Philip Berg DC eligibility rally, Removal of Obama with or without Issa
“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans
From World Net Daily October 23, 2010.
“D.C. eligibility rally boldly blasts Obama as ‘fraud’
Attorney Berg motivates crowd to ask, ‘Where’s birth certificate?'”
“A rally today at the U.S. Capitol pulled no punches in declaring President Barack Obama an “imposter” and “fraud” who should resign before a constitutional crisis of his own making rips apart the nation.
The rally was called by Philip Berg, a Pennsylvania attorney who runs the ObamaCrimes.com website and was the first to sue over allegations Obama is constitutionally ineligible to occupy the Oval Office.
“The main thrust of the rally,” Berg told WND, “was to get out the continuing message that Obama is a phony, a fraud, an imposter, and [his eligibility to serve as president] is the biggest hoax committed against the U.S. in 234 years.”
Berg believes there is enough evidence, both hard and circumstantial, to justify an investigation into whether or not Obama is a “natural-born citizen” as required by the Constitution to serve as president. Berg is looking for a court with “the guts” to demand Obama provide proof of his eligibility.”
“Berg told WND he isn’t pushing for Obama’s resignation out of some right-wing venom – he’s a life-long Democrat – or racism or hatred, but out of dedication to preserving the U.S. Constitution and out of concern about what will happen to the country if Obama continues his presidency and is discovered ineligible years down the road.
“My goal is to have a peaceful revolution before something worse breaks out,” Berg said. “The sooner the better.”
He continued, “Obama is walking all over the Constitution, destroying the Constitution through holding office while ineligible, through a health-care plan that is clearly unconstitutional, and he has plans for more unconstitutional actions. I’m doing this because nothing is more important to the U.S. than its Constitution.”
Berg’s initial emergency appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court when Obama first took office, like those of a number of other attorneys, were not accepted by the panel. He has one case pending, and it is being prepared for presentation to the high court now.”
“He says that if it weren’t for the U.S. media, Obama would already have been exposed and removed from office.
“The media gave him a free ride,” he said.”
“Berg’s is not the only one who has challenged Obama’s residency in the White House. A case is developing involving Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who has questioned the legitimacy of the orders in the U.S. military under a president whose eligibility is under question.
Another case being handled by California attorneys Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation and Orly Taitz is on behalf of another presidential candidate and challenges Obama’s inclusion on the ballot.
Yet another claims Congress failed to perform its constitutional obligations to investigate Obama.
There’s even been a series of discussions about impeachment.”
“The court concludes … that the public’s need to know is more compelling”
From The Wall Street Journal .
“Republican candidate for U.S. Senate Joe Miller meets supporters at his Anchorage, Alaska, campaign headquarters Thursday.“Mr. Miller is a public figure by virtue of the fact that he’s a candidate for the U.S. Senate,” said Superior Court Judge Winston Burbank at a hearing. He continued, “The court concludes … that the public’s need to know is more compelling than Mr. Miller’s right to privacy.”
He ruled some information shouldn’t be disclosed for reasons including the privacy of the people involved and client-attorney privilege. He added that the records shouldn’t be disclosed any earlier than Tuesday at 4 p.m., to give Mr. Miller time to appeal the decision before then. “Joe is going to confer with his attorney to see if an appeal is even necessary,” said a spokesman for Mr. Miller.
The decision was a twist in a battle involving several news organizations who had together sued the Fairbanks North Star Borough, where Mr. Miller once worked as a lawyer, for records about the Republican candidate’s potential misuse of government computers and the circumstances of his departure from the job.
Mr. Miller was allowed Tuesday to intervene in the lawsuit to push for the protection of the records. If the employment records are ultimately released, they could cast a spotlight on the candidate’s previous professional behavior at a critical point in the election.
Mr. Miller, who is backed by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Express, beat Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the GOP primary and now faces Ms. Murkowski who is running a strong campaign as a write-in candidate, and Sitka Mayor Scott McAdams, the Democratic candidate.”
Obama can be removed with or without Darrell Issa.
From Citizen News.
““If Republicans take control of the House, there is “not a chance at this point” that they will try to impeach President Obama, a top Republican lawmaker said this week.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who would helm the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee if the GOP wins on Election Day, said that his party will not try to bring impeachment charges simply because it disagrees with the president.
“Not a chance at this point. I don’t see it happening,” Issa said when asked if there is a chance of impeachment on Bloomberg’s “Political Capital,” which airs over the weekend.”
“Before proceeding, I want to be crystal clear. Obama is apparently not a legal president, is in fact a usurper, and as such does not have to be impeached, but simply arrested and removed from the White House in hand cuffs.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution provides for petitioning government, specifically the US House of Representatives, for a redress of grievances. This includes a petition or demand for the arrest or impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama.
From the 110th Congress House Rules Manual — House Document No. 108-241.
Petitions, memorials, and private bills
“Petitions, memorials, and other papers addressed to the House may be presented by the Speaker as well as by a Member (IV, 3312). Petitions from the country at large are presented by the Speaker in the manner prescribed by the rule (III, 2030; IV, 3318; VII, 1025). A Member may present a petition from the people of a State other than his own (IV, 3315, 3316). The House itself may refer one portion of a petition to one committee and another portion to another committee (IV, 3359, 3360), but ordinarily the reference of a petition does not come before the House itself. A committee may receive a petition only through the House (IV, 4557).”
Jefferson’s Manual as adopted in the US Congress House Rules Manual.
“In the <<NOTE: Sec. 603. Inception of impeachment proceedings in the
House.>> House there are various methods of setting an impeachment in
motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member
or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; VI, 525, 526, 528, 535,
536); by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a
committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515; VI,
543); by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to
a committee (Apr. 15, 1970, p. 11941; Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873); by a
message from the President (III, 2294, 2319; VI, 498); by charges
transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469) or territory
(III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III, 2488); or from facts developed