“No man can serve two masters.” (Matthew 6:24, KJV)
Congressman Ron Paul of Texas never made it to the US Constitution
Hall of Shame. However, Congressman Paul is of interest to the
Citizen Wells blog for several reasons. Late in December of 2008,
I was informed that Ron Paul had been notified of the eligibility
issues surrounding Obama and that Mr. Paul was uncertain about
the natural born citizen clause pertaining to the presidency. I
was asked to research the natural born citizen clause. I did so
and found what anyone searching the internet can find. It is clear
what the intent of the founding fathers was. And yes, Vattel’s
“The Law of Nation’s” obviously influenced the Founding Fathers.
Citizen Wells report on Natural Born Citizen
Natural born citizen explained in video
There are several reasons why Obama is not eligible to be president.
However, most if not all congressmen were aware of numerous lawsuits
challenging Obama’s eligibility beginning with Philip Berg’s on
August 21, 2008. Many mistakenly stated that the lawsuits were
dismissed for lack of merit. That is patently false. However, since
the congressmen were aware of the lawsuits, they were also aware
that obama had employed an army of attorneys and spent enormous
amounts of resources to avoid proving that he was eligible.
That is the real smoking gun.
This is the reason that minimally, Congress should have demanded that
Obama prove that he was qualified. A single congressman could have
initiated this query before or when Congress convened to certify the
Electoral votes.
Not a single congressman stepped forward.
Congressman Ron Paul knew that there were serious issues surrounding
Obama’s eligibility. Congressman Ron Paul, who speaks of upholding
the US Constitution.
Late in December of 2008, Congressman Paul was asked if he would
challenge the Electoral votes in Congress. Here is his response:
“If I did that, I would be laughed out of Congress.”
I believe Congressman Paul’s response is typical of the position
of the entire Congress. However, Mr. Paul, we expected more from
you.
Consider the following
From Congressman Pauls’s link on the House of
Representives website
“Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited
constitutional government,”
“Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure
is expressly authorized by the Constitution”
“Dr. Paul consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes,
spending, and regulation, and used his House seat to actively
promote the return of government to its proper constitutional levels.”
“He continues to advocate a dramatic reduction in the size of the
federal government and a return to constitutional principles.”
Read more here:
http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml
“For Rep. Paul, each piece of legislation must be examined for its
constitutionality; that is, on the basis of whether or not the US
Constitution allows the Congress or the Federal Government to engage
in the actions described by the proposed legislation. If the
Constitution does not allow it, then it must be opposed.”
Read more here:
http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml
From Ron Paul’s website:
“Congressman Paul’s consistent voting record prompted one of his
congressional colleagues to say, “Ron Paul personifies the Founding
Fathers’ ideal of the citizen-statesman. He makes it clear that his
principles will never be compromised, and they never are.” Another
colleague observed, “There are few people in public life who, through
thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. Ron Paul
is one of those few.””
Read more here:
http://www.ronpaul.org/
Near the end of the following video, Congressman Paul is
quoted as saying:
“The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility
and out of self interest for himself, his family, and the
future of his country to resist government abuse of power.
He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to
the state.”
Congressman Ron Paul, I believe that you are a well meaning, decent
man. However, we deserve to know why you believed that Barack Obama
was eligible and why you did not at any time challenge Obama’s
eligibility. Is this the reason?
“If I did that, I would be laughed out of Congress.”
If so, remember:
“No man can serve two masters.” (Matthew 6:24, KJV)
Congressman Ron Paul, you have a second chance. A chance to stand
for what you speak of. Contact us for dialogue.
Footnote:
Ron Paul will attend the first-ever Campaign for Liberty Regional
Conference On March 27-29.
“Campaign for Liberty members will gather at St. Louis’ Millennium
Hotel to network, learn, and build their local organizations as our
grassroots Revolution to reclaim our Republic and restore our
Constitution continues.”
Campaign for Liberty
Statement of Principles
“Americans inherit from our ancestors a glorious tradition of freedom
and resistance to oppression. Our country has long been admired by
the rest of the world for her great example of liberty and prosperity—a
light shining in the darkness of tyranny.
But many Americans today are frustrated. The political choices they
are offered give them no real choice at all. For all their talk of
“change,” neither major political party as presently constituted
challenges the status quo in any serious way. Neither treats the
Constitution with anything but contempt. Neither offers any kind of
change in monetary policy. Neither wants to make the reductions in
government that our crushing debt burden demands. Neither talks about
bringing American troops home not just from Iraq but from around the
world. Our country is going bankrupt, and none of these sensible
proposals are even on the table.
This destructive bipartisan consensus has suffocated American political
life for many years. Anyone who tries to ask fundamental questions
instead of cosmetic ones is ridiculed or ignored.
That is why the Campaign for Liberty was established: to highlight the
neglected but common-sense principles we champion and reinsert them
into the American political conversation.
The U.S. Constitution is at the heart of what the Campaign for Liberty
stands for, since the very least we can demand of our government is
fidelity to its own governing document. Claims that our Constitution
was meant to be a “living document” that judges may interpret as they
please are fraudulent, incompatible with republican government, and
without foundation in the constitutional text or the thinking of the
Framers. Thomas Jefferson spoke of binding our rulers down from
mischief by the chains of the Constitution, and we are proud to follow
in his distinguished lineage.”
Read more here:
Citizen WElls 