Tag Archives: US Constitution

Oath Keepers, US Constitution, Orders We Will NOT Obey, Oath to Constitution, not politicians, We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people

From the Oath Keepers site:

“Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey


Recognizing that we each swore an oath to support and d
efend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and affirming that we are guardians of the Republic, of the principles in our Declaration of Independence, and of the rights of our people, we affirm and declare the following:

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. We will not make war on our own people, and we will not commit treason by obeying any such treasonous order.

Nor will we assist, or support any such attempt to disarm the people by other government entities, either state or federal.

In addition, we affirm that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military power of the people so that they will, in the last resort, have effective final recourse to arms and to the God of Hosts in the face of tyranny. Accordingly, we oppose any and all further infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In particular we oppose a renewal of the misnamed “assault-weapons” ban or the enactment of H.R. 45 (which would register and track gun owners like convicted pedophiles).

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects – such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the use of “writs of assistance,” which were essentially warrantless searches because there was no requirement of a showing of probable cause to a judge, and the first fiery embers of American resistance were born in opposition to those infamous writs. The Founders considered all warrantless searches to be unreasonable and egregious. It was to prevent a repeat of such violations of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects that the Fourth Amendment was written.

We expect that sweeping warrantless searches of homes and vehicles, under some pretext, will be the means used to attempt to disarm the people.

3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the denial of the right to jury trial, the use of admiralty courts (military tribunals) instead, and the application of the laws of war to the colonists. After that experience, and being well aware of the infamous Star Chamber in English history, the Founders ensured that the international laws of war would apply only to foreign enemies, not to the American people. Thus, the Article III Treason Clause establishes the only constitutional form of trial for an American, not serving in the military, who is accused of making war on his own nation. Such a trial for treason must be before a civilian jury, not a tribunal.

The international laws of war do not trump our Bill of Rights. We reject as illegitimate any such claimed power, as did the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (1865). Any attempt to apply the laws of war to American civilians, under any pretext, such as against domestic “militia” groups the government brands “domestic terrorists,” is an act of war and an act of treason.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the attempt “to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power” by disbanding the Massachusetts legislature and appointing General Gage as “military governor.” The attempt to disarm the people of Massachusetts during that martial law sparked our Revolution. Accordingly, the power to impose martial law – the absolute rule over the people by a military officer with his will alone being law – is nowhere enumerated in our Constitution.

Further, it is the militia of a state and of the several states that the Constitution contemplates being used in any context, during any emergency within a state, not the standing army.

The imposition of martial law by the national government over a state and its people, treating them as an occupied enemy nation, is an act of war. Such an attempted suspension of the Constitution and Bill of Rights voids the compact with the states and with the people.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

In response to the obscene growth of federal power and to the absurdly totalitarian claimed powers of the Executive, upwards of 20 states are considering, have considered, or have passed courageous resolutions affirming states rights and sovereignty.

Those resolutions follow in the honored and revered footsteps of Jefferson and Madison in their Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, and likewise seek to enforce the Constitution by affirming the very same principles of our Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights that we Oath Keepers recognize and affirm.

Chief among those principles is that ours is a dual sovereignty system, with the people of each state retaining all powers not granted to the national government they created, and thus the people of each state reserved to themselves the right to judge when the national government they created has voided the compact between the states by asserting powers never granted.

Upon the declaration by a state that such a breach has occurred, we will not obey orders to force that state to submit to the national government.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the blockade of Boston, and the occupying of that city by the British military, under martial law. Once hostilities began, the people of Boston were tricked into turning in their arms in exchange for safe passage, but were then forbidden to leave. That confinement of the residents of an entire city was an act of war.

Such tactics were repeated by the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto, and by the Imperial Japanese in Nanking, turning entire cities into death camps. Any such order to disarm and confine the people of an American city will be an act of war and thus an act of treason.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

Mass, forced internment into concentration camps was a hallmark of every fascist and communist dictatorship in the 20th Century. Such internment was unfortunately even used against American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II. Whenever a government interns its own people, it treats them like an occupied enemy population. Oppressive governments often use the internment of women and children to break the will of the men fighting for their liberty – as was done to the Boers, to the Jewish resisters in the Warsaw Ghetto, and to the Chechens, for example.

Such a vile order to forcibly intern Americans without charges or trial would be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason, regardless of the pretext used. We will not commit treason, nor will we facilitate or support it.“NOT on Our Watch!”

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.

During the American Revolution, the British government enlisted the aid of Hessian mercenaries in an attempt to subjugate the rebellious American people. Throughout history, repressive regimes have enlisted the aid of foreign troops and mercenaries who have no bonds with the people.

Accordingly, as the militia of the several states are the only military force contemplated by the Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, for domestic keeping of the peace, and as the use of even our own standing army for such purposes is without such constitutional support, the use of foreign troops and mercenaries against the people is wildly unconstitutional, egregious, and an act of war.

We will oppose such troops as enemies of the people and we will treat all who request, invite, and aid those foreign troops as the traitors they are.

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the seizure and forfeiture of American ships, goods, and supplies, along with the seizure of American timber for the Royal Navy, all in violation of the people’s natural right to their property and to the fruits of their labor. The final spark of the Revolution was the attempt by the government to seize powder and cannon stores at Concord.

Deprivation of food has long been a weapon of war and oppression, with millions intentionally starved to death by fascist and communist governments in the 20th Century alone.

Accordingly, we will not obey or facilitate orders to confiscate food and other essential supplies from the people, and we will consider all those who issue or carry out such orders to be the enemies of the people.

10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

There would have been no American Revolution without fiery speakers and writers such as James Otis, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, and Sam Adams “setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

Patrick Henry: “Give me Liberty, or Give me DEATH!”

Tyrants know that the pen of a man such as Thomas Paine can cause them more damage than entire armies, and thus they always seek to suppress the natural rights of speech, association, and assembly. Without freedom of speech, the people will have no recourse but to arms. Without freedom of speech and conscience, there is no freedom.

Therefore, we will not obey or support any orders to suppress or violate the right of the people to speak, associate, worship, assemble, communicate, or petition government for the redress of grievances.

— And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually affirm our oath and pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. Oath Keeper”

Read more:

http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/03/oath-keepers-declaration-of-orders-we.html

This atttitude and position will become crucial over the next several months.

Kerchner v Obama, attorney Mario Apuzzo, July 4, 2009, US Constitution, standing, immunity, Obama not eligible, Obama is a dictator, Youtube video

Barack Obama is not president of the US

Why?

Obama is not a natural born citizen

Obama is a usurper and a dictator

Obama took the office of the presidency of the United States by lies, deception and tactics resembling those of a dictator. Obama was not vetted by the DNC, any state elections office or the United States Congress. No judge that has been presented with the alarming evidence against Obama and no evidence to support his eligibility has done the job they swore to do. Uphold the US Constitution.

Mario Apuzzo filed a lawsuit on February 2, 2009, representing Charles Kerchner and others against Barack Obama, et al. Here are some excerpts from the lawsuit:

“Plaintiff, Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania. He served 33 years in the U.S. Naval Reserves as both a Commissioned Officer and an Enlisted person.”

“It is plaintiff’s duty to support and defend the United States Constitution pursuant to that oath. Additionally, while currently not statutorily subject to recall, by Executive Order of the President or an act of Congress in an extreme national emergency, the President and/or Congress could order people in plaintiff’s status of service to be recalled. Should plaintiff be recalled to active duty, he would need to know whether the President and Commander in Chief who may be giving him orders is in
fact the legitimate President and Commander in Chief and therefore obligate him to follow those orders or risk being prosecuted for disobeying such legitimate orders.”

“To date, no state or federal election official, nor any government authority, has investigated or held hearings and verified that Obama ever established and proved conclusively that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

The defendants have requested more time and received it. Their latest ploy alleges that the plaintiffs have no standing and that the defendants have immunity. On June 28, 2009, Charles Kurchner and Mario Apuzzo were interviewed on the Chalice radio show. This video includes some clips from the audio and some documents from the legal wrangling.

Listen to the entire Apuzzo and Kerchener audio beginning approx at 82:00 minutes:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/PatriotsHeartNetwork/2009/06/29/The-Chalice-Show.mp3?guid=1ca3a577-5720-4bd9-96f1-9b68f7b2027d

View the court documents at Mario Apuzzo’s website:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Listen to the Chalice show here:

http://www.patriotsheartnetwork.com/

Clarification of original filing timeline (provided by commenter ramjet767)

“To the Editor:

Just noticed another important point both in your article and in the accompanying YouTube video description paragraph and in the video itself on a slide.  The Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress et al lawsuit was filed very early in the morning of 20 Jan 2009, 9+ hours before he was sworn in, not in February.  It was later amended twice with the latest amendment, the 2nd Amended Complaint being filed on 9 Feb 2009.  See the copy of the 2nd Amended Case filing document headline which clarifies that the original suit was filed on 20 Jan 2009. You can see that in the headline at this link:”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/

Philip J Berg, Memorial Day press release, Honor brave men & women, Barack Obama disgraces their memory, Obama ineligible, US Constitution

From Philip J. Berg:

Press Release

 

 

For Immediate Release:  – 05/23/2009   
 

 

 

As We Honor our Brave Men & Women who have died and been wounded protecting our U.S. Constitution

It is appalling how Barack Obama disgraces their memories by being Constitutionally ineligible to be President

Total U.S. Military Deaths 1775 to 2008 = 1,593,124

Total U.S. Military Injuries 1775 to 1991 = 1,581,631

 
 

      (Lafayette Hill, PA – 05/23/2009) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of Constitutional “qualifications/eligibility” to serve as President of the United States and his three [3] cases that are still pending, Berg vs. Obama [2 cases – 1 under seal] and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, et al announced today that he and the obamacrimes.com supporters are Honoring those that died and were wounded defending our most sacred document, our U.S. Constitution.

      Berg said, “It is appalling how Barack Obama disgraces their memories by being Constitutionally ineligible to be President and not showing his Birth Certificate, Immigration Records, Adoption Papers and documents showing he legally changed his name from ‘Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama’ and other records to prove his eligibility.  We are asking our supporters to send an e-mail to Barack Obama asking him to honor the fallen by showing that either he is or is not constitutionally eligible to be President, and if not, to resign from the Presidency now.

       

      We are asking all of our supporters to:  
 

          [1] Stop what they are doing on Memorial Day, Monday, May 25, 2009 for a moment of silence at 3:00 p.m. in honor of the fallen who have sacrificed their lives in defense of our U.S. Constitution and the United States of America and those that were wounded; 
     

          [2] Send this Press Release to everyone in their e-mail address book and ask them to send on so that as many people we can reach will pause to honor our fallen on Memorial Day; 
     

          [3] Send an e-mail to Barack Obama by filling out his contact form located at http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ asking him to honor the fallen by showing that either he is or is not constitutionally eligible to be President. 
     
     

Deaths and Injured of U.S. Military: 1775 – 3/25/2008 
 

Per War:

Revolutionary War 1775-1783:

Total Enlisted (Serving):  290,000

Death Total  4,435

Non-Mortal Wound Total:  6,188 
 
 

War of 1812-1815:

Total Enlisted (Serving):  286,730

Death Total 2,260

Non-Mortal Wound Total 4,505

 
 

Mexican War 1846-1848:

Total Enlisted (Serving):  78,718

Death Total 13,283

Non-Mortal Wound Total 4,152

 
 
 

Civil War 1861-1865:

Union Forces Only

Total Enlisted (Serving): 2,213,363

Death Total 504,925

Non-Mortal Wound Total 281,881 
 

Spanish American War 1898-1902:

Total Enlisted (Serving): 306,760

Death Total 2,831

Non-Mortal Wound Total 1,662

 

World War I  1917-1918:

Total Enlisted (Serving): 4,734,991

Death Total 169,918

Non-Mortal Wound Total 204,002

 

World War II  1941-1946:

Total Enlisted (Serving):  16,112,566

Death Total 696,596

Non-Mortal Wound Total 671,846 
 

Korean War 1950-1953:

Total Enlisted (Serving):  5,720,000

Death Total 70,315

Non-Mortal Wound Total 103,284 
 

Vietnam Conflict 1964-1973:

Total Enlisted (Serving):  8,744,000

Death Total 105,633

Non-Mortal Wound Total in-patient hospital   153,303

Non-Mortal; Wound Total out-patient hospital 150,341

 

Persian Gulf War 1990-1991:

Total Enlisted (Serving):  2,225,000

Death Total 3,295

Non-Mortal Wound Total 467

 

Total U.S. Military Deaths:  1775 – 2008:  1,593,124

Total U.S. Military Injuries: 1775 – 1991:  1,581,631

 Read more and view the cemetaries:

http://www.obamacrimes.info/

Don’t tread on me flag, Notice, Obama, Obama thugs, Obama Nazi Brownshirts, US Constitution, Freedom

Notice

To: Obama, Obama thugs, Obama Nazi Brownshirts and other unAmerican elements.

We support and defend the US Constitution.

The Don’t Tread on me Flag has been a favorite of mine since childhood.

Every day

is

Don’t Tread on me

Day

at the

Citizen Wells Blog

DontTreadOnMeLg

Georgia Common Law Grand Jury, April 15, 2009, Interview, Carl Swensson, Sam Sewell, MommaE blog radio, Obama usurper, US Constitution

April 15, 2009

From MommaE blog radio:

Subject: SPECIAL GUEST ANNOUNCEMENT FOR WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON MOMMAE RADIO REBELS SHOW!!!!!
 
 
CARL SWENSSON FROM THE GEORGIA COMMON LAW GRAND JURY AND SAM SEWELL ON MOMMAE RADIO REBELS!
 
I just want to tell you that this afternoon’s show is on!!    Our guest’s this afternoon are Carl Swensson and Sam Sewell and they will be discussing the Common Law Grand Jury’s with us and what we can do to help.  It is important that we do all we can and leave no stone unturned to get rid of the Usurper Soetoro/Obama that is occupying our Whitehouse and thumbing his nose at OUR Constitution!
 
All kinds of good things to talk about and it will be 60 minutes of hot topics updates and fun.   It should be a HOT rocking show as well as interesting.
 
Please post this on your Website, Blogs or any Blogs you are associated with or have access to and send to everyone in your address book.
 
Linkschedulecall in number and times for the Show is below!
 
http://blogtalkradio.com/mommaeradiorebels 
 
Call In # 347-237-4870
 
12:00  NOON Pacific Time
 
1:00 PM Mountain Time
 
2:00 PM Central Time
 
3:00 PM Eastern Time
 
I hope to see you all there.  There are 3 ways to listen to the show they are as follows:
 
1.  When you get to the Show page if the show doesn’t immediately start playing for you, you can click on the radio on the right, minimize the page and listen while doing something else.
 
2.  You can enter the chat as a Guest and read what is being said while listening.
 
3.  You can register/log-in and chat while listening.
 
The choice is yours.
 
I hope to see you all there. 
 
MommaE and Matt

Sullivan v. NC Secretary of State and Board of Elections, Update March 20, 2009, Lt Col Donald Sullivan, Obama not eligible, NC lawsuit, Judge W. Osmond Smith, III, Wake County Superior Court, Raleigh, NC, US Constitution, First Lieutenant Scott Easterling, US Military

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”

Natural Born Citizen, Leo Donofrio, Vattel, Obama not natural born citizen, Ron Paul, Citizen Wells, US Constitution, Founding fathers, Marbury vs Madison, Citizens, Natives, Natural born citizen video

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:

Natural born citizen explained

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.

Let’s take a look at Vattel’s famous text:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

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.

Leo C. Donofrio

03.18.2009″

 

Read more:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/two-minute-warning-vattel-decoded/

 

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.

Why Initiative, Congress, Congressmen, Birthers, Obama eligibility, US Constitution, US Representatives and Senators, Contact elected officials, Restore the Constitutional Republic, Dean Haskins, Citizen Wells, Obama not natural born citizen

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.
 
**********************************
Dear [Elected Official],
 
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:
 
Citizen Wells: citizenwells@gmail.com
Dean Haskins: dhaskins@restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com
 
Or call: 434.525.1479
 
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”

http://www.restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/

US Congress, US Military, US Constitution, Obama ineligible, Obama not qualified, Obama not Natural Born Citizen, Orly Taitz lawsuit, Lt Col Donald Sullivan lawsuit, Military officers, Congresmen, Oath of 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’s response

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.”

Lt Col Donald Sullivan lawsuit

“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.”

 Major General Carroll D. Childers Joins Orly Taitz lawsuit

 
“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.

 Brigadier General Charles E. Jones Joins Orly Taitz lawsuit

“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.”

 Colonel Harry Riley Joins Orly Taitz lawsuit

“OCCUPATION: Retired (Disabled)….Combat Veteran

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”

Major James R. Cannon Joins Orly Taitz lawsuit

“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.”

First Lt Scott R. Easterling Joins Orly Taitz lawsuit

Orly Taitz lawsuit and Military feedback

Representative Ron Paul, Congressman Paul, Texas, Natural Born Citizen, Obama ineligible, US Constitution, Electoral College votes, Constitutional government, Voting record, Patriotism, Abuse of power, Ron Paul personifies the Founding Fathers??

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:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/