As an example of the nonsense that is produced by our nation’s editors regarding the Obama eligibility issue, one can read the story entitled, Taking Issue With the Birthers, written by Daily Titan Opinion Editor, Skylaw Smith, and posted on May 9, 2010, at the Daily Titan at: http://www.dailytitan.com/2010/05/09/taking-issue-with-the-birthers/comment-page-1/#comment-15663. Mr. Smith’s opinion article is factually inaccurate and highly biased. Mr. Smith attempts to ridicule the efforts of those who question where Obama was born, people that he calls “extremists and conspiracy theorists,” by equating their Obama birthplace inquiry to one involved in a “college level thesis of human genetics.” But our place-of-birth inquiry is not so difficult to understand and surely does not require more than a rudimentary level of education (maybe not even any education at all but just some mother nature given common sense). Rather, regarding the place of birth issue, we just want to see a simple contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961 (which includes the name of the birth hospital and delivery doctor), not the 2008 computer scan of an alleged 2007 Certification of Live Birth (COLB) which Mr. Smith posted as part of his article to show the world that Obama has release his “birth certificate.” If Mr. Smith would even read the bottom of the COLB, it says: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” This caveat warns the public that this document can only be relied upon if there is no other contradictory evidence showing otherwise than what is stated in the document. If there were to exist such contradictory evidence, a court of competent jurisdiction would have to settle the factual dispute.
Mr. Smith says that Hawaii stated the computer scan of the COLB was legitimate. No such thing ever happened. I challenge Mr. Smith to produce evidence supporting such a reckless statement.
Mr. Smith alleges a "birther" forged a Kenyan birth certificate in August 2009. Again, this is wild and reckless speculation. What evidence does Mr. Smith have that it was a "birther" that forged any birth certificate? The forging could well have been done by an Obama operative so that people like Mr. Smith can go around the nation polluting what we know about Obama by way of his reckless and biased article.
Finally, Mr. Smith says that Obama, by releasing his "official birth certificate" "would be risking identity fraud and potentially making it possible for document request laws to be altered." This is really a nonsensical statement. In the beginning of his article, Mr. Smith tells us that Obama released his "birth certificate" and that should end the debate. But now he objects that if Obama were to release his "official birth certificate," all these drastic consequences would occur. First, we can see that Mr. Smith, although unconsciously, concedes that Obama has not yet released any “official birth certificate.” Even though Mr. Smith is not aware of having made such a concession, he is aware that there exists an “official birth certificate” and that Obama has not released it to the public. But he hides that fact when he first told us that Obama released his “birth certificate” and even posted the image of the COLB as proof thereof, not telling us that the document is not an “official birth certificate.” Second, I fail to see why there should be such dire consequences with the release of Obama’s "official birth certificate" but no such consequences with the release of his "birth certificate." Does the writer expect clones of Obama to appear on the planet after he releases his "official birth certificate"? Does he expect people to hold themselves out as "Barack Hussein Obama II" and thereby steal some goods or services from some unsuspecting vendor? Third, how else does the writer expect a candidate for the office of President to prove where he or she was born to meet the first requirement of the "natural born Citizen” test, place of birth?" For further information on the place of birth issue, please visit the following essay: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html.
Mr. Smith, like so many television, radio, and print media commentators, editors, and journalist, is also ignorant of the fact that place of birth is only one part of the “natural born Citizen” test for Presidential eligibility. The definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” as relied upon by the Founders and Framers is a child born in the country (or its equivalent) to citizen parents (mother and father). The Founders used natural law and the law of nations not only to justify the revolution and to create a Constitutional Republic but also to define the new national citizenship. The Founders and Framers saw the law of nations as being both sacred (coming from God) and obligatory and therefore looked to it for guidance. They relied upon Emer de Vattel, who provided the Framers with the definition for what they called a “natural born Citizen” and Vattel called “Les naturels, ou indigenes” (translated in 1759 from the French to English to mean “natives or indigenes” and in 1797 to mean “natives, or natural-born citizens”), being a child “born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 first edition in French) (1759 first edition in English). Anyone satisfying this natural law and law of nations definition was a “natural born Citizen.”
Vattel’s French 1758 edition of The Law of Nations was first translated into English in 1759. It was also translated into English in 1760 which edition provided:
“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 indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist, and perpetuate itself, but by the children of the citizens; those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this; in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of their becoming members. The country of the fathers is then that of the children; and these become true citizens, merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether on their arriving at the years of reason, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they are born. 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 stranger, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” Id. Sec. 212 Of the citizens and natives.
The Framers relied on this well-known law of nature and law of nations definition of “natives, or indigenes” or what Vattel called in French, “Les naturels, ou Indigenes.” They borrowed this definition to define their Article II “natural born Citizen.” With a “natural born Citizen” being so defined in natural law and the law of nations, they did not see any need to define it in the Constitution as they did not define all the other terms they included in the Constitution. This was the meaning that the Framers gave to a “natural born Citizen.” There was no other form or definition of a “natural born Citizen” at the time of the Founding. At that time, the English common law did define a “natural born subject” as one born in the King’s dominion and allegiance without any reference to the citizenship of the parents. That law also said that “[a]n alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural-born subject.” Co. Litt. 129. But the English common law would have supported the definition of the original citizens whom the Framers called “Citizens of the United States.” But the Framers did not adopt the English common law and its definition of a “natural born subject” to define the future “natural born Citizen” of the new nation or to guide them in constituting the new Constitutional Republic. Rather, they rejected the use of the English “natural born subject” definition which was a relic of feudal and monarchical England, and instead relied upon the natural law and law of nations for that definition which was relevant to a free society with a self-representative government.
There is direct evidence from the Founding period that the Founders and Framers used natural law and the law of nations to define a “natural born Citizen” and that they did not simply take the English common law “natural born subject” and substitute in its place a “natural born Citizen.” David Ramsay, a highly respected doctor and historian from the Founding period, wrote an essay on citizenship during the Founding entitled, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789). David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained that there is an “immense” difference between a British “subject” and a United States “citizen,” with the former being “under the power of another” and the latter being “a unit of mass of free people, who, collectively, posses sovereignty.” He informed that “Republics, both ancient and modern, have been jealous of the rights of citizenship.” He then explained that the “original citizens” of the United States were those who were parties to the Declaration of Independence and thereby adhered to the revolutionary cause. But the importance of his work does not stop there, for he also described the future citizens to come after the original citizens, whom he defined as the children born to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. Here, Ramsay referred to “natural right,” which ties into the Framers’ use of the clause “natural born Citizen.” By focusing on citizenship that occurs by “natural right,” Ramsay distinguished citizenship that occurs naturally versus citizenship that occurs by operation of law. It is evident from his writing that in defining the original citizens and the future citizens who were to follow them, Ramsay did not look to English common law but rather to natural law, the law of nations, and Vattel, Sec. 212, which all provided the same definition that he provided. As we can see, Ramsay required the future citizens to be children of citizens. While he did not call these future citizens “natural-born citizens,” Ramsay’s standard was the same standard that Vattel provided when he defined the “natives, or indigenes,” which in 1797 came to be translated into “natives, or natural-born citizens.”
Further evidence that the Framers relied upon Vattel to define a “natural born Citizen” may be found by examining the 1797 London edition of, The Law of Nations. The anonymous French to English translator translated Vattel in the 1797 London edition as follows:
“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. 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. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. 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. 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.” Id. Sec. 212 Citizens and natives.
This is the first known edition of The Law of Nations that used the phrase “natural-born citizens” in place of “indigenes.” Here we can see that an anonymous translator now used for the first time “natural-born citizens.” It is reasonable to conclude that the translator, living at the time that the Framers lived, knew that the Founders and Framers took their definition of their Article II “natural born Citizen” from Vattel’s editions that were in print before and at the time they drafted the Constitution in 1787 and that it was only right that Vattel’s words translated into English should reflect the terms that the Framers used in Article II. Hence, the translator inserted the phrase “natural-born citizens” in place of “indigenes” in the 1797 English edition. Given this new English translation of Vattel, we can see that a translator from only 10 years after the Constitution was adopted made a direct connection between the Framers’ Article II “natural born Citizen” clause and Vattel’s, The Law of Nations. Additionally, the fact that a translator of French into English took the phrase “natural-born citizen” and inserted it into Vattel’s, The Law of Nations, a treatise on natural law and the law of nations, is solid evidence that the phrase “natural-born citizen” was not equivalent to the English common law phrase “natural born subject,” the definition of which pursuant to Blackstone included only the element of a child being born in the dominion and allegiance of the King with the citizenship of the parents having no relevance.
The natural law and law of nations definition of a “natural born Citizen” is still the law of the land today, for it was never amended by any constitutional amendment, including the Fourteenth Amendment, or changed by any Act of Congress or any decision of the United States Supreme Court, including United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In fact, the United States Supreme Court has to this day used the term “natural born Citizen” only to describe a person born in the country to citizen parents. We have provided in our court filings in the Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al case and on this blog the numerous United States Supreme Court case citations and other authorities showing that the Founders and Framers relied upon natural law and law of nations to define a “natural born Citizen” and not the English common law and its definition of a “natural born subject.” Given the existing definition of a “natural born Citizen,” it does not matter where Obama was born, even in the White House itself. His father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen when Obama was born in 1961 (which fact Obama has conceded) and he is therefore not an Article II "natural born Citizen." It is therefore not necessary for us to prove or disprove where Obama was born. The Court must first rule on the constitutional definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen." If the Court agrees with us as it should and the United States Supreme Court affirms, the case is over and Obama is history.
Are you willing to continue the fight for freedom for our Posterity?
As people who believe in the principles and philosophies of the United States Constitution, we number in the majority. As folks that dare to consider standing against the tyranny being perpetrated by the Obama administration, we are in the majority across this great country. But the clock is ticking. Will we continue to entertain the idea that sitting on the couch complaining as we watch the news on television is an effective strategy, or are we ready to take action, and do more than rally at Tea Party events, or occasionally write an email to our representatives? Are we ready to do more than complain? Are we willing to, as the signers of the Declaration of Independence stated in the last sentence of the document, put on the line our “Lives, Fortunes, and sacred Honor?”
Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
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. 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. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. 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. 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. - E. Vattel
JUST HOW DEVIOUS AND CORRUPT IS OBAMA AND HIS BAND OF MISCREANTS, PERVERTS AND LIARS?
Keeping Track of Obama Lies, Broken Promises
By Peter Andrew – ConservativeAmerican.org – Leading the way Right.
“President Obama is himself a broken promise. The love affair Americans had with the idea of the beautiful racial harmony we would get if we elected a half-black man to the White House has been ruined by the reality that President Obama means nothing that he says and intends to keep none of his promises.” – David Kraemer, ConservativeAmerican.org
The list below contains all of the Obama Administration mistakes, blunders, broken promises, flip flops, gaffes, lies, etc. That’s too long of a name, so we called it “the Official Obama Administration Scandals List.” This list covers Barack Obama and his pals from day one through September 4th, 2011. At that point, the list was discontinued. However, you can see information on more recent scandals on our NEW Obama Scandals List by clicking here! We present this list to you as an accurate and complete historic detail of the Legacy of Lies President Obama leaves behind for the time period starting with his youth and going until September 4th, 2011. Not responsible for any broken or out-of-date links. They worked when we posted them. Some may redirect you to the wayback machine.
You can visit all the pages of the Official Obama Administration Scandals List!
Pending an acceptable outcome of the vitally-important 2014 election—which affords the opportunity to elect a Congress that is willing to initiate impeachment proceedings against Barack Hussein Obama, and thereby stop, or even remove from office, this fraudulent usurper and his inner circle of collaborators—We the People of the United States of America affirm our allegiance to the timeless principles upon which our nation was founded, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, and upon the foundation of those principles, declare the causes which impel us to seek this despotic president's impeachment and removal.
We hereby allege that the history of the current President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over the American people. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world—
ARTICLE 1—Contempt for the Constitution
Mr. Obama has engaged, throughout his despotic tenure as president, in rule by edict and executive decree, bypassing Congress, and thus the will of the people, to enforce policies entirely of his own creation. Ignoring the federal government's foundation of a separation of powers, he has routinely violated duly enacted statutes of the Legislature, as well as defied the Courts, in pursuit of ultimate supremacy over the United States of America. In so doing, he has exhibited an unmistakable pattern of contempt for the U.S. Constitution, which prior to his ruinous tenure had served two centuries as the Law of the Land.
We therefore demand that this criminal, treasonous individual be removed from office without delay and held accountable for his destructive behavior, and that all his unlawful acts as president be considered of no effect or validity. We believe that the only effective way to achieve this urgent goal is to initiate impeachment.
ARTICLE 2—False pretenses
Mr. Obama has attained the office of president in a verifiably fraudulent and criminal manner, and upon a false identity and false pretenses.
We therefore demand immediate release of all currently sealed documentation of who he is; what his true history entails; what his earlier school, travel, and other records reveal about him; what his original (not photocopied) birth certificate makes clear; and all other relevant information in the public record now suppressed or intentionally falsified regarding him. We the People of the United States have a right to know such things about a man who currently serves as Commander-in-Chief of our nation's armed forces and oversees the entire Executive Branch of the U.S. government. We believe that the only effective way to force release of these records is impeachment.
ARTICLE 3—Criminal fraud
Upon taking office, Mr. Obama criminally defrauded Congress and the American people with false promises, uttered repeatedly in the public record about the nature, scope, and effect of his signature legislative achievement, "Obamacare," in a deceptive effort to gain passage of this catastrophic measure, which authorizes a sweeping federal takeover of America's healthcare industry.
We therefore demand that this healthcare travesty be immediately revoked, defunded, and declared null and void, and that this president be held accountable for intentionally misleading and defrauding the citizenry by means of this insidious scheme—a scheme that has already diminished the rightful choice of most Americans regarding their healthcare, has caused millions to lose their jobs due to its workplace requirements, and will cost our nation its material viability and vitality if allowed to go forward. We believe that the only effective way to ensure the dismantling of Obamacare is impeachment.
ARTICLE 4—Deliberate bankrupting of the U.S.
In a deliberate scheme to force the financial collapse of the United States, Mr. Obama and his collaborators have pushed the nation's "public debt"—that is, the difference between public spending and public receipts—to an unsustainable 17 TRILLION dollars, an amount exceeding our nation's Gross Domestic Product (or total value of goods and services) and more than doubling the debt's previous rate of growth. The effect is to impose an indebtedness of over $50,000 upon every man, woman, and child in the U.S., and more than $150,000 per taxpayer, numbers that indicate the U.S. is headed toward insolvency and our posterity will be forced to bear the dire consequences. The effect is even more dire when "unfunded liabilities" are factored in.
We therefore demand that the individual behind this destructive scheme assume all liability, upon his own person, for the amount the national debt has increased during his tenure, in company with all others who have collaborated with him in the Executive and Legislative Branches of the federal government in enacting this policy, listing them by name, and that the American people at large be absolved—by binding decree—of any and all liability for such wanton abuse of the public purse. We believe that the only effective way to attain such simple, reasonable justice is impeachment.
ARTICLE 5—Treasonous national security policy
By insidious design and outright treachery, Mr. Obama has dangerously weakened America's national security—through his emasculation of our military; his unilateral reduction of our missile defense system, thereby weakening American military superiority and inviting nuclear conflagration at home and abroad; his deceitful promotion and arming of radical Islamic interests in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and elsewhere; his catering, in domestic and foreign policy, to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is on record seeking the destruction of the United States; his fraudulent relations with Iran that will likely ensure this radically hostile nation succeeds in developing nuclear weapons; his continuing disregard for the vital interests of longtime American ally Israel; his unreasonable handicapping of our military's rules of engagement, dangerously favoring America's enemies; his alarming pattern of dismissing high-ranking military officers for groundless or superficial reasons; and similar anti-American policies and actions too numerous to mention.
We therefore demand that the Obama administration be forced immediately to cease and desist from its treasonous, unconstitutional, conspiratorial plot to take down America, and our allies with it, and that a sane, pro-American policy be adopted in its place for the purpose of protecting our nation from all threats to its continuance. We believe that the only effective way to enforce this urgent demand is impeachment.
ARTICLE 6—Treasonous cover-up of Benghazi
Mr. Obama has deceitfully sought to cover up his administration's involvement in a covert operation in Benghazi, Libya, that ran afoul September 11, 2012. The president's fabricated narrative of the causes and nature of the episode, which resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, has been shown to be a cynical attempt to divert attention from what actually happened, including reports of treasonable administration dealings with terrorist insurgents in Syria. The administration's interference with investigations by Congress into the matter, and its the muzzling of witnesses and participants, hints that only the tip of the iceberg has yet been revealed regarding Mr. Obama's contemptuous behavior and dereliction of duty in this bloodstained scandal.
We therefore demand that all witnesses who have firsthand knowledge of the truth regarding the Benghazi fiasco be permitted to come forth without threat of retaliation and give their account of any and all relevant facts—including mounting evidence of Obama administration sympathy for Islamic terrorist organizations. We believe that the only effective way to ensure such unsuppressed testimony is impeachment.
ARTICLE 7—Plot to disarm the citizenry
Mr. Obama has repeatedly attempted to take advantage of isolated acts of violence in our nation involving firearms in the hands of deranged individuals to deprive law-abiding Americans of their constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, in a direct assault on the Second Amendment by someone who himself poses a growing threat to the security and well-being of our nation; and he has repeatedly made known his intention to succeed with his unconstitutional goal of disarming the people despite any setbacks he may encounter in Congress. So intent is he on imposing gun control that he even engaged in a deadly gunrunning hoax known as "Fast and Furious" to incite sympathy for tightening U.S. gun laws, then invoked executive privilege to cover up his administration's criminal involvement. He and his administration have also withheld or destroyed vital physical evidence that would corroborate events at Newtown, CT, in which 20 schoolchildren and six adults were reportedly killed by a disturbed gunman with an assault rifle—an incident the president has shamelessly exploited in his push for oppressive new gun legislation.
We therefore demand that the president immediately abandon such pursuit of tyranny and seek refuge in a nation more to his liking, one that already bans, or severely restricts, gun ownership by law-abiding citizens in consequence of despotic notions of governance. We believe that the only way to hasten this outcome is impeachment.
ARTICLE 8—Undermining U.S. border security
Similarly, Mr. Obama has repeatedly sought to undermine U.S. border security, and by extension America's very independence, by pushing misnamed "immigration reform" that would in reality open wide our borders, overburden the public coffers, and grant amnesty to the many millions of unlawful occupiers who have entered the country by stealth. Unable to achieve this agenda lawfully, through Congress, he has undertaken to achieve it dictatorially, in open violation of the Constitution and statutory immigration law. Ostensibly, the president intends, by his abandonment of longstanding U.S. immigration policy, to create a permanent under-culture of dependent immigrants who have little allegiance to America's founding ideals, upon whom to stand to remain in power indefinitely—either by himself, or in the person of likeminded schemers within his party.
We therefore demand that our nation's borders be made effectively secure, that existing immigration laws be reasonably and fairly enforced, that all persons seeking citizenship play fundamentally by the same rules, no matter the petitioners' origins, and that Mr. Obama's immigration policy and initiatives be rejected by Congress as the threat they are to our nation's security and strength, with his deceptive drive for "immigration reform" relegated permanently to the backwaters of history. We believe that the only way to ensure this outcome is impeachment.
ARTICLE 9—Engaging in mass surveillance
Mr. Obama has engaged in notorious overreach regarding domestic surveillance. A certain degree of targeted domestic surveillance may be considered justified, even essential, to protect American citizens from harm if conducted with appropriate oversight and in harmony with reasonable law—but indiscriminate spying on all citizens is indefensible and constitutes the very essence of a police state.
We therefore demand that the routine eavesdropping now being conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA) be curtailed to conform with appropriate safeguards, to permit only those functions that can be constitutionally defended. We believe that the only way to leverage this outcome is impeachment.
ARTICLE 10—Abusing IRS authority
Likewise, Mr. Obama and his IRS subordinates have notoriously abused the public trust by singling out, and arbitrarily penalizing, patriotic organizations awaiting approval of tax-exempt status so they might fundraise legally. By delaying approvals and sharing confidential information with potential adversaries, for purely political reasons, the Obama administration has violated federal statutes, and unlawfully handicapped these groups in their efforts to counter Mr. Obama's tyranny.
We therefore demand substantial monetary damages for these aggrieved organizations, and expedited approval of all "Tea Party," "conservative," and "libertarian" groups in the future. More to the point, because of its unavoidably political nature, we seek abolition of the IRS itself, and its replacement by a reasonable consumption or flat tax. We believe that the only way to bring about such an outcome is impeachment.
ARTICLE 11—Subverting America's morality
Most far-reaching and adverse of all his insidious deeds, in the acknowledged biblical perspective of our Creator, is that Mr. Obama has undertaken to subvert America's moral strength and means of perpetuation by promoting measures that weaken the natural, God-ordained family, and escalate the unthinkable aborting of America's posterity. As part of this corrupt effort, he has sanctioned the unconstitutional silencing of conscientious citizens and clergy who oppose homosexuality and its growing inclusion in lawful marriage; and he has approved stipulations in his healthcare plan that would force Americans opposed to abortion, or to anything related involving abortifacients or contraceptives, to directly fund such morally-offensive practices. These immoral, destructive policies—integral to the president's sweeping plan to transform America—militate not only against the Constitution, but the foundations of Judeo-Christianity upon which America is historically premised, to which the president appears to have an aversion.
We therefore demand that biblical morality be once again allowed the place of respect it has long enjoyed at the center of our nation's culture—on its own merits, without federal interference of any kind that would violate the First Amendment. We also call for immediately ending the moral and material travesty known as "Obamacare," including any requirement that American citizens or businesses personally underwrite abortion. We believe that the best way to ensure this fortuitous outcome, and reverse these federally-enforced intrusions, is the president's impeachment.
In every stage of these and other oppressions that could be cited, we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms—but our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury and blatant lies. A fraudulent usurper whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people, much less their president.
We the People, therefore, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do solemnly publish and declare, that because Barack Hussein Obama has verifiably corrupted, compromised, and endangered the essential institutions of the American Republic, as well as threatened the nation's very survival, we hereby appeal to the next Congress of the United States—which will convene in January 2015—to begin impeachment proceedings against Mr. Obama, and his fellow lawbreakers and facilitators within the Executive Branch, for the purpose of removing them from office with all diligence.
For the support of this action, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, We the People mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor, to save our beloved nation and preserve the rights and freedoms bequeathed us by God and protected by our revered Constitution.
These are just a few of the problems with this document. There are many other problems with this document that you can read at various web sites such as:
The MCSO Cold Case Posse (CCP) is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. We are awarded no tax dollars and have no paid staff. We are supported by membership dues as well as donations from corporations and individuals in the county we serve.
If you would like to make a contribution to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Cold Case Posse, please click on the "Donate" button directly below. Your donation is greatly appreciated. Remember, in most cases, your donation to CCP is deductible. Please consult with your tax professional regarding any tax related questions.
By clicking on the below "DONATE" Link, you will be leaving the MCSO Cold Case Posse website. Within a few seconds, your browser will be redirected to a secured Paypal site at which point you can safely and securely make your donation.
MCSO Cold-Case Posse P.O. Box 74374 Phoenix, Arizona 85087
Translate
THE TERRY LAKIN STORY
Barack Obama is NOT a “natural born Citizen of the United States” and is thus constitutionally ineligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of our military. Obama was born to a FOREIGN NATIONAL FATHER who was NEVER a U.S. Citizen nor was Obama’s father even an immigrant to the USA or even a permanent resident in the USA. For no other U.S. President in the history of the nation since the founding generation (who were exempt from the natural born Citizen clause in the U.S. Constitution via a grandfather clause in Article II Section 1) was that the case, i.e., having a foreign national father who was never a U.S. Citizen or even an immigrant to this country. Obama being seated as the putative president is an outrageous violation of Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the presidential eligibility clause. Obama was not born with sole allegiance to the USA. Sole allegiance and unity of Citizenship at birth was the goal and purpose for putting the natural born Citizen clause into Article II Section 1 of the Constitution as to who could serve as president once the founding generation has passed away. Obama (II) was born a British Subject via his foreign national father Obama (Sr.) who was a British Subject. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen of the United States” to constitutional standards since he was born with dual allegiance and citizenship. The founders and framers did not want anyone with foreign allegiance to ever get command of our military, i.e., be the president. Obama is constitutionally not eligible to be president and commander in chief of our military.
The Obama constitutional eligibility issue is not a fringe issue! South Carolina Poll Results – A poll done by Public Policy Polling (PPP) shows that almost 2/3 of GOP voters want Obama’s constitutional eligibility and true legal identity investigated. This is not a fringe issue: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=340805
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR DR. HERB TITUS(Not Mark Levin)
DESCRIBES "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN"December 12, 2011 (TPATH) The honorable John Jay, the first leader of the United States Supreme Court, initiated the insertion of "Natural Born Citizen" into the Constitution for the purpose of setting a higher standard for the office of the President.
All of the verbal gymnastics being put forth by the left, as to the meaning of the term, will eventually be proven to be just what it is.
Unlawful defense of an individual and political party at the expense and detriment of this country.
When you watch this video you will begin to wonder how this country continues to allow such simple and precise language to be twisted, manipulated and convoluted.
WATCH THE VIDEO PART ONEWATCH THE VIDEO PART TWO
We have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on.
On MARCH 23, 1775, Patrick Henry spoke to the Second Virginia Convention, which was meeting in Richmond's St. John's Church due to British hostilities:
"I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery...
We have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated...We have prostrated ourselves before the throne...
Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence."
Patrick Henry continued:
"There is a just God who presides over the destines of nations...who will raise up friends to fight our battle for us.
The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave...
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death."
Miki Booth’s book, Memoirs of a Community Organizer in Hawaii, will be released in late November, 2011. The book chronicles events and experiences over a lifetime culminating in the biggest adventure of all for the writer—an “Adventure in American Politics.” When Miki found others that shared her
Usurper In The White House-Constitutional Crisis
AMERICA IN DISTRESS
Obama Sr a Kenyan was never a US Citizen. He could not pass on US Natural Born Citizenship status to Barack Obama Jr. No matter what is on Obama's birth certificate, no matter where he was born, he can NOT satisfy Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution.....No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President, neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
"Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." -- Abraham Lincoln
"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it." -- John Adams
The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." -- Thomas Jefferson
"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams
THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
It has been reported how past Hawaiian State practices with its birth certificate procedures have presented opportunities for birth certificate fraud. An example of such fraud is that of Chinese native, Sun Yat Sen, one of the founders of the Republic of China, who was born in China but was able to obtain a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth in 1904 based on his fraudulent affidavit and evidence submitted by witnesses to the Hawaiian authorities stating that he was born in Hawaii on November 24, 1870. http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii. See also the September 2000 report of the Office of Inspector General, entitled “Birth Certificate Fraud,” which provides an update on the nature and extent of birth certificate fraud, found at http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf. Because of critical importance of knowing for sure who the President is, the potential for birth certificate fraud, and since Obama’s original long-form birth certificate housed in the offices of the Hawaii Department of Health can be some type of certificate (even a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth) that is based on some family member’s affidavit of personal knowledge but which includes no documentary evidence of an actual birth in Hawaii, it becomes crucial to confirm whether there exists any corroborating evidence of Obama actually being born in Hawaii. Consequently, various members of the public have tried to obtain information that would adequately confirm Obama’s and the State of Hawaii’s statements that he was born in Hawaii. These concerned citizens have made requests to the State of Hawaii and to various hospitals there for such information. The State of Hawaii, Kapi’olani Medical Center, and Queens Medical Center (originally claimed by Obama’s sister to by his birth place) have publicly stated that they cannot release the needed details of Obama’s birth, including whether his deceased mother was even a maternity patient in any of those hospitals, because of Obama’s state and federal privacy rights. Not being successful, some of these concerned citizens, feeling duty bound to the Constitution and our country, have filed law suits and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) actions against Obama and others to obtain this information.
Given that Obama and/or his agents have already publicly released some information regarding his place of birth, one commentator, William, has asked me on my blog ( http://puzo1.blogspot.com/. ) whether Obama has waived his privacy rights to such birth information. At least two arguments can be advance that Obama has waived any privacy right that he might have in his birth information located in the State of Hawaii and in its hospitals. One is that he has waived his privacy rights to his alleged long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate by posting his COLB on the internet for the world to see. A problem with this argument is that the COLB does not disclose all his private information (name of hospital, doctors, etc.) and he can argue that his waiver is only as to the information contained on the COLB and no more. As a response, it can be argued that Obama waived his privacy right as to the identity of the hospital in which he was born given that he allegedly wrote a letter dated January 24, 2009 to Kapi’olani Medical Center in which he acknowledge being born there and which letter the hospital posted on its web page (suspiciously posting not a scan of an actual paper letter but only a computer-generated image created with HTML code) for the world to see. For more details, see the WND story on the letter at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=104146. I have grave doubts whether this letter is authentic given that both Obama and U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie D-Hawaii, who allegedly gave the letter to the hospital and publicly read the letter during the hospital’s centennial celebration, refuse to confirm whether this letter is real.
The second argument is more powerful and convincing. Under Article II, a would-be President must be a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible for the Presidency. Hence, any candidate knows that such “natural born Citizen” status is required to hold the public Office of President. No one winning an election and wanting to fill that public office has a reasonable expectation of privacy as to where he/she was born given that job’s eligibility requirement that one must be a “natural born Citizen.” See my article on this blog entitled, Obama’s Personal Right To Privacy Cannot Trump The Right Of The People To Know Who Their President Is, at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2008/12/obamas-personal-right-to-privacy-cannot.html. Of course, that person’s obligation to prove his/her “natural born Citizen” status includes providing credible, competent, and sufficient documentary and other evidence of, among other things, place of birth. Clearly and without doubt, the public interest in knowing that the President-elect is eligible for the office he/she seeks to fill by far out weighs any privacy interest that the person may have in his/her birth documents. It is also clear that knowing who the person is who will occupy the Office of President and Commander in Chief concerns national security and the safety of the United States and the whole world. It is not reasonable to believe that such a person’s privacy interest would out weigh the People’s need to safeguard national security and for self-preservation. Simply put, it would be beyond absurdity to honestly contend that such a person has a right to shield from the same People that he/she is constitutionally duty bound to serve and protect information that he/she must provide to them to show that he/she is qualified for that singular and all-powerful public position which would vest him/her with great power to affect every aspect of the People’s lives.
But underneath the privacy rights question lurks a much more serious concern. We can see the absurdity of Obama sitting on privacy rights to conceal his long-form birth certificate from the public. It is downright despicable for our media and Congress and others to apologize for Obama and let him get away with it. They know full well that he has no such privacy rights. The birth information and documents that Obama refuses to reveal to the public surely are revealing of whether his is eligible to hold the Office of President. Why has the media not filed any legal actions against Obama, the State of Hawaii, and other parties, seeking to legally lift any privacy barriers to Obama’s birth information as it has so many times in the past filed actions against others running for public office who sought to prevent the public from learning details of some aspect of their private lives? What is a travesty of justice is that Obama was probably able to win his U.S. Senate seat because the media (Chicago Tribune) filed a legal action against rival Republican Jack Ryan in which it was successful in getting the “kinky sex” details of his divorce released to the public. Why the media in our country would believe what type of sex two consenting married adults practice is more important than making sure that the national security of our country is protected is beyond comprehension and represents the quintessence of warped priorities. I do not believe that anyone who truly cares about our country and Constitution can express enough in words the outrage that he/she feels about how cowardly our political leaders and media have acted with Obama on the question of his place of birth.
Congress has abdicated its constitutional oath and the media, the so-called fourth branch of our government, has failed to perform its journalistic duty to the People of the United States to assure them that Obama’s election to the highest and most powerful office in the land adhered to our Constitution and laws. Congress has been given a chance to correct its failings and still it refuses to perform its constitutional obligation. With the assistance of its media cronies and others, they all ridicule and suppress the efforts of those who are fighting to make sure that our Constitution has been respected in the last Presidential election and that our nation is safe with Obama currently occupying the Presidency and being the Commander in Chief of our military might.
We must then ask ourselves why Congress and the media have not pressed Obama for the necessary and relevant birth information for at least the sake of the integrity of the Presidential election process and the safety of our nation? Moreover, Obama cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” because under the British Nationality Act of 1948 when Obama was born in 1961 his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was born a British subject/citizen. See Obama, the Putative President of the U.S., Is Currently Also a British Citizen, located at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-president-of-us-is-currently-also_29.html. Like a naturalized citizen who is not eligible to be President, Obama was born with an allegiance to a foreign power and is therefore not eligible to be President and more so not eligible to be the leader of our military men and women. To allow Obama to hide his birth information and to not challenge him for not being an Article II “natural born Citizen” is nothing more than at best, politicians and those in their coterie allowing corrupt party politics, self-interest, and/or cowardice to blind their constitutional duty to protect and defend our country and Constitution, at worst, part of someone’s plot to attack and destroy the United States from within, or both. Given that any attack on the United States will most likely come from within, these latter two scenarios must be given serious consideration and ruled out only after sufficient evidence exists to so rule them out. Hence, the deliberate or reckless failing by those who are supposed to protect and defend our country and Constitution is tantamount to treason.
All members of Congress that have allowed and continue to allow the raping of our Constitution and the placing of our nation at risk to being attacked from within need to be removed from Congress, without any exceptions. As to what to do with those members of the media and others who have failed and continue to fail to do their job to adequately protect and defend our Constitutional Republic, that is a question for another day.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. 185 Gatzmer Avenue Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831 October 18, 2009
EDUCATE YOURSELF! EVERYTHING ABOUT OBAMA FROM BIRTH THRU HIS FIRST 100 DAYS OF USURPATION
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.