESENTED I
    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii
    SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 1
    ARGUMENT 3

    I.The CONSTITUTION Places The Burden Of Proof On the President Elect, Who Has Failed To Qualify 3
    A. The 20th Amendment qualification process 3
    1. Burden of proof on the President elect 3
    2. Qualification candidate 3
    3. Constitutional qualifications exist 3
    4. Officers competent to judge qualifications 3
    5. Challenging Respondent’s qualifications 3
    6. Venues for qualification 4
    7. Period for qualification 4
    8. Opportunity for qualifying 4
    9. Time and Actors for remedy 4
    10. Verification of proofs of qualifications 4
    11. Electoral College 5
    12. State Election Officers 5
    13. Declaration of qualification/failure 5
    14. Proofs for explicit qualification criteria 5
    15. Inauguration would not remedy defects 6
    B. Respondent’s refusal to supply proofs 6
    1. No certified documents provided 6
    2. Birth records sealed 6
    3. Educational records sealed 6

    II. Undivided allegiance to the U.S. underlies the restrictive “natural born citizen” qualification for Commander in Chief to preserve the Republic. 7
    A. Stringency of qualifications 8
    1. Increasing Responsibility 8
    2. Increasing Maturity 8
    3. Increasing Citizenship/Residency Duration 8
    4. More Stringent Citizenship 8
    Table 1: Stringency of Leadership Qualifications 8
    5. Founders all U.S. citizens 9
    6. Founders exception as not “natural born citizens” 9
    B. Contemporary definitions: “native born citizen” 10
    1. Emmerich de Vattel, Law of Nations (1758) 10
    2. William Blackstone, Commentaries (1765) 10
    C. Primary allegiance passes through fathers 10
    D. Birth to Colonials not U.S., “natural born” 10
    E. RPE Obama born of a British Colonial 10
    F. Birth to two citizens overseas 11
    G. Commander in Chief in time of war 11
    1. Foreigners excluded for Commander in Chief 11
    2. Undivided Allegiance for Commander in Chief 12
    3. International conflict over divided loyalties 12
    4. Danger of Traitors with Foreign Allegiance 12
    5. Avoid dual nationality through a parent 13
    6. Avoid dual nationality through birth place 13
    7. Power to Exclude Aliens 13
    H. Natural Born under Amendment 14 14
    1. Citizenship rights 14
    2. Bingham affirms narrow “natural born 14
    3. Reviews of “natural born citizen” 14

    III. CONCLUSION 14

    IV. APPENDIX A-1
    A. Petition for redress of President elect’s failure to qualify A-1
    C. Civilians killed by 20th Century Tyrants A-2
    D. The Rule of Law, collective ‘unalienable rights’ and ‘ancient liberties’
    A-3
    E. Oaths Secure the CONSTITUTION & and Rule of Law A-4
    F. CONSTITUTION of the United States of America A-5

    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

    CASES
    231 U.S. 9, 22 (1913) 10
    322 U.S. 665, 673 (1944) 10
    377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964) 10
    Chae Chan Ping v. United States 130 U.S. 581, 603, 604 (1889) 13
    Perkins v. Elg 307 U.S. 325 13, 14
    CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
    CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – (U.S. 1787)
    U.S. CONST. pmbl 7, A-5
    U.S. CONST., amend. XX passim
    U.S. CONST., amend I. 7
    U.S. CONST., amend. IX A-6
    U.S. CONST., amend. X A-6
    U.S. CONST., amend. XIV § 1 A-6
    STATUTES: Organic Laws of U.S.A. & States
    DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (U.S. 1776) passim
    DECLARATION (U.S. 1776) 9
    DECLARATION para. 2. A-3
    DECLARATION para. 32 A-5
    Massachussetts Constitution §XXX (1780) A-3
    STATUTES: Organic Laws – Common Law
    1 Blackstone Commentaries(1765) Ch. 1 § 3 (1765) 10, A-3
    BILL OF RIGHTS secs. 16, 17, 18. 1, W. & M., 2d sess., c. 2 , 16 Dec. 1689 (U.K.) 7,A-4
    Blackstone, Commentaries, 152-154 (1765) 10
    DOOMS (Code) of Alfred “the Great” (880). A-4
    MAGNA CARTA, 17 John (1215); 1 Henry 3 (1225). 6, 7, A-4
    Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, 476 (1856) 10
    U.S. CONST., art. VI ¶2 6, 7
    Washington, Writings (1932), Vol. XI, pp. 342-343, General Orders of May 2, 1778 12
    STATUTES: Other, Bills, Proclamations, & Resolves
    5 U.S.C. 3331 Oath of Office. A-5
    10 U.S.C. 312. Militia duty: exemptions. A-4
    28 U.S.C. 453. Oaths of justices and judges. A-4
    29 U.S.C. 169 Employees with religious convictions[]fees A-4
    Naturalization act of 1795, 1 Sess. II Ch. 21 414, 415 (1795) 11
    BIBLE
    Bible. A-3
    Matthew 5:33-37. Affirmation. A-4
    Ruth 4:6 10
    TREATISES
    Courtois, Stéphane et al. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, 912 pp, ISBN 0-674-07608-7 (1999). 7
    de Vattel, Law of Nations (1758), Bk. 1, Ch. 19, p 101 10, 14
    John Locke 2nd Treatise of Civil Govt. ch. 4 § 22 (1690) A-4
    Rushdoony (1973), Inst. Biblical Law, Craig Press 10
    Story, Joseph Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 2 Vols. xxxiii, 735, 702pp. (Reprint ed. Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. 2001 ISBN 1-58477-193-3) (1858). A-5
    OTHER AUTHORITIES
    4 Elliott’s Debates p. 196 (30 July 1788). A-4
    British Nationality Act (1948) §5(1) 10, 11, A-1
    Continental Congress, Declaration and Resolves 14 Oct. 1774 Tansill 1–5 #2 A-3
    Rec. Fed. Conv. 1787 CCLXXXVIII p 385, 387 (March 28, 1800) 12, 13
    Rec. Fed. Conv. 1787 LXVIII. John Jay to George Washington.3 (NY Jul. 25)
    1, 12, 13
    Trial of the Seven Bishops for Publishing a Libel. 12 How. St. Tr. 183, 415, (1688).
    A-4
    Washington, George Farewell Address (Sept. 17, 1796). A-5
    MISCELLANEOUS
    Samuel Rutherford Lex Rex (1644). A-26

    SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

    1. The Petitioner submits that the U.S. CONST’s 20th Amendment places the burden of proof directly on the President elect to demonstrate that he qualifies to become President, and on government officers to evaluate and report on those proofs. It negates the lower court’s assumption that the burden of proof lies with the Petitioner.
    The Respondents, President elect Barack Hussein Obama II (herein RPE Obama) et al., have failed to submit to election officers the requisite objective government certified proofs attested to by multiple reliable witnesses, as evidence that the President elect qualifies per U.S. CONST. Art. 2 §1 and §2. Furthermore, they have systematically acted to withhold from State and Federal election officers, and from We the People, the evidence necessary to evaluate the qualifications of the President elect.
    Having thus failed to qualify by default, U.S. CONST. amend. 20 requires election officers to declare that the President elect has “failed to qualify”. Congress then has constitutional business of the highest privilege to elect a President who does qualify.
    By misprisions of State and Federal election officers to perform these duties, Petitioner has the constitutional right and duty to challenge the qualifications of the President elect by redress petition preserved under U.S. CONST. amend. 1, by rights reserved by We the People, under U.S. CONST. amend. 1, 10 and 20, and by each government officer’s oath of office to uphold the CONSTITUTION as inviolable supreme law, U.S. CONST. art. VI.
    2. The core issue underlying the Petitioner’s motion, this case before this Court, and to all similar cases is the constitutional interpretation of the restrictive “natural born citizen”qualification for President.
    Prior cases with other issues have brought issues of individual civil rights of citizenship to the attention of this Court. The Petitioner brings the issue of the restrictive constitutional qualifications for President. This addresses the essential safeguard provided by the Founders to preserve the Republic and upholding the inviolability of Constitution as supreme law.
    The intent of the Founders is clearly seen in John
    II. The CONSTITUTION Places The Burden Of Proof On the President Elect, Who Has Failed To Qualify The 20th Amendment qualification process The U.S. CONST. amend. 20 prescribes that:
    “. . . if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified;. . .”
    The Constitution does not guarantee inauguration of a President elect. It requires that he first “qualify”.
    The Petitioner has observed that the Constitution nowhere delegates the power and method of qualifying. Thus, the Petitioner appealed to powers reserved under the 14th Amendment. However, common principles may still identify methods by which the President elect may qualify, or fail to have qualified.
    1. Burden of proof on the President elect By the past tense verb “have failed to qualify”, the CONSTITUTION places the burden of proof directly on the President elect to lay objective proofs before competent officers necessary to demonstrate that he has met the constitutional qualifications for President.
    2. Qualification candidate Respondent Barack Hussein Obama II was declared the constitutional President elect by Congress in joint session on Jan. 8th, 2009. RPE Obama is thus the active subject of U.S. CONST., amend 20.
    3. Constitutional qualifications exist The verb “qualify” indicates that the Constitution establishes objective criteria that the President elect must satisfy. See explicit restrictive qualifications in U.S. CONST. Art II, §1 and implicit qualifications listed below.
    4. Officers competent to judge qualifications The verb “has failed to qualify” implies that there are election officers to whom those constitutional proofs of qualifications must be submitted. The electoral votes are submitted to the President of the Senate presiding over Congress in joint session with tellers appointed from the Senate and House. At least those constitutional officers are competent to receive evaluate the qualifications. The Chief Justice of this Court, and the President are other constitutionally defined officers before whom the President elect could submit his proofs for qualification.
    5. Challenging Respondent’s qualifications All Executive, Legislative and Judicial officers, being on Oath to uphold the CONSTITUTION, have the power and duty to challenge the Respondent President elect Obama to show cause by date certain why he should not have failed to qualify.
    a. Objections to reading Electoral votes
    When Congress tabulates votes of the Electoral College in joint session, law explicitly requires the President of the Senate to ask for Objections after the reading of each State’s electoral certificates. 3 U.S.C. Ch. 1, §15. Objections to electoral votes may be filed if signed by one Senator and one Representative. Electing a candidate for President who would not qualify would violate the Constitution and justify raising a formal objection on reading each State’s votes. On reading the electoral votes, Senate President Dick Cheney failed to ask for objections on reading of each State’s votes on Jan. 8th, 2009. See also 3 U.S.C. Ch. 1,§17, §19(a) (1), and §19 ©) (1)
    b. Point of Order on declaring President elect Obama has failed to qualify
    Officers on oath to uphold the Constitution bear the high privilege to raise a Point of Order or Question of Order over any breach thereof, as well as over any breach of the Rules of each House. Senate Rule XX. When an appointed election officer fails to uphold the duties required by U.S. CONST. Art II §1 and amend. 20, any Member of Congress has the power and duty to raise a Point of Order.
    Failing that, citizens, including the Petitioner, have the unalienable right of petition for redress of grievances, to petition their State or Congress with a prayer to raise a Point of Order over breach of Constitution. U.S. CONST. amend. I
    Reporting the tallied electoral votes provided an opportunity to raise the Point of Order that the President elect has not qualified. However, no Member of Congress raised that Point of Order requested by numerous citizens by redress petition. See Appendix A. Every time any House is in session provides an opportunity for Members of Congress to raise a Point of Order that the President elect has failed to qualify.
    6. Venues for qualification The joint session of Congress, held to count electoral votes and announce the President elect, is one venue in which the President elect could have submitted his qualifications. Thereafter, the President elect could submit his qualifications to the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, the Chief Justice of this Court, or the President as constitutionally recognized officers being under oath to uphold the Constitution.
    7. Period for qualification By the classification “President elect”, Amend. 20 establishes at least the qualification period between the constitutional “election” of tabulating electoral college votes before Congress on January 6th (January 8th in 2009) and the inauguration on January 20th when the President elect is sworn in as “President”.
    8. Opportunity for qualifying By “have failed to qualify”, the President elect will have been given the opportunity to submit proofs showing that he does qualify. By January 16th, RPE Obama will have had five business days during which to submit proofs of his qualification.
    9. Time and Actors for remedy Were this Court to determine and find the President elect has failed to qualify by default, there would still be time to notify Congress, for Congress to appoint the Vice President as Acting President, and for the Electoral College and Congress to proceed with electing another President who does qualify, per U.S. CONST. amend. 20. This urgent constitutional business would have privilege over other business.
    10. Verification of proofs of qualifications By “have failed to qualify”, the competent election officers must examine the proofs submitted by the President elect against the constitutional qualifications. The CONSTITUTION grants all powers necessary to perform constitutional duties including obtaining government certified documents from any Federal or State repository, and to subpoena other records as needed.
    11. Electoral College By U.S. CONST. amend 12, Electors in the Electoral College are election officers with the duty to elect the President. Electors, and the Electoral College have the privileges and duty to evaluate the qualifications of all candidates for President, and the President elect. By their oath to uphold the Constitution, they have a duty to demand and evaluate proofs and to find that the Presidential candidate or President elect has or has failed to qualify.
    12. State Election Officers Each State has the equivalent privileges and opportunities to evaluate the qualifications of all candidates for President and for the President elect. As the Petitioner has sought relief, the Secretary of State can communicate RPE Obama’s failure to qualify to the Governor, the State’s Senators and President of the Senate, and to its Representatives, and the Speaker of the House. Each State’s Senators, Representatives and Governor have the Privilege of the Floor in the respective House, and may communicate that failure, or raise a Point of Order. Senate Rule XXIII
    13. Declaration of qualification/failure By “have failed to qualify”, the election officers have the constitutional power and duty to declare that the President elect has met or has failed to meet the restrictive constitutional requirements for President. They have the power and duty to communicate that determination to the authorities responsible to elect the President. I.e. to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House.
    14. Proofs for explicit qualification criteria Objective evidence of qualifications must be commensurate with the level of proof required. Certified copies of original birth certificates are commonly required by citizens to obtain government photo ID, marriage certificates, driver’s licenses, and to register to vote.
    To obtain security clearance, military officers must provide increasingly exhaustive evidence that they qualify. As Commander in Chief, the President commands the Chiefs of the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force bearing Top Secret clearance. Common sense requires that the President elect provide objective proofs commensurate with the higher constitutional office of Commander in Chief, and the Top Secret clearance required of those he must command. To verify constitutional qualifications, election officers should require the President elect to provide the following, and to verify their validity.
    a. Age 35 years
    Government certified copies of original full (“long form”) birth certificates attested to by two reliable witnesses, and all revisions thereof. U.S. CONST. art. II, §1.
    b. 14 years residency in the US
    Evidence of residence within the U.S., with certified copies of all passports held to confirm time within versus without the U.S., being more thorough than that required for naturalization, or documenting U.S. births abroad. U.S. CONST. art. II, §1.
    c. Natural born citizen with sole allegiance
    By the underlying constitutional principle of sole allegiance to the U.S.A. the Commander in Chief should have all biological and adoptive parents holding allegiance to the US, the President elect be born in U.S. jurisdiction, and have had only had sole allegiance to the U.S. CONST. art. II, §1.
    (1) President Elect’s Citizenship
    Government certified copies of the original (“long form”) birth certificates of the President elect, showing original place and date of birth, and both biological parents.
    (2) Citizenship of Biological Father
    Government certified copies of the original birth certificates or naturalization certificates, evidencing US Citizenship of the biological father at the birth of the President elect.
    (3) Citizenship of Biological Mother
    Government certified copies of the original birth certificates or naturalization certificates, evidencing US Citizenship of the biological mother at the President elect’s birth.
    (4) Citizenship of Adoptive Parents
    Government certified copies evidencing citizenship of every adoptive parent of the President elect.
    (5) Change of Name
    Government certified copies of every legal change of name since birth.
    (6) Declarations of allegiance
    Certified copies of each document wherein the President elect has sworn allegiance, or declared his citizenship or allegiance, whether as a youth or adult, including applications for higher education and financial aid.
    (7) Military & Public Service
    Certified copies of any registration for military service, and of each and every military and/or public service.
    15. Inauguration would not remedy defects Official inauguration of a President elect do not remedy failure to constitutionally qualify. The US Constitution is inviolable, founded on the security of the U.S. CONST., art. VI ¶2 No certified documents provided Per the Petitioner’s application and current belief and knowledge, none of these documents having been submitted to election officers in Congress, in the Electoral College, or in any State, by RPE Obama, that are government certified with reliable witnesses. Upcoming petitioners including Gail Lightfoot have similarly found no evidence of such positive action by RPE Obama to qualify.
    2. Birth records sealed The RPE Obama has refused to submit certified copies of any of his original long form “vault” birth certificates in Hawaii to any public officer or to any Petitioner. Relevant records in Kenya have also been officially restricted.
    3. Educational records sealed The RPE Obama has sealed all educational records which might reveal his stated citizenship. These include Punahou High School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School.

    III. Undivided allegiance to the U.S. underlies the restrictive “natural born citizen” qualification for Commander in Chief to preserve the Republic. When King and Parliament breached their rights with arbitrary laws, the Founders fought to restore the Rule of Law claiming ‘unalienable rights’ and ‘entitle[ment]’ by the ‘laws of God.’ DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (U.S. 1776) (herein “DECLARATION”). The inviolability of the Magna Carta (1215) was preserved in the U.S. Constitution (1787) as “supreme law.” Magna Carta (1215) §61. This security was restored by theU.S. CONST., amend I.U.S. CONST. pmblU.S. CONST., art. I §3 para. 5. The “natural born citizen” allegiance qualification was strictest of these, to protect against treason and tyranny.
    Democracies Descending into Tyranny: Thirty three democracies descended into tyranny during the 20th century by failing to uphold constitutional protections. These included Germany, Russia, and China.
    Secularist States Murdered Millions: States establishing Secularism caused the most extrajudicial deaths in the 20th Century. Courtois et al. (1999) detail the consequent horrors of atheistic communist governments killing more than 125 million – more than three times the 38 million killed in all 20th Century wars. See Appendix C, Hagen & Irish (2000).
    The greatest threat to Domestic tranquility is not war but descent into mob rule and dictatorship. Preserving protections of the Constitution and Republic are critically important. The restrictive “natural born citizen” qualification for President, is a critical constitutional guard against tyranny. Petitioner applies the unalienable right of redress petition and security of Oaths to preserve the US. CONST. in face of misprision of failing to enforce presidential qualifications by election officers.
    Petitioner humbly prays this Court evaluate the Petitioner’s case in context of how best to enforce restrictive qualifications for President to preserve the Constitution and Republic from tyranny, rather than its prior cases on protecting individual civil rights.
    A. Stringency of qualifications The U.S. CONSTITUTION explicitly requires a progressively increasing stringency in qualifications for higher levels of officers of government. See Table 1.
    1. Increasing Responsibility Representatives represent a portion of a State (< 30,000 citizens per U.S. CONST. art. I, §2 para 3). Senators have greater responsibility to represent a State and the Nation’s interests. The President is responsible for the entire Nation. In light of their increasing responsibilities, the CONSTITUTION imposes increasingly stringent qualifications for Congressional offices, with the greatest stringency for the President.
    2. Increasing Maturity The minimum age increases from 25 to 30 to 35 years for Representatives, Senators and the President. After coming of age at 21, this requires from 4 years to 9 years to 14 years of maturity. The President must have 350% the adult maturity of Representatives.
    3. Increasing Citizenship/Residency Duration The qualification of citizenship increases from 7 years to 9 years for Representatives, and Senators (no residency). ( U.S. CONST. art. I, §3 para. 3U.S. CONST. art. II, §1 para. 5 Each Member of Congress must be a “citizen” U.S. CONST. art. I, §2 para. 2; U.S. CONST. art. II, §1 para. 5. The features distinguishing “natural born citizen” from “citizen” are critical to this and other cases contesting respondent Obama’s qualifications.

    Table 1: Stringency of Leadership Qualifications

    Member of Congress President
    Repre-sentative Senator Commander in Chief
    Responsi-bility Part State State All States
    Minimum Age years 25* 30** 35***
    Citizen/
    Resident 7 years citizen* 9 years citizen** 14 years a resident ***
    Citizen Type Any * Any ** Natural born ***
    US allegiance Sole or divided Sole or divided Undivided
    Father a citizen Option Option Yes
    Mother a citizen Option Option Yes
    Naturalized Option+ Option+ No+
    Born in US jurisdiction Option+ Option+ Yes (or Residency)+
    *U.S. CONST. art. I, §1; **U.S. CONST. art. I, §3; ***U.S. CONST. art. II, §1; +U.S. CONST. amend. XIV §1 with statutory citizenship requirements

    Petitioner submits that the qualification of “natural born citizen” for the President must be more stringent than “citizen”, both by logic, and by inference from the gradation of constitutional qualifications for Representatives, Senators and the President.
    However, “citizen” is a binary qualification. As “natural born citizen” is not defined within the Constitution, what are the constitutional criteria for establishing for this greater stringency? The “jurisdiction” of birth, allegiance or citizenship of each parent at an individual’s birth, and the individual’s own actions regarding allegiance on coming of age create multiple subcategories of “citizen”. Following are distinctions between “naturalized”, “native”, and “natural born” citizens as shown in the CONSTITUTION, by the Founders, and by contemporary authorities.
    6. Founders all U.S. citizens By U.S. CONST., art. VII para. 3, the U.S.A. is dated by “the independence of the United States of America the twelfth” codifying that it was established by the Declaration of Independence, (U.S. 1776). On adoption of the U.S. CONST. numerous candidates for Representatives and Senators satisfied the requirements of “citizen”, having 7 or 9 years of citizenship, and age per & §3. If Respondent Obama had been a U.S. “citizen” for 9 years and was at least 30 years age he would have qualified on his election to the Senate.
    7. Founders exception as not “natural born citizens” However, DECLARATION (U.S. 1776)377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964)322 U.S. 665, 673 (1944)231 U.S. 9, 22 (1913) " Emmerich de Vattel, Law of Nations (1758)
    de Vattel’s Law of Nations widely quoted by the Founders. de Vattel stated:
    "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. ..” Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758), Bk. 1, Ch. 19, Citizens and Nations, p 101 para 212; cited in Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, 476 (1856).

    2. " William Blackstone, Commentaries (1765)
    Blackstone in reviewing the Common Law stated:
    “Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, . . . aliens, such as are born out of it. . . .
    . . .every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, . . .” Commentaries 154-57 (Dean Gait ed., 1941)
    Both de Vattel and Blackstone thus state that children born of two citizens in that nation are natural-born citizens. RPE Obama has not shown evidence that both his biological parents were U.S. citizens.
    D. Primary allegiance passes through fathers In the Judeo-Christian legal tradition, allegiance flows through the father. Bible Ruth 4:6; de Vattel and Blackstone affirm this principle:
    “ . .the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children.” de Vattel, Law of Nations (1758), Bk. 1, Ch. 19, Citizens & Nations, p 101 para 212.

    “ . . .so that all children, born out of the king’s licence, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes,. . .” William Blackstone, Commentaries 154-57 (Dean Gait ed., 1941)

    RPE Obama has not shown evidence his father was a natural-born US citizen.
    E. Birth to Colonials not US, “natural born” George Washington was born to colonials of Virginia, and John Adams to colonials of Massachussetts. Both were born “native” to those Colonies, and “overseas” to Britain. Yet by the exception clause, the Founders implied that the restriction to U.S. “natural born citizen” disqualified both from becoming U.S. President. The CONSTITUTION’S exclusion clause by application disqualifies all U.S. citizens born to colonial fathers subject to the British sovereign.
    F. RPE Obama born of a British Colonial RPE Obama has posted:
    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.” http://www.Fightthesmears.org
    (Technically the British East African Protectorate of Zanzibar until Kenya gained independence in 1963.)
    The divorce decree for RPE Obama’s parents has recently been posted. (http://www.plainsradio.com).
    “That one child has been born to said Libelant and Libeled as issue of said marriage, to wit: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, a son, born August 4, 1961.” HI, 1st Cir. Domestic Relations, divorce decree D. No. 57972 Stanley Ann D. Obama v. Barack H. Obama p 2 §IV.

    The Hawaii court thus confirms RPE Obama’s statements.
    RPE Obama acknowledged that he had foreign allegiance, being a British citizen at birth through his Kenyan father (per British law provided exceptions for children born overseas to ambassadors, merchants, and citizens:
    “Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: . . .all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England:” Blackstone Commentaries 154-57.

    After adoption of the Constitution, Congress adapted this common law distinguishing between children born overseas vs those within the jurisdiction of the US, describing them as “citizen” rather than natural born citizen. Naturalization act of 1795, 1 Sess. II Ch. 21 414, 415 (1795), (with variations in 1790 and 1798.)
    If born overseas, RPE Obama has not submitted proofs that he was born to two US citizens.
    I. Commander in Chief in time of war The U.S. CONST. art II §2 provides:
    “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States;”

    Petitioner submits that this unique constitutional duty of Commander in Chief provides a critical constitutional principle differentiating the qualifications of “national born citizen” for president vs “citizen” for Members of Congress.
    1. Foreigners excluded for Commander in Chief John Jay, the first Chief Justice, wrote George Washington:
    “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check on the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”Records Federal Conv. 1787 LXVIII. John Jay to George Washington.3 (New York, July 25, 1787)

    Jay expressly defined the qualification of “natural born citizen” for the “commander in chief of the American army” as excluding all “Foreigners” with allegiance to foreign sovereigns. Washington acknowledged his “hint” and this qualification of “natural born citizen” was included in the Constitution without further discussion.
    2. Undivided Allegiance for Commander in Chief Senator Charles Pickney affirmed Jay’s restrictive qualification, stating:
    “It was intended to give your President the command of your forces, . . . to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible….” Rec. Fed. Conv. 1787 CCLXXXVIII p 385, 387 (March 28, 1800)

    Petitioner respectfully submits that the underlying constitutional principle on the restrictive qualification of “natural born citizen” to become President is that of requiring undivided allegiance to the U.S.A. for the Commander in Chief to “insure attachment to the country” and exclude “Foreigners”.
    On adopting the CONSTITUTION, the United States was just recovering from an existential war with the superpower Britain. The US endured ongoing conflict with Britain impressing US citizens for its ships, over this issue of the allegiance of native or naturalized citizens “natural born citizens”. Britain demanded the allegiance of all US citizens born in the colonies, or whose father was a British citizen, and who thus were not “natural born” with both parents being US citizens. In 1812 the US was forced to go to war with Britain to resolve this festering issue of allegiance to Britain.
    5. Danger of Traitors with Foreign Allegiance “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” US Const. Art. III, §3. As Commander in Chief, the President must guard against Treason.
    During the War for Independence, General Greene reported: “Treason of the blackest dye was yesterday discovered. General Arnold who commanded at West Point . . . was about to deliver up that important post into the hands of the enemy. Such an event must have given the American cause a deadly wound if not a fatal stab.” Washington, Writings (1932), Vol. XI, pp. 342-343, General Orders of May 2, 1778.

    Though a U.S. citizen and war hero, Benedict Arnold had been born under allegiance to Britain and his wife has strong allegiance to Britain. In light of the Founders’ painful experience during their recent War of Independence, the Treason section reinforces the principle that “natural born citizen”as qualification for Commander in Chief is to exclude citizens having any foreign allegiance. I.e., to select Presidents having only ever had sole allegiance with both biological parents and adoptive parents being US citizens.
    Since the attack on New York’s World Trade Center on “9/11", the US has been at “war on terrorism”. This enemy is not a nation state but radical Islamic religious faction bent on imposing its religious views through force. Indonesia is the largest Islamic country.
    Similarly, Petitioner submitted affidavits detailing how relatives of RPE Obama in Kenya have used violence to subjugate Christians, coerce elections, coerce the government into granting political power (establishing a Prime Minister without constitutional amendment.) Petitioner documented RPE Obama as having aided and abetted this coercive effort.
    RPE Obama has failed to show that he is free of foreign influence as necessary for a Commander in Chief in time of war.
    6. Avoid dual nationality through a parent Tories retaining allegiance to the British sovereign were a major part of the “enemy” during the US War of Independence. The Founders’ experience directs an explicit avoidance of citizens having near relatives with foreign allegiance as a threat of direct opposition or of becoming traitors. This infers that “natural born citizen” should be interpreted to mean that both parents of the Commander in Chief should be U.S. citizens. Adoptive parents should also be U.S. citizens.
    Petitioner documents that RPE Obama had Indonesian citizenship evidenced by school records and parents divorce decree. Petitioner submits that the core purpose of “natural born citizen” is that of allegiance to safeguard against tyranny. The issue is thus whether RPE Obama retained sole allegiance to the USA per requirements for a Commander in chief in time of war, rather than his personal civil rights of citizenship or if he lost his citizenship (cf Perkins v. Elg 307 U.S. 325).
    7. Avoid dual nationality through birth place Foreign birth establishes foreign allegiance (dual citizenship). During World War II, Hitler recalled US citizens with dual nationality or German parentage. Pierce O’Donnell, In Time of War: Hitler’s Terrorist Attack on America, 2005. Some were trained sent back to sabotage the US war effort. By the sovereignty of the U.S., Congress has the absolute power
    “to exclude aliens from the United States and to prescribe the terms and conditions on which they come in. . . .The United States, . . . are one nation, invested with powers which belong to independent nations, the exercise of which can be invoked for the maintenance of its absolute independence and security throughout its entire territory.” Chae Chan Ping v. United States 130 U.S. 581, 603, 604 (1889)

    Making an Alien the Commander in Chief would incur the danger of the US losing “its absolute independence and security”by descent into tyranny. Pickney restricting the President from foreigners applies this power to exclude aliens and applies it to excluding any citizen with foreign allegiance, by birth or adoption, from becoming Commander in Chief, lest they endanger the U.S.’s “absolute independence and security.”
    J. Natural Born under Amendment 14 Citizenship rights In ” John A. Bingham, appointed Union Army Judge Advocate by Lincoln, crafted the 14th Amendment (final April 28, 1866.) Bingham himself affirmed the narrow interpretation of “natural born citizen” clause stating:
    “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. .” Rep. John A. Bingham, re S 61 Bill, March 9, 1866.

    He confirmed de G. J. Chin, reviews U.S. SC cases finding that in Insular Cases, “persons born in unincorporated territories are not Fourteenth Amendment citizens.” Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President Mich. Law. Rev. 1st Impressions, Vol. 107, No. 1, 2008,
    S.H. Duggin & M. B. Collins (Feb. 2005) provide a detailed review, arguing that “natural born citizen” is unfair. ‘Natural Born’ in the USA’ Boston Univ. Law Rev. However, they omitted the key contemporary definition of Petitioner submits that the Constitution places the burden of proof to qualify on the President elect. All officers sworn to uphold the Constitution including election officers in Congress, the Electoral College and all States have the duty to challenge and test those qualifications, and to declare that the President elect (or candidate) has qualified or failed to qualify.
    The Petitioner and public record indicate explicit active refusal by the RPE Obama to submit any government certified witnessed proofs that he qualifies for President.
    The restrictive qualification “natural born citizen” is essential to preserve the Constitution and the Republic from descending into tyranny. It should be guided by the underlying constitutional principle of enforcing sole allegiance to the United States and to exclude all candidates with any foreign allegiance through the allegiance of either birth parent or by any adoptive parent, or by the President elect’s own actions.
    Petitioner humbly submits that this Court should therefore affirm the Petitioner’s Motion and find that the Respondent, President Elect Barack Hussein Obama II has failed in his constitutional burden of proof to qualify for President.

    “I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.”

    ___________________________, January 15, 2009
    Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

    No. 08A524

    In The
    Supreme Court of the United States

  5. Please make sure you vote in this AOL poll on repealing the two term limit for presidents:

    http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/01/14/three-terms-for-barack-obama

  6. SonOf1776…

    What will happen when we get Obama out is that the Entire Democratic Party will be so discredited that they will not maintain power past 2010 if at all. The Gop will take some hard punches as well but the base which was so discouraged during the election will be out for blood. Sure there will be efforts to get past it but the Obama Fraud will hover over everyone involved like a cloud. It wont be a simple matter of picking someone else either. There will be investigations on how this was allowed to happen and who knew. It will hopefully tie things up enough in Washington that they wont have time to interfere with this country’s recovery. A recovery that would have happened if they hadn’t gotten involved in the first place.

  7. Good Afternoon, Citizen Wells —

    http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd428.htm

    CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS MEETS OBAMA IN PRIVATE
    By: Devvy
    January 15, 2009
    © 2008 – NewsWithViews.com

    “Is there anything more shameful than the man who lacks the courage to be a coward?” Peter Blaunder

    CBS News reported that Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John G.. Roberts, Jr., would meet in private with impostor president elect, Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro and so forth, on January 14, 2009:

    “At the invitation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Mr. Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden will pay a protocol visit to the Supreme Court of the United States Wednesday afternoon, the office says….The visit is private; reporters and photographers will not be present.”

  8. How Long Do We Have?

    About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

    ‘A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.’

    ‘A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is Always followed by a dictatorship.’

    ‘The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years’

    ‘During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

    1. from bondage to spiritual faith;

    2. from spiritual faith to great courage;

    3. from courage to liberty;

    4. from liberty to abundance;

    5. from abundance to complacency;

    6. from complacency to apathy;

    7. from apathy to dependence;

    8. from dependence back into bondage’

    Professor Olson adds: ‘In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in Government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…’ Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the ‘complacency and apathy’ phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the ‘governmental dependency’ phase.

    If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal’s and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA  in fewer than five years.

    If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message. If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

    WE LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE, ONLY BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE

    “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

    “All that is needed for evil to succeed is that decent human beings do nothing.”

  9. zachjonesishome

    It seems a lot is going on with the cases. I will post tomorrow updates. I have a short new post up that SOME of your readers may like (some will not). Thank you for all your work! Zach

  10. Zach, et al.
    I plan to post what may be the last of my corruption articles about Obama
    tonight. It is sad that there is so much information about Obama’s ties
    to Chicago corruption and that it has been available for many months.
    The MSM has led many to believe that Blagojevich trying to sell Obama’s
    senate seat is the story when in fact there is a litany of charges that will be filed against
    him within a few months and if Fitzgerald has any integrity, Obama will be
    next.

  11. Maybe someone should buy off Rezco, Blago and Michelle Obama…they’re all greedy and might speak the truth if enough money was involved. Or better yet, his step-brother could sure use the money, and his step-grandmother is so happy with being popular right now, someone should offer her money and fame and she’ll talk. Oh, wait, let’s go back to the source…offer Obama enough money, an American passport, a new and authentic C.O.L.B., his own talk show, his own toy and finally get him that damn dog he wants and maybe, just maybe you’ll get him talking…but hey, don’t forget to right his “admittance” speach and get him in front of a large audience with telepromter and all, don’t forget the columns!!

  12. Re: Taitz’s recent court filing.

    FABULOUS read! With all we have been through regarding barry’s quest for the White House, this is THE most complete filing to date. Makes sense and is very specific as to direction suggested to court. Now let’s see if the justices sit up and take notice.

    One day closer to The Truth about barry soetoro.

  13. right his “admittance” speach …

    sorry, it should read:
    write his “admittance” speech…

  14. Well, my respect for Dr. Orly Taitz, attorney, has just increased a million-fold. I was almost crying reading through the entire lawsuit posted above. She even mentions Benedict Arnold who had a similar parental situation to BO. She’s got everything in there but the kitchen sink, oh wait …

    Dr. Orly: Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.

    It may not work, but I thank you and your helpers for your hard work, intelligence, and patriotism. God Bless America. Pray.

  15. Why the heck do these idiots like Pigeon and Hale keep putting their cases/intentions up on the web before they actually have it? Unbelievable stupidity! It gives the Obama camp time to do an end run on them. Nuts!

  16. This is from an email from Nancy Pelosi to Dr. Orly as shown on her website:

    If you are not a resident of California’s 8th Congressional District and are contacting me in regard to my role as Speaker, please email me at AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov.

    There ya go! We KNOW she is in on this thing, but why not send her thousands of emails anyway? Just cut and paste parts of Dr. Orly’s lawsuit claim posted above and send it to good old Nancy. She may read it, she may not, but getting hundreds or thousands of these in her email box will remind her that many US citizens are against O’s coronation.

    Go ahead now, it will only take you 5 minutes and costs nothing.

  17. Katie —

    That posting is a TOTAL hoax! But you are in good company — even Rush Limbaugh fell for it this year, even after it was discovered to be a hoax years ago.

  18. I agree with you Foxtrot,this makes so mad to get soneones hopes up then say they don’t have it yet.Why give them a chance to get it,man is that dumb or what? I guess I won’t believe anybody until I see it on this blog,because I’ll believe CW if he says its true.

  19. Sorry, me so mad.

  20. “Why the heck do these idiots like Pigeon and Hale keep putting their cases/intentions up on the web before they actually have it? Unbelievable stupidity! It gives the Obama camp time to do an end run on them. Nuts!”

    I personally cannot understand why you’d think Pidgeon is an idiot! This guy is working to prove BO is ineligible. So, what are you doing? Stop griping about those who are working on this issue.

    I’m really sick of all the whiners! Sorry.

  21. Jacqlyn Smith

    Thanks Janet for the e-mail address. I just sent Orly’s lawsuit to Peloie and Reid warning them that “we the people” would be coming after them next with similar litigation since we know they are part of this cover up simply because they want power and greed!!! Everyone please do as Janet says and flood them with emails>

  22. The current SCOTUS threshold for a MUST STAY of BHO’s inauguration is not whether he is ultimately determined constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS, merely whether there now is SERIOUS QUESTION on his constitutional eligibility, since any determination of inelligibility AFTER inauguration would pose unnecessary civil and military difficulties.

  23. If/when you write to Nancy Pelosi as per my post above, please be sure to include all or parts of Dr. Orly’s lawsuit claim in above post but be sure NOT to make any threats such as “we’ll be coming after you next” …

    Jacqlyn, thanks for taking the time to email her. Like I said, whether she reads them all the way through or not, she will certainly be aware that hundreds or thousands of people are aware of Dr. Orly’s lawsuit and think enough of it to shove it in Pelosi’s face.
    In other words, we are saying, “See? You think you have this all wrapped up? You think now you’re going to make sure no Republican can ever get into office again by extending the years Obama can be in office indefinitely? THINK AGAIN! These lawsuits will not stop because Obama is not a natural born citizen according to Congress’ own ruling in 2008 saying both parents must be American citizens.”

    “You can fool some Americans some of the time, Ms. Pelosi, but you cannot fool ALL Americans ALL of the time.”

  24. You need to keep sending money to these lawyers as they do their patriotic duty. Do not even pause for a second to think you are being fleeced.

  25. Janet—-I think you should let people decide for themselves what to tell Pelosi and Reid. My threat was of litigation…not violence!

  26. Redneck Sympathizer

    PROTEST IDEA:Lets all meet in Honolulu at the birth registry office where Fukimo made the OI statement.Everybody bring a COLB that Polarik thinks most closely replicates the Obambi fraud doc.Then we all claim blood kinship to Obambi in search of long form.we can keep this office pretty busy.Somebody can pump out a list of possible blood kin names.If they suggest that its not true we are not related to him,we will then proceed to verbally assault them with cries of “RACISTS”

  27. That has got to be the weirdest document ever filed with the US Supreme Court.

    I think Orly even thinks that she is the petitioner.

    It’s absolutely amazing that woman has a law license.

  28. Patriot,
    I thought it was just me. Glad that I’m not alone.

  29. Jacqlyn Smith

    CW—-Your blog is being taken over by Obots!! You might be an Obaot if…..all you do is go from blog to blog soliciting propaganda about true Patriots and the Constitution!!

  30. Jacqlyn,
    CW does allow those Obot comments sometimes to show that they are empty suits as well as BO himself.
    Lies, arrogance & sarcasm.

    But no answer to the simple question, why does he spend lots of money to hire law firms instead of just showing his BC.
    If he is eligible.

    Tough question, I know.

  31. But somehow the comments are not moderated at the moment.
    They come up instantly (?)

  32. Citizen Wells has been reading worse than this for a long time.

    This is nothing new —

    There is a wonderful book about early North Carolina by a former reporter for the Charlotte Observer called “Tory Oath.” It is so old that you can by it used for less than $1.00 in hardback, but the story is absolutely fantastic.

    http://www.amazon.com/Tory-oath-Tim-Pridgen/dp/B0006AP8QU

    It tells of the tensions between the Tories and the Patriots in Revolutionary War North Carolina, tensions that eventually broke out into bloodshed between long-standing neighbors, and the choices they had in the end to make — the Tories (the ‘British Subjects’ finally moved to Canada after the 1793 Treaty of Paris, because the ‘Patriots’ thoughts were simply too different from their way of thinking).

    If you view yourself to be a ‘sovereign with no subjects,’ Obama’s approach to governing is like mixing oil with water. Totally incompatible!

    There is NOTHING he can say or do that can interest me in the LEAST. And nothing will ever cause me to change my mind!

  33. to redneck
    orly has an obama relative on one of her suits, they asked for verfication
    and allegedly the hawaii office said
    “to come back in a year?”

    talk about obstruction of justice.

  34. hey there is NO MODERATION here

  35. da verg.
    Not exactly. Variation of prior modus operandi.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s