Category Archives: American Revolution

American Revolution

RestoreTheConstitutionalRepublic.org, Restore the Constitutional Republic website, January 17, 2009, Dean Haskins Chairman, Blog, Forum, Videos, US Constitution, Obama not eligible, Obama not natural born citizen

Posted on January 17, 2009 | 220 comments

Dean Haskins, Chairman of Restore the Constitutional Republic has
just notified me that the new website is up. We have been working
with Dean and the group to inform congress, other officials and the
American public of the eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama
and the importance of upholding the US Constitution. Even if Obama
is inaugurated, there is a groundswell of concern over violation
of the US Constitution, degradation of the rule of law and disregard
for this country. Please visit the new site and get involved in
saving this country.

New website description:

Welcome to Restore the Constitutional Republic

Restore the Constitutional Republic is an organization dedicated to those patriots who recognize that our government has become unresponsive to the will of those who desire . . . no demand . . . that our Constitution be upheld, defended, and preserved.

Our Beginnings . . .

During the latest presidential campaign, it became apparent to many Americans that there were some questions surrounding Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president of the United States. Several lawsuits were filed simply asking that he produce the necessary documentation to prove his “natural born” qualifications, as required by our Constitution. Article II states:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Barack Obama Hired Lawyers

Instead of doing what every one of us has had to do (by just showing his birth certificate), Mr. Obama chose to fight the more than twenty lawsuits filed across the country (a number that continues to grow).

Knowing that common sense dictates that one doesn’t fight to hide something he doesn’t want kept secret, Restore the Constitutional Republic was born. We believe it is time to hold our government accountable, or to reclaim it for “We the People.”

Please join us in our forum and volunteer to help us take back America!

From the blog:

“Shall They Now Have Died in Vain?

January 17th, 2009

Dean C. Haskins

Before now, I never felt compelled to regard myself as a “patriot.” It’s not that I didn’t consider myself patriotic; it’s that nothing had occurred in my 49 years that even remotely challenged my deep, abiding trust in our Constitution. My national naivety ended in 2008. My political innocence was the victim of a brutal rape. The media-fueled presidential campaign that ubiquitously ravaged the senses and sensibilities of our general public, held remotely in its grasp a deceptively shrouded secret―an obfuscation so wily, so destructive of the pristine document that had brilliantly guided our republic, that only the most astute, watchful amongst us chose to voice their very founded concern.

Simply put, the Democratic National Committee chose a candidate for president who had never been required to produce even the most basic proof that he was constitutionally eligible to hold the office. That party cavalierly assumed that merely contriving a campaign with all the glitz and glitter of a broadway production would blind the common sense of common people (you know, those “smelly” Washington, DC tourists), and amidst the cunning smoke and mirrors in which they shrouded the ascension of their modern day messiah, they believed all the palm frond waving through which their deity entered the Jerusalem gates would preclude any possible question about his qualifications from those so far beneath them.”

Read more here:

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.org/

220 Comments

Posted in American Revolution, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Birth Certificate, Chief Justice, Circuit Court, Citizen, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Congress, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Federal Court, Founding Fathers, Government, Hawaii, Illinois, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Judges, Justice, Kenya, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, Politics, restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.org, Secretary of State, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, US House of Representatives, US Senate, Voter fraud, voters, We the People Foundation, Websites

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Illinois Electors, Electoral College votes, December 15, 2008, Cspan coverage, Chicago IL and Democrat party in IL are revolting, IL corruption

Posted on December 15, 2008 | 86 comments

I just observed on of the most sickening spectacles of my life.
One of the great commenters on this blog, ms. helga, notified
me that the IL Electors voting was being covered live on Cspan.
The first Elector that I heard presenting her praise, Lauren Beth
Gash, nauseated me. She lavished such undue praise on Obama that
I stood their incredulous in disbelief. Another one spoke of
knowing Obama since he was from Illinois. Most Electors that I
observed said a few obligatory party line words. After about six
Electors, I could stomach no more. No wonder Chicago and Illinois
are such a cesspool of crime and corruption. Democratic Party
Politics in IL is void of integrity. Electors are putting party
politics above the US Constitution and the American People.
Is it any wonder that the Democrat Governor of IL, Rod Blagojevich,
has been arrested and urged to resign. Obama should be next.

If someone out there was able to stomach the entire debacle,
please let us know if all Electors followed the party dictate.

Perhaps there will be electors in other states that will put
country first. If not, let’s pursue some legal remedies to
begin the huge enema that needs to be given to this country.

86 Comments

Posted in American Revolution, Announcements, Attorney General, Barack Obama, Board of Elections, Chicago, Chicago machine, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Congress, corruption, Crime, Criminal Complaint, Democrat delegate, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Government, Illinois, impeachment, indictment, John McCain, Judges, Justice, McCain Obama, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, Politics, Richard Daley, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , ,

Donofrio vs Wells, US Supreme Court, Natural Born Citizen, Obama not eligible, Father Kenyan,British rule, Supreme Court Justices answer, US Constitution, New Jersey, Connecticut lawsuit, Secretary of State, Oath of office, Marbury Vs Madison, Monday, December 8, 2008

Posted on December 7, 2008 | 16 comments

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

“If 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.”

Chief Justice Marshall opinion, Marbury Vs Madison

Donofrio versus Wells is before all nine Justices of the US Supreme Court
and it is expected that they will decide by Monday morning, December 8,
2008 whether or not they will accept the case for a possible opinion or ruling.
The Leo Donofrio case is based on the natural born citizen provision of the
US Constitution and the failure of New Jersey Secretary of State, Nina Wells to ensure
that Barack Obama is qualified under that provision. Having the US Supreme
Court give serious consideration to this case and uphold the US Constitution
is of utmost importance. However, this case demands attention to other
aspects of upholding the Constitution and clarifying duties that may in the
long term have more far reaching consequences. Here are three distinct
aspects of the Donofrio case that must be addressed and clarified by the
US Supreme Court Justices:

  • The Natural Born Citizen provision of the US Constitution as applicable to the 2008 election.
  • The powers given to state officials in the election process and inherent duties to uphold the
    US Constitution and Federal Election Laws.
  • The oath of office taken by federal and state officers, election officials and judges and the
    duty to uphold the US Constitution.

Not addressed specifically in the Donofrio lawsuit and therefore
not before the US Supreme Court, but a matter of much confusion,
is the statutes in some of the states and pledges by some
political parties to dictate how Electoral College Electors must
vote. This violates the letter and spirit of constitutional law
and the intent of the founding fathers to give carefully chosen
Electors the leeway to make wise choices.

Here is the basis in fact of Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit:

“On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being “natural born citizens” as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution.”

“The cause of action first accrued on September 22, 2008, when Secretary Wells certified to county clerks, for ballot preparation, a written “statement”, prepared under her seal of office, that was required by statute to contain names of only those candidates who were “by law entitled” to be listed on ballots in New Jersey.  The statement is demanded by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22.

The law suit raises a novel contention that the statutory code undergoes legal fusion with the Secretary’s oath of office to uphold the US Constitution thereby creating a minimum standard of review based upon the “natural born citizen” requirement of Article 2, Section 1, and that the Supremacy clause of the Constitution would demand those requirements be resolved prior to the election.

The key fact, not challenged below, surrounds two conversations between the plaintiff-appellant and a key Secretary of State Election Division official wherein the official admitted, twice, that the defendant-Secretary just assumed the candidates were eligible taking no further action to actually verify that they were, in fact, eligible to the office of President.  These conversations took place on October 22nd and 23rd.”

“Now, post-election, plaintiff is seeking review by the United States Supreme Court to finally determine the “natural born citizen” issue. Plaintiff alleged the Secretary has a legal duty to make certain the candidates pass the “natural born citizen” test.  The pre-election suit requested that New Jersey ballots be stayed as they were defective requiring replacements to feature only the names of candidates who were truly eligible to the office of President.”

Here are the three distinct aspects of Donofrio’s lawsuit that should be reviewed and clarified
by the US Supreme Court Justices:

The Natural Born Citizen provision of the US Constitution as applicable to the 2008 election.

Leo Donofrio states:

“Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.”

Read more from Leo Donofrio

The powers given to state officials in the election process and inherent duties to uphold the
US Constitution and Federal Election Laws.

There is much confusion and misunderstanding about the duties and powers of state officers and election
officials involved in presidential elections.

Read more here

The oath of office taken by federal and state officers, election officials and judges and the
duty to uphold the US Constitution.

From the opinion by Chief Justice Marshall on Marbury Vs Madison:


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

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

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

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

For the Justices of the US Supreme Court to disregard this important
lawsuit by Leo Donofrio, I am certain that all nine Justices would
violate their oath to uphold the US Constitution and duty to review,
consider and clarify the important principles outlined above. We are
accountable not only to uphold  the US Constitution and rule of law
in regard to the 2008 election, but the future integrity of the
Constitution, our system of checks and balances and stability of our
government. I strongly urge the Supreme Court Justices to help keep
our Constitution and government intact.

 
“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.”

Chief Justice Marshall opinion, Marbury Vs Madison

16 Comments

Posted in American Revolution, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Congress, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Founding Fathers, Government, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, John McCain, Judges, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Superior Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama not natural born citizen, Obama ineligible, Chief Justice Roberts, US Supreme Court must review, December 8, 2008, Obama’s father British, Act of Congress, British Nationality Act of 1948, US Constitution, When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside

Posted on December 7, 2008 | 31 comments

From time to time I publish a comment placed on this blog. This comment is substantive and well presented
by commenter Bob.

“Comments on FactCheck.org: “Clarifies Barack Obama’s Citizenship”

They should have said: “Barack Obama: Born a ‘Brit.’”

———————————–

Barack Obama’s Citizenship? This is the syllogism:

A. If your citizenship is governed by an Act of Congress to establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization, then you are disqualified for the office of president and vice president of the United States.

B. Barack Obama’s citizenship is governed by the Secretary of State’s codified regulation: 7 FAM 1111.4 “Dual or Multiple Nationality.”

Why?

Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate posted by The Obama Campaign on the InterNet discloses it, and FactCheck.org confirms that on the DAY Barack Obama WAS BORN, his father, Barack Obama, Senior, was a British subject (his Kenyan citizenship is irrelevant).

They wrote: ‘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 …’

Please read that last line again: “That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children …”

C. Therefore, Barack Obama is disqualified from the office of president.

Barack Obama graduated from Harvard Law School magnum cum laude, and was also a lecturer at the prestigious University of Chicago Law School: So, he knows this.

———————————–

This issue is no more complicated than this simple line of reasoning: Everything else is no more than “smoke and mirrors.”

———————————–

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”

———————————–

Since the First Wednesday of March 1789 (March 4), the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and all Treaties made under the Authority of the United States, have been the supreme Law of the Land.

This is what President George Washington said on that day:

“Fellow Citizens:

“I am again called upon by the voice of my country to execute the functions of its Chief Magistrate. When the occasion proper for it shall arrive, I shall endeavor to express the high sense I entertain of this distinguished honor, and of the confidence which has been reposed in me by the people of united America.

“Previous to the execution of any official act of the President the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (besides incurring constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.”

———————————–

Justice Rehnquist (later Chief Justice) noted that in the Constitution, “a political document noted for its brevity,” that there are 11 instances addressing the “citizen-alien” distinction: Art. 1, S 2, C 2; S 3, C , S 8, C 4; Art. 2, S 1, C 5, Art. 3, S 2, C 1; Art. 4, S 2, C 1, and in the 11th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments.

———————————–

So why would the law of any foreign State such as the British Nationality Act of 1948 have any effect in any State under the jurisdiction of the United States?

Did the President made a Treaty with Great Britain surrendering sovereignty to a foreign State to secure some right? The answer is, “No!”

Did Congress act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization? The answer is, “Yes!”

———————————–

Congress passed the McCarran-Walter Act called “The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.” The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (before Obama was born), as amended through 1994 (before Obama ran for office), is our current law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952

President Truman actually vetoed the bill, and argued for more liberalized provisions that would effectively end the restrictive quota system: “In no other realm of our national life are we so hampered and stultified by the dead hand of the past, as we are in this field of immigration.” But Congress overrode his veto, and the 1952 Act was implemented.

Why the McCarran-Walter Act? It was the product of the most extensive Congressional study in the nation’s history of the subject of Immigration and Nationality. The Act codified and brought together for the first time all the nation’s laws and all the court’s decisions on immigration and naturalization. Although it has since been extensively amended through 1994, it remains the basis of all immigration and nationality law today.

The McCarran-Walter Act, and all subsequent legislation, address the issues raised by the laws of other nations and their effect upon the laws of the United States.

Congress decided that the Secretary of State and the Attorney General were authorized, in their discretion and on a basis of reciprocity, to severally prescribe regulations implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The Secretary of State codified regulations in the 7 Foreign Affairs Manual (Consular Affairs) to advise U.S. nationals about citizenship: 7 FAM 1100 deals with the Acquisition and Retension of U.S. Citizenship and Nationality; 7 FAM 1110 deals with Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth in the United States, including specifically “Dual or Multiple Nationality” (7 FAM 1111.4).

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

The Attorney General codified regulations for children through the Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, under Section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, the INS is now part of the Department of Homeland Security, U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [and so these regulations are now found at (8 CFR), Immigration and Naturalization].

http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=7b2ad4e82f00315ac8e70cab6366e0da

Both sets of codified regulations govern all decisions made by all departments of the Federal government, including the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Health and Human Services, as well as the Department of Education.

———————————–

As noted above, the Constitution gives Congress authority to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

The Code of Federal Regulations is huge, but it can all be summarized with this sentence: Naturalized citizens legally are equal in almost all respects to persons who have been Americans from birth.

The only constitutional disqualification of naturalized citizens is for the offices of president and vice president of the United States.

Why? Because the Constitution says this: “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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The words “no person except” also means “no exceptions.”

———————————–

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President can take the following Oath or Affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Why? Because, since 1974 the Committee on the Judiciary has considered a violation of the constitutional oath to be a high crime and misdemeanor, warranting impeachment, trial and removal from office.

Why? Because the Constitution states that the President of the United States shall take care are that the laws be faithfully executed.

———————————–

Why must the Supreme Court review this matter?

Because, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.”

And specifically cases that involve: “foreign States, Citizens, and Subjects:” Barack Obama, Senior, was a British Subject.

Why must the Chief Justice have a special role in this matter?

Because, “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.”

Comments on FactCheck.org: “Clarifies Barack Obama’s Citizenship”

They should have said: “Barack Obama: Born a ‘Brit.'”

———————————–

Barack Obama’s Citizenship? This is the syllogism:

A. If your citizenship is governed by an Act of Congress to establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization, then you are disqualified for the office of president and vice president of the United States.

B. Barack Obama’s citizenship is governed by the Secretary of State’s codified regulation: 7 FAM 1111.4 “Dual or Multiple Nationality.”

Why?

Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate posted by The Obama Campaign on the InterNet discloses it, and FactCheck.org confirms that on the DAY Barack Obama WAS BORN, his father, Barack Obama, Senior, was a British subject (his Kenyan citizenship is irrelevant).

They wrote: ‘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 …’

Please read that last line again: “That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children …”

C. Therefore, Barack Obama is disqualified from the office of president.

Barack Obama graduated from Harvard Law School magnum cum laude, and was also a lecturer at the prestigious University of Chicago Law School: So, he knows this.

———————————–

This issue is no more complicated than this simple line of reasoning: Everything else is no more than “smoke and mirrors.”

———————————–

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”

———————————–

Since the First Wednesday of March 1789 (March 4), the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and all Treaties made under the Authority of the United States, have been the supreme Law of the Land.

This is what President George Washington said on that day:

“Fellow Citizens:

“I am again called upon by the voice of my country to execute the functions of its Chief Magistrate. When the occasion proper for it shall arrive, I shall endeavor to express the high sense I entertain of this distinguished honor, and of the confidence which has been reposed in me by the people of united America.

“Previous to the execution of any official act of the President the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (besides incurring constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.”

———————————–

Justice Rehnquist (later Chief Justice) noted that in the Constitution, “a political document noted for its brevity,” that there are 11 instances addressing the “citizen-alien” distinction: Art. 1, S 2, C 2; S 3, C , S 8, C 4; Art. 2, S 1, C 5, Art. 3, S 2, C 1; Art. 4, S 2, C 1, and in the 11th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments.

———————————–

So why would the law of any foreign State such as the British Nationality Act of 1948 have any effect in any State under the jurisdiction of the United States?

Did the President made a Treaty with Great Britain surrendering sovereignty to a foreign State to secure some right? The answer is, “No!”

Did Congress act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization? The answer is, “Yes!”

———————————–

Congress passed the McCarran-Walter Act called “The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.” The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (before Obama was born), as amended through 1994 (before Obama ran for office), is our current law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952

President Truman actually vetoed the bill, and argued for more liberalized provisions that would effectively end the restrictive quota system: “In no other realm of our national life are we so hampered and stultified by the dead hand of the past, as we are in this field of immigration.” But Congress overrode his veto, and the 1952 Act was implemented.

Why the McCarran-Walter Act? It was the product of the most extensive Congressional study in the nation’s history of the subject of Immigration and Nationality. The Act codified and brought together for the first time all the nation’s laws and all the court’s decisions on immigration and naturalization. Although it has since been extensively amended through 1994, it remains the basis of all immigration and nationality law today.

The McCarran-Walter Act, and all subsequent legislation, address the issues raised by the laws of other nations and their effect upon the laws of the United States.

Congress decided that the Secretary of State and the Attorney General were authorized, in their discretion and on a basis of reciprocity, to severally prescribe regulations implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The Secretary of State codified regulations in the 7 Foreign Affairs Manual (Consular Affairs) to advise U.S. nationals about citizenship: 7 FAM 1100 deals with the Acquisition and Retension of U.S. Citizenship and Nationality; 7 FAM 1110 deals with Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth in the United States, including specifically “Dual or Multiple Nationality” (7 FAM 1111.4).

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

The Attorney General codified regulations for children through the Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, under Section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, the INS is now part of the Department of Homeland Security, U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [and so these regulations are now found at (8 CFR), Immigration and Naturalization].

http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=7b2ad4e82f00315ac8e70cab6366e0da

Both sets of codified regulations govern all decisions made by all departments of the Federal government, including the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Health and Human Services, as well as the Department of Education.

———————————–

As noted above, the Constitution gives Congress authority to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

The Code of Federal Regulations is huge, but it can all be summarized with this sentence: Naturalized citizens legally are equal in almost all respects to persons who have been Americans from birth.

The only constitutional disqualification of naturalized citizens is for the offices of president and vice president of the United States.

Why? Because the Constitution says this: “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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The words “no person except” also means “no exceptions.”

———————————–

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President can  take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Why? Because, since 1974 the Committee on the Judiciary has considered a violation of the constitutional oath to be a high crime and misdemeanor, warranting impeachment, trial and removal from office.

Why? Because the Constitution states that the President of the United States shall take care are that the laws be faithfully executed.

———————————–

Why must the Supreme Court review this matter?

Because, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.”

And specifically cases that involve: “foreign States, Citizens, and Subjects:” Barack Obama, Senior, was a British Subject.

Why must the Chief Justice have a special role in this matter?

Because, “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.””

31 Comments

Posted in American Revolution, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Cort Wrotnowski, Democrats, District Court, DNC, Dr. Orly Taitz, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, John McCain, Judges, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, National Press Club, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Electoral College facts, Obama not eligible, Electors must vote per US Constitution, Faithless Electors, Federal Election Laws, State Laws, Elector pledges, States and Electors must uphold US Constitution

Posted on November 21, 2008 | 17 comments

“The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.” — Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.

1860 election: 4 electors in New Jersey, pledged for Stephen Douglas, voted for Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln.

Electoral College must be maintained

We must adhere to spirit and intent of law

The Electoral College was set up by the founding fathers to achieve two primary goals.

  • To prevent smaller states and lower population areas from being dominated by a few larger states with
    higher population densities.
  • To prevent a tyrant or usurper of power from deceiving an uninformed populace.

I have been wading through the quagmire of the election process and in particular, the Electoral College
vote and state laws that control the election process through the Electors voting. Some aspects are
crystal clear. The US Constitution reveals the eligibility requirements for president, the responsibility
of the federal and state governments and how the electors must vote. The individual states have the
power of controlling general election ballots and orchestrating the selection, meeting and votes of the
Electoral College Electors. There is much confusion however, regarding the duties and powers of state
election officials to ensure the qualifications of candidates and in states’ power to control the way
Electors vote.

Here are the laws and facts regarding the pivotal point in the election process, the Vote by the Electoral College Electors:

US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.
“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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The US Constitution gives powers to the states for the general election.
US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

Federal Election Law: 

“The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended):

§ 8.   The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.”

From US National Archives

“There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.”

List of Electors Bound by State Law and Pledges, as of November 2000
Source:  Congressional Research Service

No Legal Requirement
Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ARIZONA – 10 Electoral Votes
ARKANSAS – 6 Electoral Votes
DELAWARE – 3 Electoral Votes
GEORGIA – 15 Electoral Votes
IDAHO – 4 Electoral Votes
ILLINOIS – 21 Electoral Votes
INDIANA – 11 Electoral Votes
IOWA – 7 Electoral Votes
KANSAS – 6 Electoral Votes
KENTUCKY – 8 Electoral Votes
LOUISIANA – 9 Electoral Votes
MINNESOTA – 10 Electoral Votes
 MISSOURI – 11 Electoral Votes
NEW HAMPSHIRE – 4 Electoral Votes
NEW JERSEY – 15 Electoral Votes
NEW YORK – 31 Electoral Votes
NORTH DAKOTA – 3 Electoral Votes
PENNSYLVANIA – 21 Electoral Votes
RHODE ISLAND – 4 Electoral Votes
SOUTH DAKOTA – 3 Electoral Votes
TENNESSEE – 11 Electoral Votes
TEXAS – 34 Electoral Votes
UTAH – 5 Electoral Votes
WEST VIRGINIA – 5 Electoral Votes
 
Legal Requirements or Pledges
Electors in these States are bound by State Law or by pledges to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ALABAMA – 9 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law – § 17-19-2
ALASKA – 3 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law – § 15.30.040; 15.30.070
CALIFORNIA – 55 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 6906
COLORADO – 9 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 1-4-304
CONNECTICUT – 7 Electoral Votes
State Law § 9-175
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA – 3 Electoral Votes
DC Pledge / DC Law – § 1-1312(g)
FLORIDA – 27 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law – § 103.021(1)
HAWAII – 4 Electoral Votes
State Law – §§ 14-26 to 14-28
MAINE – 4 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 805
MARYLAND – 10 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 20-4
MASSACHUSETTS – 12 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law – Ch. 53, § 8, Supp.
MICHIGAN – 17 Electoral Votes
State Law – §168.47 (Violation cancels vote and elector is replaced).
MISSISSIPPI – 6 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law – §23-15-785(3)
MONTANA – 3 Electoral Votes
State Law – §13-25-104
NEBRASKA – 5 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 32-714
NEVADA – 5 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 298.050
NEW MEXICO – 5 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 1-15-5 to 1-15-9 (Violation is a fourth degree felony.)
NORTH CAROLINA – 15 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 163-212 (Violation cancels vote; elector is replaced and is subject to $500 fine.)
OHIO – 20 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 3505.40
OKLAHOMA – 7 Electoral Votes
State Pledge / State Law – 26, §§ 10-102; 10-109 (Violation of oath is a misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $1000.)
OREGON – 7 Electoral Votes
State Pledge / State Law – § 248.355
SOUTH CAROLINA – 8 Electoral Votes
State Pledge / State Law – § 7-19-80 (Replacement and criminal sanctions for violation.)
VERMONT – 3 Electoral Votes
State Law – title 17, § 2732
* VIRGINIA – 13 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 24.1-162 (Virginia statute may be advisory – “Shall be expected” to vote for nominees.)
WASHINGTON – 11 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law – §§ 29.71.020, 29.71.040, Supp. ($1000 fine.)
WISCONSIN – 10 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 7.75
WYOMING – 3 Electoral Votes
State Law – §§ 22-19-106; 22-19-108

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html

So called “Faithless Electors”

“It turns out there is no federal law that requires an elector to vote according to their pledge (to their respective party). And so, more than a few electors have cast their votes without following the popular vote or their party. These electors are called “faithless electors.”

In response to these faithless electors’ actions, several states have created laws to enforce an elector’s pledge to his or her party vote or the popular vote. Some states even go the extra step to assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine to such actions. For example, the state of North Carolina charges a fine of $10,000 to faithless electors.

It’s important to note, that although these states have created these laws, a large number of scholars believe that such state-level laws hold no true bearing and would not survive constitutional challenge.”

Source:

http://votenovember2008.blogspot.com/2008/10/how-electoral-college-works.html

 

So, we have a situation where electors are referred to as “faithless” for not following the party line
or state mandate. However, the state mandates are unconstitutional. There is no such mandate from the
US Constitution or Federal Election Law. On the contrary, Electors are bound to vote in the manner defined
in the US Constitution. Following a political party or state mandate when confronted by serious concerns
regarding a presidential candidate’s eligibility, clearly violates the spirit of the law. The individual
states have the power over candidates being placed on and remaining on ballots. If they are to dictate
the manner in which Electors vote, they must exercise their powers and demand proof of eligibility
to prevent violations of constitutional law and potential voter disenfranchisement.

Let’s consider a comment from an Indiana Elector and Indiana law.

“Good Morning CW, I sent an email to all of the Electorals in Indiana asking them to support the Constitution requirements for President. This is what I received back, “Brenda I don’t represent you. I do however represent the people who voted for President Elect Barack Obama in the state of Indiana. Anthe the State did go from Red to Blue, did it not? Any think you have to further communicate with me is of no interest. Please refrain.” Cordelia Lewis-Burks. Then the next e-mail sent a picture of all the Presidents of the United States with the caption, One thing has changed” because it had Obama’s picture added. How do you get people like this to even question his qualifications? They do not care. All they care about is the fact that he is part black. By the way, this lady is black. I also have a question–why doesn’t she represent me? She is just an electoral, and I am a citizen of Indiana and the United States. Any suggestions ? Thanks. Brenda”

Electors pledge to a political party to vote for parties candidate. This is another example of party over country. The DNC did not vet Obama and now expect Electors to blindly follow.

The Indiana Elector in the above comment has pledged to the Democrat Party to vote for their candidate. I wonder if the Elector is aware of their duty to vote in the manner directed by the US Constitution. The Elector has been made aware of the eligibility issue with Barack Obama. Ignorance is not bliss. If the electors in Indiana are not made aware of their responsibilities and Obama being ineligible, then their Electoral votes must be challenged in Congress. 

Indiana Law from the Secretary of State

“After election day, each county sends its presidential vote totals to the Secretary of State in Indianapolis. It can take several weeks after the election for the final version of all these county returns to arrive. When all the county votes have been received (and any errors or omissions corrected), the Secretary of State certifies to the Governor the final, official returns for the presidential elector candidates.

The Governor then signs a “Certificate of Ascertainment.” This document officially appoints the winning presidential electors to serve as Indiana’s members of the Electoral College. Three copies of this document are immediately sent to the National Archives in Washington.”
“After an invocation and any welcoming remarks by state officials, the Certificate of Ascertainment and the roll call of the electors are read. The electors who are present then take their oath of office.”

“The presidential electors then vote for President on a paper ballot. The ballots are tabulated and the results announced. The electors then cast a separate paper ballot for Vice-President, and the result of this voting is announced. The electors then sign a Certificate that sets forth the votes each Presidential candidate and Vice-Presidential candidate received, and a transmittal cover sheet.”
INDIANA ELECTORAL COLLEGE FACTS

“Indiana has never had a “faithless” elector. Each individual has voted for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates to whom they were pledged.”

Source:

http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/voters/electors_new.html

It is obvious that we must do the following:

  • Inform Electoral College Electors, State Election Officials and congressmen of the Obama ineligibility
    issues and their duty to uphold the law and serve the citizens.
  • Educate Electors on their constitutional duty and priorities.
  • Demand that State election officials require proof of eligibility of Barack Obama and any other presidential candidates.
  • Hold all accountable.
  • However, even though some Electors have been complicit with the DNC in not vetting Obama, not all are guilty of dubious actions and all should be addressed with the proper respect.

17 Comments

Posted in American Revolution, Announcements, Attorney General, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Congress, Crime, Declaration of Independence, Democrat delegate, democratic convention, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Founding Fathers, Government, Hawaii, Illinois bar, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Justice, Kenya, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, NC voters, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Electoral College votes, 2008 Election, Obama not eligible, Obama Indonesian, Obama birth certificate, Kenya, Hawaii, US Constitution, Congress, Philip J Berg, Ellis Washington article, November 9, 2008

Posted on November 9, 2008 | 21 comments

The US Constitution must be upheld

         Part 1

“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, Article II, Section 1

” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

US Constitution, Amendment I

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude.”

US Constitution, Amendment XV, Section 1
The US Constitution and Amendments were fought for by the blood of thousands of Americans of all races and religions. Is there anyone reading this that would allow the US Constitution to be ignored or trampled on? Which of the above provisions would you ignore? If one is not adhered to, aren’t the rest subject to not being upheld?

We have a unique situation in US History. Barack Obama has passed the first hurdle of obtaining the US Presidency without being eligible. Philip J
Berg filed a lawsuit in Federal Court on August 21, 2008 that stated Obama
is Indonesian and not eligible to be president. That lawsuit is now before
the US Supreme Court. Here is the latest statement from Mr. Berg:

“For Immediate Release: – 11/07/08

U. S. SUPREME COURT AWAITS RESPONSE TO
BERG’S WRIT OF CERTIORARI
FROM OBAMA, DNC and Co-DEFENDANTS
(Contact information and PDF at end)

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 11/07/08) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States filed a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on October 30, 2008, requesting review of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Surrick’s Dismissal of Philip J. Berg’s lawsuit against Barack H. Obama, Jr., the DNC and the other co-Defendants. Accordingly, the U. S. Supreme Court has set dates in which Barack Obama, the DNC and all co-Defendants are to respond to the Writ, which is on or before December 1, 2008.

Mr. Berg remarked today, “I look forward to receiving Defendant Obama’s response to the Writ and am hopeful the U. S. Supreme Court will review Berg v. Obama. I believe Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally-qualified natural-born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of President of the United States.”

Mr. Berg’s case, Berg vs. Obama was dismissed from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Docket # 08-cv-4083 for lack of standing. Mr. Berg filed a Writ of Certiorari for review of the case and an injunction to stay the election pending review. Justice Souter denied the injunction. It is expected that the Court will decide whether or not to review Berg v. Obama after the Defendants file their response, and Mr. Berg has replied to the Defendant’s response.

The Defendants’ response is due by December 1st and Mr. Berg’s reply will be submitted thereafter.”

Mr. Ellis Washington, is a constitutional expert. Here is his background:

“Ellis Washington, currently a professor of law and political science at Savannah State University, former editor at the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute, is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history, political philosophy and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including “The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law” (2002). See his law review article “Reply to Judge Richard Posner.” Washington’s latest book is “The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust.””

Mr. Ellis Washington has written an article for World Net Daily on Mr. Berg’s lawsuit, Judge Surrick’s ruling and the consequences of not addressing this important constitutional issue. Here are some exerpts:

“I was in the delivery room in [Mombosa,] Kenya, when he was born Aug. 4, 1961.
~ Obama’s paternal grandmother

Nothing is more important than enforcing the Constitution.

~ Philip Berg, petitioner – Philip J. Berg v. Barack Obama, et al. (2008)

As President-elect Barack Obama ascends to the presidency of the United States, there still remains a looming cloud above his head like the sword of Damocles. If and when that sword will fall plunging America into a constitutional crisis depends on a number of desperate and remarkable variables.

Before I get into these variables, let’s examine what the Constitution says. What are the requirements to become president? Section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution states that a president must:

be a natural born citizen of the United States;
be at least 35 years old;
have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years.
The inevitable constitutional crisis regarding Obama, of course, revolves around his inability (or unwillingness) to produce an authentic Hawaiian birth certificate with the raised certificate stamp that the Federal Elections Commission can independently verify.

I know there are those who say Obama has produced an authentic birth certificate and posted it on his website, but experts and amateurs alike quickly found numerous errors in that document and deemed it a forgery (and a bad one at that).

Philip J. Berg, a Democratic operative and former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, has assumed the tragic role of Prometheus, ascended Mount Olympus, the abode of Zeus, and has launched a one-man campaign to force Obama to verify his U.S. citizenship by suing the senator, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission, to verify that indeed he is worthy to be president of the United States by producing a real birth certificate.”

Read more here (This is a must read):

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80435

Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

This is the first part of a series of articles that are intended to inform
the American public of the election process and the applicable laws and
responsibilities of those involved. There are built in safeguards in the
election process from the Electoral College votes to the meeting of
Congress to validate the votes. It is hoped that the information provided
will allow you to better understand the process and arm you as you
help keep the Electoral College Electors, state officials and Congress
accountable to uphold the US Constitution.

21 Comments

Posted in African Press, American Revolution, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizen, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Congress, Criminal Complaint, Declaration of Independence, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Founding Fathers, Government, Hawaii, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Justice, Kenya, Natural born citizen, NC voters, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, republicans, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama, Larry Sinclair websites, Sinclair blogs, Thought Police, Obama smears, Resolves, Obama Biden thugs, Voter tampering, Riots, Racial tensions, Kenya, American people seek truth

Posted on August 24, 2008 | 3 comments

The American people deserve the best leadership available. The
American people deserve honest and fair reporting from the media.
The American people deserve access to information on the internet.
The American people deserve protection from thugs.

 

Let it be resolved that:

Despite: Control of information regarding Obama on the mainstream
media and biased reporting.

Despite: Scrubbing and repackaging of information on the internet.

Despite: Personal attacks, smears and death threats on those
questioning Obama and his past.

Despite: Attempts to silence those questioning of Obama through
threats, shutting down of websites and incarceration in gulags
in Delaware and elsewhere.

Despite: Voter tampering on an unheard of scale in the US.

Despite: Lies and manipulation of young minds.

Despite: Attempts to reveal personal information about people
questioning Obama.

Despite: Cutting off Social Security Benefits of those questioning
Obama.

Despite: Threats of riots and racial tension and tagging people as racist.

We the American people, resolve to seek the truth about Barack Obama
and protect the rights of American citizens. No threats of any
type will deter us from our rights. No threats on our fellow
Americans will be tolerated. We will not allow the American voting
process to collapse into a state of chaos as in Kenya.

Resolved this day, Sunday, August 24, 2008.

Citizen Wells

Voice your concern about Obama:

http://obamaimpeachment.org

3 Comments

Posted in 1984, American Revolution, Announcements, Attorney General, Barack Obama, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Congress, Crime, DC Warrant, Declaration of Independence, Delaware, Delegate, Democrat delegate, democratic convention, Democrats, Domain Names, doublespeak, drugs, Election, Election 2008, Election update, Founding Fathers, George Orwell, Government, History, Illinois, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, Internet, Jerome Corsi, Joe Biden, Jon Voight, Journalism, Justice, Kenya, Larry Sinclair, Larry Sinclair blog, Larrysinclair0926, Larrysinclair0926.wordpress.com, Nazi Brownshirts, News, Obama 2006 Kenya, Obama impeachment, Obama Nation, Obama records, Orwell, Orwell Diaries, Political prisoner, Politics, Senator Obama, Smear campaigns, Society, The Case Against Barack Obama, Thought Police, United States, video, voters, Warrant, Websites, YouTube

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Delaware Gulag, Larry Sinclair pleads not guilty, New attorney, Address Delaware warrant, DC arrest, persecution, Bidens, Obama brown shirts

Posted on July 3, 2008 | 18 comments

Larry Sinclair has a new attorney in Delaware and has plead not guilty to charges in the warrant. The Obama Camp has tried everything to silence Larry Sinclair, but all they are accomplishing is garnering more attention to  Sinclair’s allegations and revealing the Obama Campaign as modern day Nazi Germany Brown Shirts.

Here is Larry Sinclair’s latest statement:

“NEW COUNSEL RETAINED AND NOT GUILTY PLEA ENTERED

Posted by Larry Sinclair on Thursday, July 3, 2008

I am happy to announce two things:

1.  I have retained a new Attorney in Delaware.  I ill not identify this Attorney at this time, even though we both know that it will become known and posted after he enters his appearance.

2.  In retaining this Attorney I was able to enter a Not Guilty Plea to the Delaware charge, whereby avoiding the need to return to Delaware on July 18, 2008.

PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS ATTORNEY IS RETAINED TO ADDRESS THE DELAWARE CHARGE AND THOSE ISUUE’S RELATING TO THE DELAWARE CHARGE, WHATEVER THEY MAY OR MAY NOT TURN OUT TO BE.

That being said, this Attorney is completely aware f this blog, as well as those opposing this blog and the attacks they will most assuredly lodge against him once his appearance is formally made.  All I can say is anyone taking this case might want to say “God have mercy on my soul” so to speak. ”

Read more here:

http://larrysinclair0926.com

 

18 Comments

Posted in American Revolution, Announcements, Attorney General, Barack Obama, Citizen, Corporate accountability, Crime, Culture, DC Warrant, Declaration of Independence, Delaware, democratic convention, Democrats, Domain Names, doublespeak, drugs, Election, Election 2008, Election update, Government, Hitler, Joe Biden, Journalism, Justice, Larry Sinclair, National Press Club, Nazi Germany, News, Obama records, Political prisoner, Politics, Richard R Wier, Rule 9, Sex, Smear campaigns, Society, United States, voters, Warrant

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Delaware warrant, Richard R. Wier, Jr, former Attorney General of Delaware, Attorney General Biden, Joe Biden, No justice in Delaware, Obama corruption

Posted on July 3, 2008 | 3 comments

Larry Sinclair is being persecuted for questioning Barack Obama. From Sinclair’s arrest in Washington DC after his press conference, to the dubious warrant from Attorney General Biden’s office, to Richard R. Wier, Jr, former Attorney General of Delaware, backing out of his agreement to represent Sinclair. Is the Obama Campaign behind this? Is Senator Joe Biden, the father of the Delaware Attorney General behind this?

There has been a severe miscarriage of justice. Is this the kind of change that you want?

Larry Sinclair was interviewed by Jeff Rense on July 2, 2008. Listen to the interview here:

 http://rense.gsradio.net:8080/rense/special/rense_L_Sinclair_070208.mp3

3 Comments

Posted in American Revolution, Announcements, Attorney General, Barack Obama, Citizen, Corporate accountability, Crime, DC Warrant, Declaration of Independence, Delaware, democratic convention, Democrats, doublespeak, drugs, Election, Election 2008, Election update, Government, History, Jeff Rense, Joe Biden, Journalism, Justice, Larry Sinclair, National Press Club, News, Obama records, Political prisoner, Politics, Richard R Wier, Rule 9, Sex, Smear campaigns, Society, Talk Radio, United States, video, voters, Warrant

Tagged , , , , , , ,