Zach, of the Zach Jones is Home blog has written another hard
hitting article exposing the antics, hypocrisy and deception
of Obama and his Democrat cronies.
“The Obama Show – Vilification, Manipulation and Distraction
(“All this has happened before, and it will happen again” – Battlestar Galactica)
I’ve heard it said that there are only a handful of archetypal stories from which all variations come. Today, in politics, this appears truer than ever before. The same motivations are at play, the same goals and agendas, the same use of vilification and manipulation, the same attachments and vulnerabilities to draw out, the same diversions, the same subordination of truth – all to be used as “legitimate” means to the obtain the politician’s goals. Regrettably, the archetypal story of almost every politician today is the quest for power.”
“Power and manipulation! We all need to let that sink in and flow over us because in our regular lives we don’t think that way. Take a moment and say to yourself the words Hollywood, nothing is as it appears, the words mean nothing, the agendas are conflicting, all may be an elaborated distraction.
Now to American Politics 2009 –
This past week a poorly choreographed political theater has been taking place in the nation’s capital. It is the best example of political Kobuki theater we’ve had this year. We’ve had Pelosi and Barney Frank shrieking and pointing mephitic fingers at everyone but themselves. Senator Dodd, who has played a pivotal role in the entire financial mess, has been first denying knowledge of any AIG bonuses, kind of admitting the bonuses, admitting he wrote the amendment that exempted AIG so they could get the bonuses, and finally saying the Obama administration asked him to do everything. Timothy Geithner saying I didn’t know anything about anything until a few days ago and now a tape surfaces clearing indicating that he knew about the AIG bonuses at least by March 3, 2009. And finally, Obama saying I didn’t know anything about the AGI bonuses – which could be true since he was quickly planning a trip out of town to appear on the Tonight Show to talk about Special Olympics and his bowling skills.
The outcome of all the drama and CYA’ing was that the Congress of the United States, led by Nancy Pelosi, passed legislation attempting to tax anyone who received an AIG bonus out of any and all money. Congress decided that they must do “something”. Nancy was yelling and screaming, hell yes we’re mad and we are not going to take it, our voters are mad and we’re going to punish AGI employees who took these Congressional authorized bonuses. Oh my. The Kobuki result so far is that the House of Representatives have passed a likely unconstitutional bill of attainder in the attempt to cover their (not reading the original bill) tracks.”
“As entertaining as people with pitchforks can be; it’s now time to consider Mr. Obama’s actions.
Where was he? Was he bowling, picking his NCAA basketball teams, appearing on The Tonight Show? Why wasn’t he in Washington? I would suggest that it is/was part of the chorography that team Obama is executing to manipulate the public and maintain the Obama illusion. They want to try to keep Obama above it all, spouting lofty words and symbolizing calm.
During the Vietnam War, Nixon went to China. During this financial crisis, Obama goes to Hollywood and back to the campaign trail. It’s all diversion, manipulation and theater.”
I just received this update from Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan:
“Personal Transcript of Hearing: Sullivan v. NC Secretary of State and Board of Elections; Case #08-CVS-021393
SUBJECT: Obama Eligibility
On March 16, 2009, the calendar was called by Judge W. Osmond Smith, III, presiding, in Wake County Superior Court, Raleigh, NC. My case was #23 on the calendar and required the hearing of three separate “motions”: My demand for class action certification; my demand for leave to amend; and the State’s motion to dismiss. When he got to #23, the judge said he would pass over this item until he had completed calling the calendar. (Odd, this. It was apparent there had been discussion of my case prior to the hearing. I am not at all sure these discussions did not include the defendant State.) Upon completion of calling the calendar, and after dividing the calendar between himself and another superior court judge, A. Leon Stanback, Jr., Judge Smith called the first case without mentioning mine again. I stood and called his attention to his oversight, and he apologized. The case was then scheduled for hearing last.
When my case was called (actually next to last as it worked out), the judge asked the parties how long the arguments would take. I answered it would depend upon which of the three “motions” he decided to hear first. After a brief discussion, the judge chose to hear my demand to amend first. It being my action with the burden of proof on my shoulders, I began my arguments in support of my demand with a statement of the justification for my amendment to the original pleadings. The original filing was a demand for injunctive relief which the court had decided to consider only a “routine” case. The case was filed on November 7th, 2008, and in anticipation of an expedited ruling to take place prior to the inauguration on January 20th, 2009. By considering the case “routine”, the court had condemned the action to becoming moot upon the completion of the inauguration. Thus, it was necessary to amend the complaint to prevent the necessity of filing a completely new action. It was only due to the scheduling by the court that the case had taken three months to be heard. I also was demanding I be allowed to add the Governor and the State of NC as defendants, since the necessary actions required in my demand for injunctive relief were interstate actions and would necessitate the Governor be a party.
I then presented that it was the sworn duty of the court to support the Constitution of the United States in accordance with the court’s ( and all others involved in this action) Article VI, Section 7, (NC Constitution) oath, in accordance with Article VI, Section 2, (US Constitution), and in accordance with Article 1, Section 5, of the NC Constitution. I admitted there was no statutory requirement for the State to do as I had demanded, but that the obligation and responsibility was a constitutional one, this being both an equity court and a constitutional court. I listed the evidentiary facts which appeared to assert the ineligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of President in contravention to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 5, of the US Constitution including, but not limited to, his failure to reveal his original birth certificate from Hawaii; his apparent use of an Indonesian passport in 1981, his multiple citizenships by birth and residence, none of which he has renounced; his failure to release his collegiate records which allegedly show he attended as a foreign student under an FS-1 foreign student visa; statements by the ambassador to the US from Kenya and his paternal grandmother which attest to his being born in Mombasa, Kenya; his having given false information on his application for an Illinois license to practice law in 1989, in that he averred he had no other names than Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., when, in fact, he has used at least four other names over his lifetime; and the apparent falsity of his selective service registration. I also showed the court the current issue of “Globe” magazine I had purchased that morning on the way to the courthouse, which highlighted on its cover, and in the article inside, the peril faced by the US military in its confusion over whether to execute the orders of a “President” who may in fact not be qualified. The cover pictured 43-year-old First Lieutenant Scott Easterling, in uniform and in Iraq, one of many US soldiers who are questioning the authority of Obama’s presidency. I explained that, should Obama survive the first four years of his presidency and decide to run again (a likelihood for which I admitted having very little hope), the issue of his eligibility would most certainly come up again; and, in the event he was proven ineligible, every action, appointment, order and law he had committed to during his first four years would be invalidated. I tried to impress upon the court that this constitutional crisis could be averted by nipping the “rumors”, if in fact that is what we are dealing with here, of Obama’s ineligibility in the bud by allowing my amendment so that the complaint could continue.
Having exhausted my arguments to the court, I turned it over to the defense, which merely argued that the case against the Secretary of State was res judicata (judged previously), having been heard in my prior filing against her and dismissed; that my arguments were moot, since the inauguration had passed, and there was no claim upon which relief could be granted by the court; and that I lacked standing before the court to pursue this case. Their arguments were brief, and the judge listened. When the two attorneys for the State sat down, the judge denied my motion to amend.
We then proceeded directly to the State’s motion to dismiss. They presented the same arguments in brief that had already been presented in the first hearing on the demand to amend, except they added that the ruling should be “with prejudice”. Part of my defense against the motion to dismiss had already been presented as to the res judicata claim in the form of my prior complaint had been dismissed “without prejudice”, such that I could file the same complaint again. They also argued the issues of standing, mootness and jurisdiction. When it was my turn, I repeated most of my arguments as well in the rebuttal, adding that mootness was not a valid defense because the offense of Obama’s illegitimacy was a continuing offense against the Constitution, not degraded nor invalidated merely on the grounds that he was now inaugurated falsely as President. My argument against “standing” was my filing as a “class action”, and the argument against jurisdiction was, of course, the constitutional obligations of the court. As to res judicata,
I explained to the judge that a ruling “without prejudice” did not deny leave to refile the case at a later date.
The judge didn’t buy any of it and allowed the motion to dismiss, along with the prayer for finding “with prejudice”, due to “mootness” (the inauguration issue); “failure to state a claim against which relief could be granted” (the “No State statute requires it” issue, which denies any constitutional duty or obligation); and “res judicata”. Conspicuously absent from this list was the issue of “standing” which has killed all the other suits around the country, of which I am aware. This last supports my theory that I had resolved the “standing” issue by filing a class action suit”, for which I offered myself as the representative of the registered voter “class” of North Carolina. I advised the court that I intended to appeal, but would appeal in writing within the allotted 30 days after the order is signed.
I have no intention of appealing this ruling. I will file a new case and improve on that one as I did from the first one filed in October to the second one filed in November. It is ironic that, had the judge allowed my demand to amend the names of the Governor and the State of NC to the defendant list, I would be precluded from filing a new case against them as it would be “res judicata”.
It is important that we continue to push this issue of legitimacy in government, if only because we are currently involved in two foreign armed conflicts with more on the horizon, and the economy is on the edge of collapse. Our military cannot continue to question the orders of the Commander-in-Chief because of the confusion of his nationality, and the “Stimulus Plan” is not going to help the economy. As Sun Tsu told us, we must know the enemy and ourselves, or we can never be victorious in battle. In the case of the United States government, the enemy is a mystery who changes with the tide; and, with Obama in the White House, even we ourselves are an unknown quantity. We cannot win if we continue on this course.
END
March 20, 2009
DS”
I received the following email request on December 26, 2008:
“XXXXX XXXXXX of TX has today gotten off the phone with Ron Paul.
Her parents live in the same city as RP.
Bad news. He does NOT intend at this time to stand up on Jan
8th. Part of the reason XXXXX mentioned was that RP said no
one knew the definition by either the law cases and Constitution
itself as to the real menaing of natural born.
Citizen Wells, I immediately thought of all your great research
on natural born that you’ve posted on our website. Its too much
to expect RP or any Congress critter to read it all BUT…
Here’s you assignment. Condense into no more than 3 pages with
full legal references on as many pages as needed. The more the
RELEVANT references the better. Can we have this done by Dec 28th?
I also ask that XXXXX, XXX and you coordinate the naturing of Ron
Paul. Your goal is to get him to agree to file the written
objection NLT Jan 3rd.
Are you’ll up to that challenge? If Ron Paul does sign on, he
will bring other Constitutionalists along in both the Senate and
House.”
Obviously Ron Paul is not paying attention.
I spent most of my time trying to debunk what I believed
about natural born citizen and after much reading posted
the following on the Citizen Wells blog on December 28,
2008:
Dean Haskins used this information to
produce this excellent video:
Exactly What IS a Natural Born Citizen?
Leo Donofrio has posted his most recent opinion about natural
born citizen and the influence of Vattel on the founding
fathers. Thanks to Phil at the Right Side of Life website
for the heads up.
“ONE FINAL POINT ABOUT THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE.
The more I read Vattel (pictured above), specifically the passage which defines “natural-born citizen”, the more convinced I become that the framers understood Vattel much better than we have on this issue. I now am firmly convinced that the framers relied on Vattel’s definition when they included the natural born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.
Yesterday, I had a revelation as to what Vattel meant and what the framers intended “natural born citizen” to mean in the Constitution. It’s obvious that the framers drew a distinction between the meaning of “citizen” and the meaning of “natural born citizen”. A “citizen” can be Senator or Representative, but in order to be President one must be a natural born citizen.
It’s the difference between a fact and a legal status.
Whether you are a natural born citizen is a fact of nature which can’t be waived or renounced, but your actual legal citizenship can be renounced. The difference is subtle, but so very important. “Natural born citizen” is not a different form of “citizenship”. It is a manner of acquiring citizenship. And while natural born citizens may end their legal tie to the country by renouncing citizenship, they will always have been naturally born into that nation as a citizen.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Two different sentences. Two different civil groups are being discussed.
Examine the subject heading given by Vattel, “Natives and Citizens”. Two separate groups of the civil society are addressed in the heading. And here is the start of the greatest proof that the framers relied on Vattel as to the natural born citizen clause.
In the passage above, the first sentence defines who the “citizens” of a civil society are. Vattel states; “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.”
In the very next sentence he describes a different set of people wherein he states, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
There are natives and citizens, just as the header says. All citizens are members of the civil society, but not all citizens are natives or natural-born citizens. A native can’t renounce his “nativeness”. He’s a native forever. He might renounce the citizenship he gained through being a native, but he can’t renounce the FACT of his birth as a native.
Vattel equates natives with natural-born citizens. They are the same. According to Vattel, in order to be a native, one must be born of the soil and the blood of two citizen parents.
He goes on as follows:
“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights…I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Some have argued that this passage indicates only one parent – the father – is necessary for one to be a natural born citizen. That is false. The above passage only mentions the word “citizen”. It says the children of the father are “citizens”, but it does not say they are “natives or natural-born citizens”. Vattel is discussing the legality of citizenship, not the fact of one’s birth as being native.
When Vattel wrote this in 1758, he wasn’t arguing for its inclusion in a future US Constitution as a qualification for being President. But the framers did read his work. And when it came to choosing the President, they wanted a “natural-born citizen”, not just a citizen. That is clear in the Constitution. Vattel doesn’t say that “natives or natural-born citizens” have any special legal rights over “citizens”. He simply described a phenomenon of nature, that the citizenship of those who are born on the soil to citizen parents (plural) is a “natural-born citizen”.
Citizen = legal status
Native or natural-born citizen = fact of birth which bestows citizenship.
Vattel also wrote:
“The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.
Once again, he does not mention natives or natural-born citizens in this passage, just citizens. Furthermore, he states that the citizens may renounce their citizenship when they come of legal age. But nobody can renounce a fact of birth. The fact is true or it is not true. You’re either “born” a natural-born citizen or you are not. The legal citizenship which attaches to this fact of birth may be renounced, but the fact will be with you forever.
And it is that fact of birth the framers sought to guarantee for each President of the United States. The framers ruled that the commander in chief be a natural born citizen. Like Vattel, the framers purposely distinguished between “citizens” and “natural born citizens”. And to that distinction there can only be one effect:
ONLY A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CAN BE PRESIDENT.
According to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, the 14th amendment cannot make the natural born citizen clause from Article 2 Section 1 superfluous. If being born as a 14th Amendment citizen was enough to be President, then the natural born citizen clause would have no effect. According to Marshall, that argument is inadimissible.
President Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States whethe he was born in Hawaii or not.
FAREWELL.
I am not going to protest any longer. As a Christian, I’m somewhat convinced this nation has been judged by the almighty and his fury may be descending as we speak. Such fury appears to be in the form of Constitutional cancer. I have prayed over my continuing role in this battle and the answer to those prayers said I am done here. As a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, I place my faith not in any organized religion but in the words of the lamb and the voice of God. Peace be with you.
I respectfully disagree with Leo Donofrio on one important aspect.
Barack Obama is not president under the US Constitution. No amount
of swearing in makes one president. Only a combination of the
election process and being qualified under the US Constitution makes
one president.
“Winston dialed “back numbers” on the telescreen and called
for the appropriate issues of the Times, which slid out of
the pneumatic tube after only a few minutes’ delay. The
messages he had received referred to articles or news items
which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to
alter, or, as the official phrase had it, to rectify. For
example, it appeared from the Times of the seventeenth of
March that Big Brother, in his speech of the previous day,
had predicted that the South Indian front would remain quiet
but that a Eurasian offensive would shortly be launched in
North Africa. As it happened, the Eurasian Higher Command
had launched its offensive in South India and left North
Africa alone. It was therefore necessary to rewrite a
paragraph of Big Brother’s speech in such a way as to make
him predict the thing that had actually happened.”
George Orwell…”1984″
Recently, the Citizen Wells blog reported on the Washington
Post rewriting an article to remove potentially damaging
content about Obama and his technology czar, Vivek Kundra.
Dr. Orly Taitz, on Friday, March 13, 2009, confronted Chief
Justice John Roberts after a speech he gave at the University
of Idaho. Read this exerpt from an AP reporter that was
published on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer website.
“At one point during the audience question period, Orly Taitz,
a woman from Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif., said she had
documents proving that President Obama was not born in the
United States and thus could not be president. While audience
members laughed, she said she had half a million signatures
of people demanding the Supreme Court hear the matter.
Roberts cut her off by saying that if she had documents with
her, she should give them to security officers. He also said
he could not discuss the issue.
Earlier this month, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., threw
out a lawsuit questioning Obama’s citizenship, branding the
case a waste of the court’s time.”
Next read the Dr. Orly Taitz rendition:
“Yesterday I traveled to Idaho. I was able to address Chief
Justice Roberts during the question answer session after his
lecture. There were numerous cameras recording this event and
simultaneous feed broadcast to all the campuses of the
University of Idaho. Roughly 5,000 people in all the campuses
had an opportunity to hear what I had to say, it is in video
archives and now everybody knows the truth and knows that leftist
media thugs such as Seattle Washington Observer shamelessly
twist the truth to fit their Pro Obama blind idiot agenda.”
“It was a grueling day, I left home at 3 in the morning after
sleeping only 3 hours and drove to San Diego, from there flew
to Salt Lake City, from there to Spokane, Washington, from there
I drove for a couple of hours to be in Moscow Idaho, to address
Chief Justice Roberts. After the lecture the audience was told,
that they can ask questions, give their name and present a shot
question. I was the first to run to the microphone and told
Roberts. ” My name is Orly Taitz, I am an attorney from Southern
California. I left home at three o’clock in the morning and flew
and drove thousands of miles to talk to you and ask you a
question”. Roberts seemed to be impressed by that and I continued.
“Are you aware that there is criminal activity going on in the
Supreme Court of the United States. I have submitted my case
Lightfoot v Bowen to you. You agreed to hear it in the conference
of all 9 Justices on January 23. Your clerk, Danny Bickle, on his
own accord refused to forward to you an important supplemental
brief, he has hidden it from you and refused to post it on the
docket. Additionally, my case was erased from the docket,
completely erased one day after the inauguration, only two days
before it was supposed to be heard in the conference. Outraged
citizens had to call and demand for it to be posted. On Monday
I saw Justice Scalia and he had absolutely no knowledge of my
case, that was supposedly heard in conference on January 23rd.
It is inexplicable, particularly knowing that roughly half a
million American citizens have written to him and to you Justice
Roberts demanding that you hear this issue of eligibility of
Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro to be the President of
the United States.” At that point I have shown to Roberts
a stack of papers, that I held. Those were my pleadings and
printouts that I got from WorldNetDaily. It contained your
names, names of about 350,000 that signed the petition. (there
were others that have written individual letters,) . Roberts
stated “I will read your documents, I will review them. Give
them to my Secret Service Agent and I will review them”. His
Secret Service Agent approached me and stated ” Give me all the
documents, I promise you Justice Roberts will get them”. I had a
full suitcase of documents. The agent went to look for a box, he
found a large box to fit all the documents, he showed me his badge,
and introduced himself as Gilbert Shaw, secret Service Agent
assigned to the security of Chief Justice Roberts.”
Now reread the reporter’s version above and consider the
following:
“Orly Taitz, a woman from Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif.”
No mention that she is an attorney.
No mention of the main object of her plea, clerk, Danny Bickle,
criminal activity at the US Supreme Court or her conversation
with Justice Scalia.
No mention that Justice Roberts said that he would review the
documents.
Including the following statement to further attempt to discredit
Dr. Taitz. “Earlier this month, a federal judge in Washington,
D.C., threw out a lawsuit questioning Obama’s citizenship,
branding the case a waste of the court’s time.””
The reporter portrayed Orly Taitz’ encounter with Chief Justice
Roberts in the most negative manner.
Whether or not you agree with Dr. Orly Taitz’ methodology she
should be respected for her gumption and her resolve. She has
experienced totalitarian regimes of the former soviet bloc and
loves this country. I have spoken with her at length and her
concern comes through in her voice.
God bless Dr. Orly Taitz.
If you are still not convinced we are experiencing a world that
closely resembles “1984”, you had better wake up.
“I Did It. Justice Roberts Agreed to read all of my documents
Yesterday I traveled to Idaho. I was able to address Chief Justice Roberts during the question answer session after his lecture. There were numerous cameras recording this event and simultaneous feed broadcast to all the campuses of the University of Idaho. Roughly 5,000 people in all the campuses had an opportunity to hear what I had to say, it is in video archives and now everybody knows the truth and knows that leftist media thugs such as Seattle Washington Observer shamelessly twist the truth to fit their Pro Obama blind idiot agenda.
It was a grueling day, I left home at 3 in the morning after sleeping only 3 hours and drove to San Diego, from there flew to Salt Lake City, from there to Tacoma, Washington, from there I drove for a couple of hours to be in Moscow Idaho, to address Chief Justice Roberts. After the lecture the audience was told, that they can ask questions, give their name and present a shot question. I was the first to run to the microphone and told Roberts. ” My name is Orly Taitz, I am an attorney from Southern California. I left home at three o’clock in the morning and flew and drove thousands of miles to talk to you and ask you a question”. Roberts seemed to be impressed by that and I continued. “Are you aware that there is criminal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States. I have submitted my case Lightfoot v Bowen to you. You agreed to hear it in the conference of all 9 Justices on January 23. Your clerk, Danny Bickle, on his own accord refused to forward to you an important supplemental brief, he has hidden it from you and refused to post it on the docket. Additionally, my case was erased from the docket, completely erased one day after the inauguration, only two days before it was supposed to be heard in the conference. Outraged citizens had to call and demand for it to be posted. On Monday I saw Justice Scalia and he had absolutely no knowledge of my case, that was supposedly heard in conference on January 23rd. It is inexplicable, particularly knowing that roughly half a million American citizens have written to him and to you Justice Roberts demanding that you hear this issue of eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro to be the President of the United States.” At that point I have shown to Roberts a stack of papers, that I held. Those were my pleadings and printouts that I got from WorldNetDaily. It contained your names, names of about 350,000 that signed the petition. (there were others that have written individual letters,) . Roberts stated “I will read your documents, I will review them. Give them to my Secret Service Agent and I will review them”. His Secret Service Agent approached me and stated ” Give me all the documents, I promise you Justice Roberts will get them”. I had a full suitcase of documents. The agent went to look for a box, he found a large box to fit all the documents, he showed me his badge, and introduced himself as Gilbert Shaw, secret Service Agent assigned fto the security of Chief Justice Roberts.
I gave him
1.Motion fo reconsideration of Lightfoot v Bowen with all the supplemental briefs.
2. Quo Warranto Easterling et al v Obama et al
3. 3300 pages of your names, people that signed WorldNetDaily petition, demanding that the Supreme Court hear Obama elligibility case.
4. Copy of a 164 page dossier and all the other documents sent to Eric Holder, Attorney General, describing suspected criminal activity, associated with Obama and his supporters. It described a whole campaign of cyber crimes, intimidation, harassment, defamation and assassination of character, impersonation of US army officer Scott Easterling and impersonation of me, it showed screen shots of information being erased from the docket of the Supreme Court, it contained information of court cases being created, fabricated in order to commit voter fraud and sway public opinion, it contained a list of a 100 addresses for Barack Obama with numerous different social security numbers, issued all over the country and attached to those addresses. It showed the address Obama used in Somerville Massachusetts, attached to the social security of a man who is 118 years old. It showed evidence of Obama committing perjury, lying under oath. It had his school registration from Indonesia under the name Barry Soetoro, citizen of Indonesia, religion Muslim. Right after this page there was a page of Obama’s registration to become an attorney and officer of the court in Illinois, where he stated under oath that his name is Barack Hussein Obama and he had no other prior names. It contained a report from a federal agent Steven Coffman, stating that there are numerous signs of forgery in his Selective Service Certificate. It contained a letter from a renown expert Sandra Line, stating that there are signs of forgery in Obama’s short version Certification of Live Birth, and original birth certificate needs to be reviewed in order to ascertain his status. It contained 130 current job positions for Barry Obama, Barack H. Obama and Michelle Obama, that were obtained from Intellius Jobs.com. None of them were reported on Obamas’ tax returns. All of these documents suggest possible massive tax fraud, corruption of a public official, bribery and massive campaign contributions fraud, whereby large campaign contributions, over allowed limits were reported as fictitious positions with different companies, not surprisingly involving most mainstream media outlets. These need to be reviewed in light of a pattern, I’ve seen previously. For example, as a State Senator Obama arranged for his friend Robert Blackwell from killerspin to get a grant of $320,000 of our taxpayers money for his ping-pong tournaments. In exchange Blackwell gave Obama back roughly a third, $100,000 in the form of a salary. Similarly Obama arranged for Chicago university hospital to get 1 million grant of our taxpayer money and they gave him back roughly a third $357,000 in the form of a board salary for his wife Michelle for working 20 hours a week, even though Michelle was totally worthless as a board member since she had zero medical education and her law licence is on a mandatory inactive status (I wonder why).
I am writing this in a hurry, ready to leave my hotel room, finishing yesterday’s dinner leftovers and ready to board a plane for a grueling flight back home. I’ll add one more detail. As one of the announcers introduced Roberts, he stated that Roberts has his priorities straight. He described an event when Roberts missed most of a reception because he wanted to be there for his young son, at the sports tournament where his son was participating. He described Roberts as a caring and loving father. At that point I was just about ready to cry. I have 3 sons, I love them too and I would love to be there, attending their events. I am a proud parent. My oldest son scored in top one percent in the Nation in PSATs and he is in an IVY league school studying to be a doctor. He is also a gifted comedian, who formed a stand up comedy improve group and I would love to see him perform. My wo younger sons are great students. My middle son has a beautiful low bass Elvis Presley voice, he sings opera and I would love to hear him perform. My youngest son is a top student taking 5AP classes in tenth grade, gifted mathematician and basketball player, I would love to see him get academic awards and play basketball. I missed time with my children, time that will never come back because a am criss crossing this country talking to Justices of the Supreme court, Representatives, Senators, FBI agents, Attorney Generals, US attorneys, telling all of them, what is wrong with you? Did some evil magician put a spell on the men in this country and they stopped being men? Why are you afraid to speak up, to stand up for you constitution? Why are you afraid to tell this arrogant jerk from Africa and Indonesia- You need to go home, you cannot be a president and commander in chief because you are not a Natural born Citizen. To be a Natural born Citizen you have to have both parents as citizens. Your father was never a US citizen and you don’t qualify and you also spit us in the face by refusing to unseal your vital records. There is no proof that you are even a citizen. For all we know, you need to go back to Kenya and wait for your green card, and that after we try you for all the crimes perpetrated upon American citizens. I hope Justice Roberts teaches his son that he is a descendant of people that were real men and fought in Alamo and at Valley Forge. Chief Justice Roberts has a right to issue a stay and appoint Joe Biden a president pro-tempore until Obama proves his qualifications or until a new president is chosen. I hope Roberts teaches his son by example and not by empty words.”
From Dean Haskins of Restore the Constitutional Republic:
“There once existed a “fringe movement” comprised of people who were publicly ridiculed for their specific and firmly held conviction—a conviction that ran counter to the generally held beliefs of their time. As staunchly as they embraced what they knew to be truth, it seemed no less than futility trying to sway the vast majority to accept, or even consider, that knowledge. The institutions that controlled the dissemination of public information condemned these “truth bearers” as unworthy of the slightest civility. It even became dangerous to attempt to convince the masses that these contentions were, in fact, truth—so dangerous that one of the group’s leaders was eventually imprisoned for openly sharing his viewpoint, and then placed under house arrest for the remainder of his years.
Is this how history will recall us—the “birthers” of the early 21 century? If it is, then it will likely be part of the account describing America’s demise. This portrayal certainly looks accurate regarding what we’ve experienced, except for the leader’s imprisonment. But, the “leader” to whom I am referring was Galileo Galilei, and the fringe movement of his day was the heliocentrists—those who believed the earth orbited the sun, and not the other way around. Just because society considers beliefs that run counter to the understandings of the gullible masses to be “fringe” or “conspiracy theories,” doesn’t mean that those beliefs are not true. The earth continues to orbit the sun.
There is a group of people, who rely on us to retain their jobs, who have still not provided truthful, informed answers to our questions about Mr. Obama’s eligibility to be president—the members of Congress. While a very nasty bug has kept me pretty silent for more than a couple weeks, I feel I have now recovered enough to once again remember just how angry it makes me that these folks have arrogantly dismissed us as lunatics—and they are supposed to be working FOR us!
So, The WHY Initiative is now being implemented in full force. Citizen Wells and I finalized it today, and we are ready to begin a new barrage of inquiries into the offices of our elected officials in Congress.
Here’s what we’re asking you to do: call, write, email, and/or visit the U.S. Representatives and Senators in YOUR state only. Believe me, since they view getting re-elected as their most important job, they are really only concerned with keeping their constituents happy. It does very little for someone in Ohio to contact an elected official in Kentucky—there’s no vote involved there, so the Ohioan means nothing to the Kentucky official.
We’re NOT asking for them to send you an answer to your request—we’ve already been sickened enough by their moronic lies. No, all we’d like you to request of them is to enter into a dialogue with the representatives of our movement. Citizen Wells and I will determine who will speak with any of them who appear willing. In that dialogue, the question to which we’ll be trying to obtain an answer will be “Why didn’t you ask for proof that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen?” We know they just HAD to have had a reason. We’d now like to know what it was.
Here is a sample letter you can cut and paste, or you can take the specifics of it and write your own letter.
As you undoubtedly know, there are many people across the country who are aware and disturbed that Barack Obama has refused to provide proper documentation to prove he is a natural born citizen as required by our Constitution. After the general election, many of your constituents communicated with you asking that you request a proper investigation into the matter, but you chose not to.
I am not asking you to provide more of the same debunked misinformation and deception with which many representatives and senators chose to reply to those previous requests; they were lies then, so they’ll continue to be lies. What I am asking is for you merely to have a brief dialogue with the representatives of our movement to answer a simple question: Why didn’t you ask for the proof that so many of your constituents expected to be provided? Why did you think Barack Obama was constitutionally eligible to be president? Did you rely on the media for your decision? Did you just trust snopes.com and factcheck.org? Did you just believe that nobody could have ever been elected president without being properly vetted at some point in the process? Were you threatened? Were you provided with some communication directing you to ignore the inquiries?
Through this initiative, The WHY Initiative, those in our ever-growing movement are committed to two things regarding the elected officials who will not provide honest answers to their constituents: we will refuse to financially support any of their efforts, and we will work to see that those officials are removed from office through the election process. That would seem a steep price for you to pay when the alternative would be such an easy thing to do. And, we are not interested in speaking with any of your staffers. These answers should be answered by only you.
I don’t know about any of the other members of Congress, but I have confidence that you will be able to provide a legitimate answer to that question. In fact, I have such confidence in you that I am expecting you to do so.
To make arrangements to provide your answers, please make contact at either of these email addresses:
Thanking you in advance for your timely and forthright response.
Sincerely,
[NAME]
[CITY, STATE]
****************************************************
Here is an online resource with contact information for each state: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
Next, we’d like you to keep us posted about the contacts you are making, but rather than trying to keep up with, and categorize, countless emails, please keep us updated by posting your progress on our forum: http://www.restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php. If you haven’t registered, please do so—it’s quick and painless. There is a board on the forum labeled “Individual State Boards.” Once there, you’ll see your state’s individual board. Please post your updates there. If you would be interested in being a coordinator for your state, please let us know.
I would just like to express my gratitude for the many kind sentiments I’ve received while I’ve been ill. I cannot ever remember being so sick for so long. I am profoundly encouraged by how many of you are choosing to remain steadfast in this battle, and it is your mettle that gives me the desire to step back into the ring and fight for all I’m worth.
We WILL be heard!!!
God bless each of you.
Dean Haskins
Chairman, Restore the Constitutional Republic”
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to
particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that
rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must
decide on the operation of each.”
“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the
constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature;
the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the
case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all
cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention
of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the
constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising
under the constitution should be decided without examining the
instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to
be maintained.”
“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?” Marbury versus Madison
The following is from a Memorandum issued by
United States District Judge James Robertson
on March 5, 2009. The Memorandum is a response
to the Hollister vs Soetoro lawsuit.
GREGORY S. HOLLISTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARRY SOETORO, et al.,
Defendants.
“This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve
mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is
foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to
do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the
blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do
is to bring it to an early end.”
Judge Robertson’s opening statement sets the stage for revealing
his non objectivity and bias.
“The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force
colonel who continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief
(because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is
tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey
orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven — to the
colonel’s satisfaction — that Mr. Obama is a native-born
American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be
President. The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised,
vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by
America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign
for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a
court.”
Notice the ignorance or apathy of using words like vetted. Judge
Robertson goes on to say “plaintiff wants it resolved by a
court.” as if that is improper. Another example of those that
should be providing checks and balances passing the buck.
“The real plaintiff is probably Philip J. Berg, a lawyer
who lives in Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania, and who has pursued
his crusade elsewhere, see Berg v. Obama”
“That case was the subject of a scholarly opinion by a
judge who took Mr. Berg’s claims seriously –- and dismissed them.”
“Mr. Hollister is apparently Mr. Berg’s fallback brainstorm,
essentially a straw plaintiff, one who could tee Mr. Berg’s
native-born issue up for decision on a new theory:”
“Because it
appears that the complaint in this case may have been presented
for an improper purpose such as to harass; and that the
interpleader claims and other legal contentions of plaintiff are
not warranted by existing law or by non-frivolous arguments for
extending, modifying or reversing existing law or for
establishing new law, the accompanying order of dismissal
requires Mr. Hemenway to show cause why he has not violated Rules
11(b)(1) and 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
and why he should not be required to pay reasonable attorneys
fees and other expenses to counsel for the defendants.”
So now we have trying to uphold the US Constitution being referred
to as harassing. “Not warranted by existing law”?
Judge James Robertson. Which of the following apply to you?
Idiot
Incompetent
Biased
Anti American
Bought by Obama Camp
We would like to know.
The Citizen Wells blog demands for the removal of Judge James
Robertson from office. Please join us in this effort. Corrupt
or incompetent judges must be removed from office.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge
the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” Congressional oath of office
“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
So help me God.” US Military officer’s oath of office
Officers in the service of the United States are
bound by this oath to disobey any order that
violates the Constitution of the United States.
Officers in the US Military and members of Congress take an oath of
office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” To the surprise of no one,
members of the US Military take their oath seriously. Many members of
Congress were contacted before and after the presidential election.
To a person, all members contacted replied with political, evasive
and inaccurate statements about Barack Obama’s eligibility. Lt Col
Donald Sullivan, a retired Air Force officer, file a lawsuit in NC
on November 7, 2008. Now members of the military are coming on board
to support and defend the US Constitution and signing on as plaintiffs
in the Orly Taitz lawsuit.
The WHY initiative and other efforts are attempting to get straight
answers from congressmen as to why they believed Obama was eligible
and why no member of Congress stood up to challenge the Electoral
votes. Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama responded with a typical
absurd response when queried about Obama’s eligibility. Recently,
when interviewed, Senator Shelby gave a different response. Without
focusing on just one member of Congress, Senator Shelby, we still
need to find out what Senator Shelby’s position is on the US
Constitution.
Senator Shelby, members of Congress, consider
the following officers in the US military
that have come on board to support and defend
the US Constitution:
“5.13.
It was well expected that, after all the public concern that has been
raised over the preceding months, Mr. Obama would have released for
public or official scrutiny the relevant documentation to back up his
claim of qualification as a “natural born citizen”. His reaction to
public concern and his recent actions in Federal District Court on
9/24/2008 demonstrate that Mr. Obama has no intentions of releasing
said documentation for review or cannot because they do not exist.
The late hour of this request was dictated by the delaying tactics
of Mr. Obama, and the non-responsiveness to citizens’ repeated
requests to the Obama campaign for proof of eligibility.”
“I can present a long list of reasons, taken individually, which
convinced me NOT to vote for Barack Hussein Obama; his crime associates
in the USA, his lack of experience, the mystery of his citizenship,
his promise to make coal power industry bankrupt through excessive
regulations, his constant adjustment of position on issues, his tax
plan, his spread the wealth admission, his obvious socialistic goals,
his associations with foreign leaders unfriendly to the USA, the lies
he tells about a range of subjects including perhaps who his biological
father really is, his most recent revelation of having a “National
Security Force” (whatever that is)……………all of these says he is a person
of mystery, of no integrity, and in fact paints him with the same
narcissist paint of Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, and Kim Jong Ill.”
“We the People of the United States of America” are entitled to know
the legal qualifications of the President and Commander in Chief.
For the better good and National Security of “We the People of the
United States” and for Absolute Command of the Military Forces of the
United States, I whole heartedly support the efforts of Dr. Orly Taitz,
ESQ for taking legal action to determine whether or not Barack Hussein
Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, Citizen of Indonesia and possibly citizen
of Kenya, is eligible to become President of the United States and
Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces.
“A Retired Colonel, Riley is “the recipient of the Silver Star, Legion
of Merit, Bronze Star and other awards and badges – including the
Combat Infantry Badge, Parachute Badge, and Army Staff Badge. He served
over 34 years in the US Army. He was commissioned as a 2LT in 1966 and
promoted to Colonel in 1989. He served in command positions from
Detachment through Battalion level and staff assignments from Brigade
to Chief of Staff Army level. He served two tours in Viet Nam and did
several tours in Germany.”
ACHIEVEMENTS: Awarded Silver Star for Conspicuous Gallentry, Awarded
the Bronze Star with Combat “V”,Two (2) Purple Hearts, Gold Medal for
best Squad Leader in the World, 14 other awards and decorations”
“As an active-duty Officer in the United States Army, I have grave
concerns about the constitutional eligibilty of Barack Hussein Obama
to hold the Office of President of The United States. He has
absolutely refused to provide to the American public his original
birth certificate, as well as other documents which may prove or
disprove his eligibility. In fact, he has fought every attempt made
by concerned citizens in their effort to force him to do so.
Until Mr. Obama releases a “vault copy” of his original birth
certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my
Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the
Office – an impostor.
My conviction is such that I am compelled to join Dr. Orly Taitz’s
lawsuit, as a plaintiff, against Mr. Obama. As a citizen, it pains me
to do this, but as an Offficer, my sworn oath to support and defend
our Constitution requires this action.”
Citizen WElls 