Category Archives: Civil rights

Catholic church don’t vote for Obama, St. Raphael Catholic Church El Paso, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State IRS complaint, Bulletin recension

Posted on September 13, 2012 | 77 comments

Catholic church don’t vote for Obama, St. Raphael Catholic Church El Paso, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State IRS complaint, Bulletin recension

“Führer, my Führer, give me by God. Protect and preserve my life for long. You saved Germany in time of need. I thank you for my daily bread. Be with me for a long time, do not leave me, Führer, my Führer, my faith, my light, Hail to my Führer!”…Recited by Hitler youth

“Red and Yellow Black and White, all are equal in his sight, MMM MMM MMM, Barack Hussein Obama.”…Recited by school children in 2009

“However, when the CHD funds Alinsky-style, church-based community organizations as in the best interest of the poor and supports organizations which advance other agendas, it divests the poor of their right to an authentic voice. This process tends to treat the poor as exploited units of human capital, rather than as human beings created in the dignity of God’s image.”

“To accomplish its goals, as outlined in the People’s Platform, ACORN has developed a political alliance with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Together with others, ACORN and the DSA have formed a political party, the New Party.”…1997 report to the Catholic Bishops

From the El Paso Times September 11, 2012.

“National group complains to IRS over St. Raphael Catholic Church bulletin”

“A national group has complained to the IRS over improper electioneering by an El Paso Catholic church.

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State on Monday sent its complaint to the IRS about the Aug. 5 bulletin published by St. Raphael Parish on the city’s East Side.

The pastor of the parish has issued a written statement recanting the Aug. 5 bulletin, but the leader of the organization that complained to the IRS said damage might already have been done.

Churches are tax-exempt, as are donations to them. But IRS rules say they cannot tell people whom to vote for or against.

Apparently in reaction to President Barack Obama’s mandate that Catholic hospitals and universities cover birth-control
for women employees who want it, a passage in the St. Raphael bulletin told parishioners to vote against the president. Obama later attempted to modify the mandate, but the gesture did little to mollify some Catholics who believe artificial means of birth control are immoral.

“I am asking all of you to go to the polls and be united in replacing our present president with a president that will respect the Catholic Church in this country,” the last two sentences in the Aug. 5 St. Raphael bulletin say. “Please pass this on to all of your Catholic friends.”
After officials at the Diocese of El Paso were alerted last week to the message, the pastor of St. Raphael, Msgr. Francis J. Smith, wrote a message which was inserted into its bulletin.

“I am recanting the last two sentences from this statement as it was published on Aug. 5, 2012,” the message says. “I apologize and ask for your forgiveness if I have offended anyone. The last thing I wish to do is be offensive to my faith and the faithful.”

The language was a blatant violation of the law, the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, said in his letter to the Exempt Organizations Division of the IRS.

“The language that appeared in the bulletin — an official publication of the church — clearly encourages parishioners to vote against incumbent presidential candidate Barack Obama,” the letter says. “Since federal law prohibits tax-exempt, non-profit organizations (including houses of worship) from intervening in elections like this, I believe St. Raphael Church is in violation of the law.”

The Diocese of El Paso last week acknowledged that the passage violates IRS rules and the policy of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. A spokesman said the diocese would instruct Smith to “re-address” the article in the church’s bulletin.

Smith and diocesan officials didn’t respond to calls and emails Monday.

In a telephone interview, Lynn said his organization files 15 to 20 complaints such as the one against St. Raphael in a presidential-election year.

Last year, the organization complained to the IRS that El Pas’s Word of Life Church was improperly involving itself in electoral politics by using its Tom Brown Ministries website to encourage voters to recall Mayor John Cook and city Reps. Steve Ortega and Susie Byrd. Brown was angered that the officials voted to restore health benefits for gay and unmarried partners of city employees after he led a successful ballot initiative to end the practice in 2010.

IRS spokesman Clay Sanford on Monday would not comment on the complaint against St. Raphael.

“I can’t comment about specific, tax-exempt entities,” he said.

But an IRS publication, “Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations,” says, “Churches and religious organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”

Lynn said it was good that church officials acknowledged IRS rules, but they should have been known in the first place to anybody overseeing the St. Raphael bulletin.

“It may be a partial corrective, but the damage might already be done,” he said.

U.S. Catholic rules also prohibit the use of church resources to tell people how to vote.

“The Church’s leaders are to avoid endorsing or opposing candidates or telling people how to vote,” says a document issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.”

The IRS can revoke churches’ tax exemptions and fine them for violating its rules, or it can levy milder sanctions that often are not public.

Lynn said religious leaders have broad latitude to discuss issues — such as abortion, birth control and execution — from the pulpit; they just can’t tell people how to vote. Churches also can invite candidates and their surrogates to speak to the congregation so long as they make a good-faith effort to invite both sides.

“There’s freedom of speech in the pulpit with modest restrictions,” Lynn said, adding that St. Raphael violated those restrictions.

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State last week filed a similar complaint against a Catholic Church in New York City — the Church of Saint Catherine. In its Sept. 2 bulletin, the complaint says, a priest urged parishioners to vote for Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

Lynn is a minister in the United Church of Christ, although he now only officiates at ceremonies on a part-time basis. He said there are hazards beyond breaking the law when pastors and other religious leaders tell people how to vote.

“When you start getting into partisan politics, you start dividing the congregation very deeply,” he said.”

http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_21508691/national-group-complains-irs-over-st-raphael-catholic

From Last Resistance September 12, 2012.

“The ban on political campaign activity by charities and churches was created by Congress more than a half century ago. The Internal Revenue Service administers the tax laws written by Congress and has enforcement authority over tax-exempt organizations. Here is some background information on the political campaign activity ban and the latest IRS enforcement statistics regarding its administration of this congressional ban.

“In 1954, Congress approved an amendment by Sen. Lyndon Johnson to prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, which includes charities and churches, from engaging in any political campaign activity. To the extent Congress has revisited the ban over the years, it has in fact strengthened the ban. The most recent change came in 1987 when Congress amended the language to clarify that the prohibition also applies to statements opposing candidates.”

This so-called ban is a direct violation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law. . . .” In 1954, Congress made a law prohibiting churches from speaking out on political issues and endorsing candidates. The logic is simple. Since Congress passed such a law, then Congress violated the Constitution. This makes the law null and void.

If you are a pastor who believes in the freedoms outlined in the First Amendment and want to challenge these leftist organizations and the IRS, then I have a deal for you. The Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal advocacy group, will defend you.

“In response to more than 50 years of threats and intimidation by activist groups wielding the Johnson Amendment as a sword against the Church, ADF began the Pulpit Initiative in 2008. The goal of the Pulpit Initiative is simple: have the Johnson Amendment declared unconstitutional — and once and for all remove the ability of the IRS to censor what a pastor says from the pulpit.

“ADF is actively seeking to represent churches or pastors who are under investigation by the IRS for violating the Johnson Amendment by preaching biblical Truth in a way that expresses support for — or opposition to — political candidates. ADF represents all of its clients free of charge.”

Don’t be bullied. It’s time to take a stand for Jesus Christ. Your future and the future of your children are at stake. If you want more information, go to the Alliance Defending Freedom site at http://speakupmovement.org/church/LearnMore/details/4702″

http://lastresistance.com/41/church-says-dont-vote-for-obama/

 

77 Comments

Posted in Bill of Rights, Catholics, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, Congress, constitution, Government, IRS, News

Tagged , , ,

Huffington Post lies on Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy comments, anti-gay stance is a lie, Cathy pro marriage and family, Huffington Post awarded 5 Orwells

Posted on August 17, 2012 | 74 comments

Huffington Post lies on Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy comments, anti-gay stance is a lie, Cathy pro marriage and family, Huffington Post awarded 5 Orwells
“We’re not anti-anybody. Our mission is to create raving fans.”…Dan Cathy, Chick-Fil-A President

“If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast.”… William Tecumseh Sherman

“‘You haven’t a real appreciation of Newspeak, Winston,’ he said almost sadly. ‘Even when you write it you’re still thinking in Oldspeak. I’ve read some of those pieces that you write in The Times occasionally. They’re good enough, but they’re translations. In your heart you’d prefer to stick to Oldspeak, with all its vagueness and its useless shades of meaning. You don’t grasp the beauty of the destruction of words. Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year?’

Winston did know that, of course. He smiled, sympathetically he hoped, not trusting himself to speak. Syme bit off another fragment of the dark-coloured bread, chewed it briefly, and went on:

‘Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we’re not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won’t be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak,’ he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction. ‘Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?'”…George Orwell, “1984”

I am not anti gay or anti anyone else. I am anti thuggery, anti lies and anti destruction of the English Language and Law.

From the Cornell University Legal Information Institute.

“In the English common law tradition from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife. Marriage was viewed as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization.”

“In 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which, for federal purposes, defined marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” (1 U.S.C. § 7).”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage/

From One News Now August 16, 2012.

“Report: Chick-fil-A controversy ‘manufactured’ by gay activism”

“A report from a Christian activist group in North Carolina says the alleged “anti-gay statements” by Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy last month not only were taken out of context, but also were used by homosexual activists to “manufacture” the ensuing controversy.

The journalist who initially interviewed the Chick-fil-A executive in early July was K. Allan Blume, editor of the Biblical Recorder — the journal of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina. That interview was subsequently picked up by Baptist Press, which gave the story greater exposure and provided the spark for the controversy in the mainstream media.

Blume now says that during his interview with Cathy, the restaurateur “said nothing offensive, nothing putting down anyone” and that “the whole thing was distorted … an invented, manufactured story.” Never once during the interview, notes the editor, were the words “gay marriage,” “lesbian,” or “homosexual” spoken.

In its “story about the story,” the Christian Action League of North Carolina quotes Blume on the reaction of the homosexual activist community:

“It is obvious the gay community was looking to twist this because they don’t like the fact that Chick-fil-A invests some of their money in groups like Focus on the Family and Fellowship of Christian Athletes. They stirred this up, literally invented it.”

Also according to Blume, the businessman’s “guilty as charged” comment was in response to a question about Chick-fil-A’s commitment to and support of family values — not a confirmation of an “anti-gay stance,” as conveyed in the headline of a Huffington Post story.”

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1655748

Do a search on:

“Huffington Post Chick-fil-A anti-gay stance”

You will notice that the Huffington Post, in Orwellian fashion, has proliferated the phrase “anti-gay.”

Here is one example.

From the Huffington Post July 17, 2012.

“Dan Cathy, Chick-Fil-A President, On Anti-Gay Stance: ‘Guilty As Charged'”

“In a new interview with the Baptist Press, Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy — the son of company founder S. Truett Cathy — addresses what the publication describes as his franchise’s “support of the traditional family.”

Cathy’s somewhat glib response: “Well, guilty as charged.”

He went on to note, “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that…we know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

Cathy then reiterated his stance during an appearance on “The Ken Coleman Show,” Good as You blogger Jeremy Hooper reported.

“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about,” Cathy said in that interview, which can be heard here.

Needless to say, Cathy’s remarks quickly sparked the ire of a number of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) advocates and bloggers. “Regardless of where you stand, the placement of LGBT people within our societal picture and within our body of laws is the conversation at hand,” wrote Hooper. “That is not the same thing as ‘support for the traditional family,’ no matter how aggressively the self-appointed values movement attempts to (mis)name reality!””

“Cathy also noted, “We’re not anti-anybody. Our mission is to create raving fans.””

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/dan-cathy-chick-fil-a-president-anti-gay_n_1680984.html

Why does the Huffington Post, now owned by AOL, continue to do the bidding of the Obama Camp?

The past is usually a good predictor.

From Citizen Wells May 25, 2010.

“In 2008, the Obama Campaign used a great deal of money from undocumented donors, a legion of paid bloggers, internet thugs and a complicit press to spin their Orwellian lies. The Obama Campaign paid The Huffington Post $ 55,354 in 2008. That of course is what was reported to the FEC and is the tip of the iceberg. I have heard Obama refer to The Huffington Post on several occasions. The last time was the last straw. The Citizen Wells blog has written about The Huffington Post acting as an arm of the Obama camp to smear opposition to Obama. You can expect more.

Listen to the following Obama speech, if you can stomach it. He mentions The Huffington Post at around 1 minute 57 seconds. The speech is cleverly (in the wicked sense) written. It mixes truths, half truths and lies.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/tag/obama-campaign-paid-huffington-post-55354-in-2008/

For their continued efforts to represent Big Brother and spin Orwellian Lies, I award the Huffington Post 5 Orwells.

74 Comments

Posted in 1984, Americans, AOL poll, Barack Obama, Big Brother, Christianity, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, Faith, Family, Journalism, Lies, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Obama thugs, Orwell, Orwellian, The Case Against Barack Obama

Tagged , , ,

No justice in Obama Justice Dept, New Black Panther Party dismissal, Judicial Watch, Obama appointees interfered with New Black Panther prosecution

Posted on July 31, 2012 | 50 comments

No justice in Obama Justice Dept, New Black Panther Party dismissal, Judicial Watch, Obama appointees interfered with New Black Panther prosecution

“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”…2001 Barack Obama interview on Chicago public radio station WBEZ

From The Washington Examiner July 30, 2012.
“Federal Court finds Obama appointees interfered with New Black Panther prosecution”

“A federal court in Washington, DC, held last week that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.

The ruling came as part of a motion by the conservative legal watch dog group Judicial Watch, who had sued the DOJ in federal court to enforce a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for documents pertaining to the the New Black Panthers case. Judicial Watch had secured many previously unavailable documents through their suit against DOJ and were now suing for attorneys’ fees.

Obama’s DOJ had claimed Judicial Watch was not entitled to attorney’s fees since “none of the records produced in this litigation evidenced any political interference whatsoever in” how the DOJ handled the New Black Panther Party case. But United States District Court Judge Reggie Walton disagreed. Citing a “series of emails” between Obama political appointees and career Justice lawyers, Walton writes:

The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making.
…
In sum, the Court concludes that three of the four fee entitlement factors weigh in favor of awarding fees to Judicial Watch. Therefore, Judicial Watch is both eligible and entitled to fees and costs, and the Court must now consider the reasonableness of Judicial Watch’s requested award.

The New Black Panthers case stems from a Election Day 2008 incident where two members of the New Black Panther Party were filmed outside a polling place intimidating voters and poll watchers by brandishing a billy club. Justice Department lawyers investigated the case, filed charges, and when the Panthers failed to respond, a federal court in Philadelphia entered a “default” against all the Panthers defendants. But after Obama was sworn in, the Justice Department reversed course, dismissed charges against three of the defendants, and let the fourth off with a narrowly tailored restraining order.

“The Court’s decision is another piece of evidence showing the Obama Justice Department is run by individuals who have a problem telling the truth,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The decision shows that we can’t trust the Obama Justice Department to fairly administer our nation’s voting and election laws.””


http://washingtonexaminer.com/federal-court-finds-obama-appointees-interfered-with-new-black-panther-prosecution/article/2503500?custom_click=rss

From Citizen Wells June 30, 2010.

“J. Christian Adams resigned recently as a voting rights attorney at the Justice Department.”

“On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter -intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.

The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.”


https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/obama-and-us-justice-dept-corruption-obama-agenda-racial-bias-new-black-panther-party-case-dismissed-usdoj-attorney-j-christian-adams-retires-eric-holder/

50 Comments

Posted in Attorney General, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Christian, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, constitution, Crime, Election, Election 2008, Election Law, Federal Court, Justice, Lawyers, News, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Obama thugs, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Department of Justice, Voter fraud, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,

July 4, 2012, Declaration of Independence, John Adams speech, Our Lives our Fortunes and our sacred Honor, Tryon Resolves

Posted on July 3, 2012 | 75 comments

July 4, 2012,  Declaration of Independence, John Adams speech, Our Lives our Fortunes and our sacred Honor, Tryon Resolves

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”…Declaration of Independence

“the painful necessity of having recourse to arms in defense of our National freedom and constitutional rights, against all invasions; and at the same time do solemnly engage to take up arms and risk our lives and our fortunes in maintaining the freedom of our country whenever the wisdom and counsel of the Continental Congress or our Provincial Convention shall declare it necessary; and this engagement we will continue in for the preservation of those rights and liberties which the principals of our Constitution and the laws of God, nature and nations have made it our duty to defend.” …Tryon Resolves, NC, August 14, 1775

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”…Thomas Paine

“John Adams speech before the Continental Congress on Freedom and the reading of The Declaration Of Independence”

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

My ancestor, John Wells signed the Tryon Resolves in August 1775. His house, begun during the revolution, is still standing.

The Tryon Resolves
“The unprecedented, barbarous and bloody actions committed by British troops on our American brethren near Boston, on 19th April and 20th of May last, together with the hostile operations and treacherous designs now carrying on, by the tools of ministerial vengeance, for the subjugation of all British America, suggest to us the painful necessity of having recourse to arms in defense of our National freedom and constitutional rights, against all invasions; and at the same time do solemnly engage to take up arms and risk our lives and our fortunes in maintaining the freedom of our country whenever the wisdom and counsel of the Continental Congress or our Provincial Convention shall declare it necessary; and this engagement we will continue in for the preservation of those rights and liberties which the principals of our Constitution and the laws of God, nature and nations have made it our duty to defend. We therefore, the subscribers, freeholders and inhabitants of Tryon County, do here by faithfully unite ourselves under the most solemn ties of religion, honor and love to our county, firmly to resist force by force, and hold sacred till a reconciliation shall take place between Great Britain and America on Constitutional principals, which we most ardently desire, and do firmly agree to hold all such persons as inimical to the liberties of America who shall refuse to sign this association.”

75 Comments

Posted in American Revolution, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, Declaration of Independence, Duty, Founding Fathers, NC, News, North Carolina, United States

Tagged , , , , ,

Supreme Court upholds key Arizona immigration law provision, Remainder struck down, State and local police can still check immigration status

Posted on June 25, 2012 | 70 comments

Supreme Court upholds key Arizona immigration law provision, Remainder struck down, State and local police can still check immigration status

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington

 

“Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise
that it will last; but nothing in this world is certain but death and
taxes.”…Benjamin Franklin

From Conservative Byte June 25, 2012.

“BREAKING: Supreme Court Strikes Down 3 of 4 Parts of Arizona Immigration Law”

“The Supreme Court has struck down most of the controversial Arizona immigration law, but upheld a key provision.

The provision that was upheld requires state and local police officers, during routine stops, to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect could be in the country illegally.

Other provisions, though, were struck down.”

http://conservativebyte.com/2012/06/breaking-supreme-court-strikes-down-3-of-4-parts-of-arizona-immigration-law/

Supreme Court Decision.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf

70 Comments

Posted in Arizona, Attorney General, Attorneys, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil rights, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, US Constitution

Tagged , ,

NC voter fraud investigations, Project Veritas, James O’Keefe, UNC officials, 2008 evidence, Wake County residents charged, Governor Perdue veto of ID bill

Posted on May 16, 2012 | 63 comments

NC voter fraud investigations, Project Veritas, James O’Keefe, UNC officials, 2008 evidence, Wake County residents charged, Governor Perdue veto of ID bill

“Why would anyone eligible to vote complain about providing a photo ID?”…Citizen Wells

“The end justifies the means, the template of the left.”…Citizen Wells

“We control life, Winston, at all its levels. You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us. But we create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable.”…George Orwell, “1984″

Voter fraud in NC is being investigated again and for good reason.

Governor Beverly Perdue vetoed the NC voter ID bill passed by the legislature.

From WRAL News June 23, 2011.

“Gov. Bev Perdue has vetoed a controversial proposal to require voters to show photo ID at the polls.

Her statement:

“The right to choose our leaders is among the most precious freedoms we have – both as Americans and North Carolinians. North Carolinians who are eligible to vote have a constitutionally guaranteed right to cast their ballots, and no one should put up obstacles to citizens exercising that right.””

http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/blogpost/9772426/

The voter ID bill was passed by constitutionally elected legislators who represent the majority of North Carolinians. Governor Perdue overrode the will of the people. She refers to the “constitutionally guaranteed right to cast their ballots” for “North Carolinians who are eligible to vote.” What about the rights of North Carolinians to not have their votes diluted by ineligible voters?

From Citizen Wells April 5, 2011.

“Students from area universities have been working behind the scenes to protest the proposed voter ID bill that is currently in the House. They held a forum Monday morning to discuss the bill and followed it with a press conference to voice their concerns.

“This bill makes it more difficult for me to exercise my vote and my voice,” said UNCG junior Caleb Patterson. “The voter ID bill would add one more obstacle to vote, which will discourage students from voting.”

“On Monday June 23rd, 2008 the SBI initiated an
investigation into allegations that employees of the
Alamance County Health Department specifically Dr.
Kathleen Shapley-Quinn and Nurse Karen Saxer were
knowingly and willingly falsifying patient medical
records.”
“At the request of some patients, Alamance
County Health Department provided work
notes and prescriptions in alias names.

Providing these services would assist illegal
aliens with maintaining assumed or stolen
identities, which may be a violation of state, or
federal law. (Identity Theft, Fraud, etc.)”

“Veronica Arias, of Texas, reported on May 2nd, 2008 to
the ACSO that someone in Swepsonville, NC had
stolen her identity and was using same to be employed.

Maria Sanchez was arrested on May 6, 2008 by
investigators of the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office
for stealing and using the identity of Veronica Arias.

Sanchez used the name, SSN, DOB, of Veronica Arias
who is a living resident of Texas.”
“Obama’s campaign wants to tell the world they registered 800,000 blacks out of a million voter base, so that before in the election only 200,000 blacks voted in North Carolina.
That is impossible.”

“U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

Staff Report
U.S. House of Representatives
111th Congress
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
July 23, 2009
“A. Voter Registration Fraud
One-third of the 1.3 million voter registration cards turned in by ACORN in 2008 were invalid.3 ACORN has been investigated for voter registration fraud in Nevada, Connecticut, Missouri, Ohio and North Carolina.”

“Yet another state investigates the union-backed voter fraud group for Barack

A Durham (NC) official is asking state elections administrators to check approximately 80 voter registration forms for possible fraud.

Mike Ashe, Durham County’s elections director, said the forms were among about 4,000 submitted to his office over the past four to six weeks by a national left-wing group called Acorn, for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

“They will be turned over to the State Board of Elections for investigation and prosecution,” Ashe said of the questionable documents.

Most of the forms at issue bear one of six names. Ashe was not sure whether the people named existed or not.

Many of the papers are incomplete, which Ashe said is a nuisance, not a crime. But the group contains very different versions of what are purportedly the same person’s signatures.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/tag/obama-camp-nc-voter-fraud-initiative/

From Citizen Wells August 16, 2011

“Authorities have charged four Wake County residents with voter fraud in connection with the last presidential election.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/nc-voter-fraud-2008-election-voting-twice-for-obama-four-wake-county-residents-charged-raleigh-nc/

From WND May 15, 2012.

“VOTER FRAUD? YOU AIN’T SEEN NOTHIN’ YET!”

“Filmmaker James O’Keefe exposes ‘total liars’ in undercover video”

“North Carolina is the latest state featured by Project Veritas in its series on how America’s electoral system is extremely vulnerable to voter fraud. During last week’s North Carolina primary, James O’Keefe and his colleagues demonstrated how easy it is to obtain ballots even if the person has publicly professed not to be a U.S. citizen.

Poll workers insist that the ridiculously dressed activists do not need to show identification or a passport. The video further shows an election official telling Project Veritas that it’s “up to the public” to expose voter fraud.

O’Keefe also tells WND about his group’s visit to the University of North Carolina, where a dean and a program director laugh off confessions of voter fraud and even seem to encourage it. Yet a day later, both officials tell conservatives that voter fraud never happens.

“We’re trying to highlight the hypocrisy of these individuals and their inablility to do the right thing,” O’Keefe told WND.

And Project Veritas catches up with an election official who says he can no longer agree to uphold the state constitution in his oath since voters passed the amendment establishing only traditional marriage as the definition of marriage in the state.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/james-okeefe-strikes-again-at-polls/

63 Comments

Posted in Acorn, Acorn voter fraud, Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, constitution, corruption, Crime, Democrats, Election, Election 2008, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, illegal aliens, Lies, NC, NC primary, NC voters, News, North Carolina, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , , ,

Arizona Voter ID Law upheld in Federal Appeals Court, Voters show proof of citizenship, US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Posted on April 18, 2012 | 71 comments

Arizona Voter ID Law upheld in Federal Appeals Court, Voters show proof of citizenship, US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre. With the feeling that he was speaking to O’Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote:

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984”

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

“Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light.”…George Washington 

From Stand With Arizona April 17, 2012.

“Federal Appeals Court Upholds Most of Arizona Voter ID Law”

“In a ruling which demonstrated just how radical is the Obama Administration’s opposition to Voter ID laws, the very liberal U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld Arizona’s voter-approved 2004 law requiring voters to show proof of citizenship before receiving a ballot – a big victory in the battle against voter fraud in the runup to the November elections.

The Appeals Court mostly shot down the challenges to the law, which had itself been upheld in Arizona U.S. District Court. Arizona can demand to see certain forms of identification that proves citizenship, the court ruled.

And if someone doesn’t have those forms of ID, paying the fees to obtain the ID isn’t the same as a “poll tax.”

However, the court also ruled that Arizona must not refuse federal voter registration forms, which work on the honor system by asking applicants to check a box indicating whether they’re U.S. citizens. Arizona can’t replace that form with its form that requires proof of citizenship, the court ruled. This is a remnant of the ultra-flawed National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (“Motor Voter Act”), which SWA has urged Congress to modify in future legislation.

But overall, the ruling is a major victory for Arizona voters, who overwhelmingly approved the law, and for Americans who support Voter ID laws with 73% support, according to a poll published just yesterday. And it may also be a preview of defeats yet to come for the Obama Administration’s block of state Voter Id laws. including in Texas and South Carolina. Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder have tried to pretend that the Supreme Court never ruled in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008) , which upheld photo ID requirements for voting. But they are destined to lose big when the Texas and S.C. challenges get to the Federal courts.

Left-wing groups, including Chicanos Por la Causa, League of Women Voters, ACLU and Arizona’s patron saint of illegal aliens, Sen. Steve Gallardo had all filed suit, among others. The plaintiffs in the case “did not prove that the ability of Hispanics to participate in the political process was lessened somehow because of the law”, the Ninth found.

Judge Johnnie Rawlinson dissented, finding that Arizona could reject federal voter registration forms in place of its own form. Judge Harry Pregerson also dissented, but for a different reason. He believes the polling-place ID provision discriminates against Hispanics. The plaintiffs may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

http://standwitharizona.com/blog/2012/04/17/breaking-federal-appeals-court-upholds-most-of-arizona-voter-id-law/

Thanks to commenter Jonah.

71 Comments

Posted in Arizona, Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, constitution, Court of Appeals, Courts, Election 2012, Election Law, Federal Court, Judges, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, The Case Against Barack Obama, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , ,

FL primary opens door to Obama eligibilty challenge, Florida statutes allow contest, 10 day window, Circuit court, Obama natural born citizen deficiency

Posted on February 1, 2012 | 83 comments

FL primary opens door to Obama eligibilty challenge, Florida statutes allow contest, 10 day window, Circuit court, Obama natural born citizen deficiency

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

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

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

The Florida 2012 presidential preference primary took place yesterday, January 31, 2012. The big news in the mainstream media is Mitt Romney winning by a substantial margin. The big news here, news you can sink your teeth into, is that now, Obama’s eligibilty to be on the Florida ballot can be challenged. There are 10 days to file a challenge in circuit court.

A  challenger discovered this recently.

“Below and attached is a scanned copy of the letter I just received from the Secretary of State, AKA Florida Supervisor of Elections, in response to the Obama Ballot Challenge I filed 9 January 2012 with him and Attorney General Pam Bundi. The Constitution of the State of Florida (1838) and as amended through 2008 and by adoption of the 2012 Federal Qualifying Handbook (October 2011) the State of Florida has accepted the qualifications for President and Vice President listed therein, based solely on the Certifications of Qualifications from the Political Parties.Read carefully, looks like we have no protection from fraud by either Party. Still waiting for response from the Attorney General.

Vern H. Goding, Ret. OathKeeper.
Melbourne Village, Fl 32904”

Response from Gary Holland, Assistant General Counsel.

“After an election, section 102.168, Florida Statutes, provides that any unsuccessful candidate for the office being sought, any voter qualified to vote in the election, or any taxpayer may file an election contest in the circuit court based upon the successful candidates’s ineligibility for the office sought. Such contest must be brought within 10 days of the date the last board responsibe for certifiying the results officially ceetified the results of the election being contested.”

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/sunshine-state-shenanigans

As reported at Citizen Wells in 2008 and 2012, the Florida Statutes.

Florida Election statutes

“Title IX

102.168 Contest of election.–
“(1) Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by
referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively.

(2) Such contestant shall file a complaint, together with the fees prescribed in chapter 28, with the clerk of the circuit court within 10 days after
midnight of the date the last board responsible for certifying the results officially certifies the results of the election being contested.

(3) The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the
election on a submitted referendum. The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:”

“(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.”

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0100-0199/0102/Sections/0102.168.html

Florida has a procedure for advisory opinions.

“Division of Election Advisory Opinions

Who May Request an Opinion?

By law, the Division of Elections may provide advisory opinions only to a supervisor of elections, candidate, local officer having election related duties, political party, political committee, committee of continuous existence or other person or organization engaged in political activity, relating to any provisions or possible violations of Florida election laws.
Legal Effect of an Opinion:

The Division of Elections provides a historical database of advisory opinions for reference purposes only. An advisory opinion represents the Division’s interpretation of the law applicable at the time the opinion is issued, as applied to a particular set of facts or chcircumstances, and is binding solely on the person or organization who requested the opinion. A previously issued advisory opinion may or may not apply to your situation depending upon your particular facts and circumstances and the current state of applicable law. Therefore, before drawing any legal conclusions based upon the information in this database, you or an attorney engaged on your behalf should refer to the current Florida Statutes, rules adopted by the Division of Elections, and applicable case law.”

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/opinions/TOC_Opinions.shtml

Abdul Hassan received the following advisory opinion response from Florida.

“Section 103.021, Florida Statutes, as amended by Ch. 2011-40, § 45, Laws of Florida (2011), governs ballot access in Florida for presidential candidates who have no party affiliation and those who_are the nominees of political parties. Assuming you satisfy all requirements of section 103.021, the Secretary of State of Florida performs only a ministerial function as a filing officer for such candidates. The Secretary of State has no authority to look beyond the filing documents to determine i f a candidate is eligible. The Florida Supreme Court long ago stated: “The law does not give the secretary of state any power or authority to inquire into or pass upon the eligibility of a candidate to hold office for the nomination for which he is running.” Davis ex rel. Taylor v. Crawford, 116 So. 41, 42 (Fla. 1928). I f a presidential candidate (or the party in the
case of a political party nominee) files the required papers under Chapter 1 03, Florida Statutes, which papers are complete on their face, the Secretary must grant ballot access to the candidate. However, the Secretary’s ministerial granting of ballot access would not preclude litigation from proper plaintiffs to remove a candidate’s name from the ballot i f the candidate does not satisfy
the qualifications for the office of President of the United States.”

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/opinions/new/2011/de1103.pdf

83 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, constitution, Courts, Election, Election 2008, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, Florida, Judges, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Secretary of State, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

Obama Georgia ballot challenge, Natural born citizen status deficient, Attorney Van Irion for David Weldon Files Blistering Opposition to Obama Motion to Dismiss

Posted on December 29, 2011 | 41 comments

Obama Georgia ballot challenge, Natural born citizen status deficient, Attorney Van Irion for David Weldon Files Blistering Opposition to Obama Motion to Dismiss

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

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

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

First, I would like to thank Birther Report for their efforts to monitor the unconstitutional machinations of Obama, et al.

From Birther Report December December 28, 2011.

“Attorney Van Irion on behalf of David Weldon Files Blistering Opposition to Defendant’s(Obama) Motion to Dismiss in Georgia Ballot Access Challenge”

“For the reasons set forth below, none of the facts asserted by the Defendant are relevant. The only fact relevant to this case is the fact that the Defendant’s father was not a U.S. citizen. This fact has been repeatedly documented and stated by the party opponent, Defendant Obama. This fact is also evidenced by Plaintiff’s exhibit 6, previously submitted with Plaintiff’s pre-trial order and apparently authenticated by Defendant’s citation to this exhibit in Defendant’s “Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute,” number 7.”

“C. Right to Associate Doesn’t Negate Georgia Election Law

The Democratic Party of Georgia’s Constitutional right to determine its membership coexists with Georgia’s right to govern Georgia. Georgia code does not interfere with the autonomy of the political party’s internal decision making because it does nothing to prohibit the parties from submitting any name to the Secretary of State for inclusion in the Presidential primary. The Party is free to submit Saddam Hussein or Mickey Mouse as their next Presidential candidate. However, Georgia is not required to accept such submissions and waste taxpayer money on ballots for such candidates.

Georgia code does not prevent the political parties from submitting any name. Instead the code simply determines what the State does with the Party’s list of candidates after the Party has forwarded its list to the State. See O.C.G.A. §21-2 et seq. This code does nothing to prevent any political party from excluding, or including, any person they choose to exclude or include. Nor does it prevent the Party from choosing candidates to submit, in its “sole discretion.” Georgia’s code simply exercises the State’s right to administer elections in a manner that best serves the citizens of the State.

In the instant case Georgia’s Election code does nothing to infringe on the Democratic Party of Georgia’s right of association because the Party can and did include the Defendant in its organization. The Party can and did include the Defendant in the Party’s list of candidates. The Party’s rights, however, end there. Its rights cannot force the State to place the Defendant’s name on a ballot after the State determines that the Defendant is obviously not qualified “to hold the office sought.” §21-2-5. The rights of the Party and of the State simply do not conflict.4

The Defendant’s argument would logically require a conclusion that no state can preclude any candidate from any primary ballot for any reason without violating a political party’s right to freely associate. Since many candidates have been disqualified from primary ballots for lack of qualification to hold the office sought, we can safely conclude that the Defendant’s argument fails. If his argument succeeds, many election codes across the country will need to be re-drafted.

D. Defendant’s Conclusion is Offensive to the Constitution

The Defendant states that the issue raised by the Plaintiff was “soundly rejected by 69,456,897 Americans in the 2008 elections.” See Def.’s Mtn. at 5. This statement reflects a complete lack of understanding regarding Constitutional protections.

Contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, voters are not the final arbiters of whether an individual is qualified to hold office. America is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy without a constitution. In a Constitutional Republic the power of the majority is limited and cannot infringe upon protected rights of a minority.

The Constitution is an anti-majoritarian document; meaning that it protects individuals from invasions and usurpations by the majority. Constitutionally protected rights are held inviolate regardless of the majority’s desire to violate them. Without such protections any law enacted by Congress would be valid, even if it denied an individual their right to life, liberty, or property. Without the anti-majoritarian protection of the Constitution, Congress could legalize the killing of all Jews, for example, as was done in World War II Germany. Constitutional requirements are absolute, and must be followed regardless of how popular or unpopular such requirements may be, because they are in place to protect the minority.

The Defendant’s presumption that popular vote overrides the Constitution demonstrates his lack of understanding of the Constitution and emphasizes the critical role played by this Court in protecting Americans from a tyrannical majority. Contrary to the Defendant’s statement, a minority of Americans have an absolute right to be protected from a non-natural-born-citizen being elected President.

E. Contrary to the Defendant’s Assertion, No Court has Ruled on the Question Presented”

Read more:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/12/attorney-van-irion-files-opposition-to.html

Thanks to commenter Pat 1789.

41 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, constitution, Democrats, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electors, Eligibility, Judges, Lawyers, Lies, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , ,

Jonathan Turley, Obama stated that he can have any American Citizen killed anywhere, CSPAN interview, Video, Professor Turley legal scholar

Posted on December 22, 2011 | 55 comments

Jonathan Turley, Obama stated that he can have any American Citizen killed anywhere, CSPAN interview, Video, Professor Turley legal scholar

“Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise
that it will last; but nothing in this world is certain but death and
taxes.”...Benjamin Franklin

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar, was interviewed on CSPAN. He was asked by a Democrat caller about Obama’s statement that he can
have any American Citizen killed anywhere.

Jonathan Turley Bio.

“Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, and other schools.

After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades ranging, representing whistleblowers, military personnel, and a wide range of other clients.

In 2010, Professor Turley represented Judge G. Thomas Porteous in his impeachment trial. After a trial before the Senate, Professor Turley (on December 7, 2010) argued both the motions and gave the final argument to all 100 U.S. Senators from the well of the Senate floor — only the 14th time in history of the country that such a trial of a judge has reached the Senate floor. Judge Porteous was convicted of four articles of impeachments, including the acceptance of $2000 from an attorney and using a false name on a bankruptcy filing.

In 2011, Professor Turley filed a challenge to the Libyan War on behalf of ten members of Congress, including Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (R., Md); Dan Burton (R., Ind.); Mike Capuano (D., Mass.); Howard Coble (R., N.C.); John Conyers (D., Mich.); John J. Duncan (R., Tenn.); Tim Johnson (R., Ill.); Walter Jones (R., N.C.); Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio); and Ron Paul (R., Tx). The lawsuit is pending before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Other cases include his representation of the Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada; the nuclear couriers at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the Rocky Flats grand jury in Colorado; Dr. Eric Foretich, the husband in the famous Elizabeth Morgan custody controversy; and four former United States Attorneys General during the Clinton impeachment litigation. In the Foretich case, Turley succeeded recently in reversing a trial court and striking down a federal statute through a rare “bill of attainder” challenge. Professor Turley has also served as counsel in a variety of national security cases, including espionage cases like that of Jim Nicholson, the highest ranking CIA officer ever accused of espionage. Turley also served as lead defense counsel in the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. Turley also served as defense counsel in the case of Dr. Tom Butler, who is facing criminal charges dealing with the importation and handling of thirty vials of plague in Texas. He also served as counsel to Larry Hanauer, the House Intelligence Committee staffer accused of leaking a classified Presidential National Intelligence Estimate to the New York Times. (Hanauer was cleared of all allegations).

Among his current cases, Professor Turley represents Dr. Ali Al-Timimi, who was convicted in Virginia in 2005 of violent speech against the United States. He also represents Dr. Sami Al-Arian, accused of being the American leader of a terrorist organization while he was a university professor in Florida. He also currently represents pilots approaching or over the age of 60 in their challenge to the mandatory retirement age of the FAA. He also represents David Murphee Faulk, the whistleblower who disclosed abuses in the surveillance operations at NSA’s Fort Gordon facility in Georgia. Most recently, Professor Turley agreed to serve as lead counsel representing the Brown family from the TLC “Sister Wives, a reality show on plural marriage or polygamy. He also agreed to serve as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British of Columbia (Canada) Supreme Court. In the latter case, he argued for the decriminalization of plural union and conjugal unions.

Turley has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, including the Florida House of Representatives. He also served as the consultant to the Puerto Rico House of Representatives on the impeachment of Gov. Aníbal Acevedo Vilá.

Professor Turley is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. Professor Turley is also a nationally recognized legal commentator. Professor Turley was ranked as 38th in the top 100 most cited “public intellectuals” in the recent study by Judge Richard Posner. Turley was also found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. He has been repeatedly ranked in the nation’s top 500 lawyers in annual surveys (including in the latest 2010 rankings by LawDragon) – one of only a handful of academics. In prior years, he was ranked as one of the nation’s top ten lawyers in military law cases as well as one of the top 40 lawyers under 40. He was also selected in 2010 and 2011 as one of the 100 top Irish lawyers in the world.

Professor Turley’s articles on legal and policy issues appear regularly in national publications with over 750 articles in such newspapers as the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal. He is a columnist for USA Today. In 2005, Turley was given the Columnist of the Year award for Single-Issue Advocacy for his columns on civil liberties by the Aspen Institute and the Week Magazine. Professor Turley also appears regularly as a legal expert on all of the major television networks. Since the 1990s, he has worked under contract as the on-air Legal Analyst for NBC News and CBS News to cover stories that ranged from the Clinton impeachment to the presidential elections. Professor Turley is often a guest on Sunday talk shows with over two-dozen appearances on Meet the Press, ABC This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox Sunday.Professor Turley teaches courses on constitutional law, constitutional criminal law, environmental law, litigation, and torts. He is the founder and executive director of the Project for Older Prisoners (POPS). His work with older prisoners has been honored in various states, including his selection as the 2011 recipient of the Dr. Mary Ann Quaranta Elder Justice Award at Fordham University.

His award-winning blog is ranked in the ten most popular legal blogs by AVVO.

Professor Turley received his B.A. at the University of Chicago and his J.D. at Northwestern. In 2008, he was given an honorary Doctorate of Law from John Marshall Law School for his contributions to civil liberties and the public interest.”

http://jonathanturley.org/about/

 

55 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, constitution, Founding Fathers, Government, Justice, Martial law, News, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Obama thugs, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,