
History will remember how often and adamantly President Barack Obama insisted that the socialized medicine law he signed last week would reduce the federal deficit. It will be his defining lie. full story
Obama brought up the topic of his legitimacy to be president. Great opportunity to get people talking about his birth records!
Email and post this video where ever and whenever you can. Add info about the lawsuits and all his undisclosed records. I can’t believe he opened the door to controversy about his birth certificate and eligibility. Run with it!
Obama Says Tea Party Is Built Around Core Group of Birthers (Video)
Spread the word but don’t be surprised when you meet some resistance.
From one of CitizenWells’ readers:
Prairie // March 30, 2010 at 9:18 pm
Interesting FR post regarding the Lt. Col.
I posted this over at Sean Hannity Forums and it got up to ten pages real quick and over 140 posts and now they have deleted it saying it is a non issue.
This would indicate to me, it scare the chit out of them and is for real
The media chased down every Bush doc, and when they couldn't find dirt, they advanced fake docs. That was only the preview. Their masterstroke was creating and advancing a fake president.
This is beyond media corruption; it is criminal.
Big media has a garbage detail to sift through Sarah Palin's garbage. Why has there been no investigative journalism on this impostor?
The Blogging Professor has the whole dirty, hot mess here:
The smartest genius President evah is nothing more than a carboard cutout. A fraud. Doesn't exist. We don't even know how he did in school because to this day his transcripts are sealed. Turns out now that when he was an instructor at the Chicago, his colleagues who were actual Professors didn't like him and didn't want him. Obama's position was obtained through political channels. From Doug Ross: To be (a lawyer) or not to be...
Is the President's resume accurate when it comes to his career and qualifications? I can corroborate that Obama's "teaching career" at Chicago was, to put it kindly, a sham.Here was that video that I posted back in January: Video: Former Constitutional Law Professor Obama makes up quotes in SOTU not found in the Constitution:
I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about "Barry." Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn't even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn't have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.
The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).
Consider this: 1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application. ...
4. A senior lecturer is one thing. A fully ranked law professor is another. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, "Obama did NOT 'hold the title' of a University of Chicago law school professor". Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago.
5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school, but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.
6. "He did not hold the title of professor of law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.
7. The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the U.S. Constitution recently during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
For a constitutional senior lecturer, it's also noteworthy that Obama doesn't know what car insurance covers.
10. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?
When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight.
President Obama's Occidental College transcripts have never been released. His Columbia transcripts are, likewise, AWOL. And his Harvard Law transcripts also haven't been made public. Finally, it's reported, he never published any articles while at Harvard, yet somehow served as Editor of Law Review. That would make him unique among editors, according to insiders.There's more.Even John "D Student" Kerry was guilt-tripped into releasing his transcripts.
Curiously, since I relayed a report of Obama's "teaching career" at Chicago (he was apparently never a law professor, as some have claimed), the Illinois Bar has decided to partially redact what little public information it had available on its website related to the President's legal status.
Following the Democrats’ undemocratic passage of Obamacare, a number of Americans decided to take their anger and disappointment to the next level. Members of Congress, both Democrats and Republican, received threats, had office windows broken and one Republican even had a bullet fired through his window.
Never failing to grasp an opportunity for political gain, no matter how tenuous, Democrat functionaries blamed Republicans and their “shadowy right wing supporters” for all the violence, despite the fact that members of both sides were on the receiving end. And like a trained poodle, House Minority Leader John Boehner condemned the violence.
More...The salvation of America now depends on forcing President Barack Obama to resign, repealing the appalling healthcare bill that is now the law of the land, and renewing a full measure of financial prudence to the conduct of the nation’s public affairs and obligations.
More...An inside ACORN source has just confirmed this to me: the Texas chapter of ACORN has pretended to break off from the national group and has incorporated itself under the name Texas Organizing Project.
You read it here first.
Here’s a helpful chart I made:
More...Jews have been accused of harming and murdering of non-Jews since the twelfth century in England, when Jewish convert to Catholicism, Theobald of Cambridge, perjuriously proclaimed that European Jews ritually slaughtered Christian children each year and drank their blood during Passover season.
More...Wall Street Journal
It another shell game Obama is trying to pull off another con job on the voting public. Great headline above, but like health care it’s all about the details. This is nothing but the typical shell game used by this administration.
If he were serious he would allow drilling to begin immediately instead having a commission to “study” how much oil exists off the Atlantic coasts. Let the law suits and environmental studies begin. Random thoughts while watching a conman manipulate the media and the minds of the voter, J.C.
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration will propose allowing offshore oil and natural-gas exploration and development in a large swath of the eastern Gulf of Mexico, after months of criticism from Republicans who have made expanded offshore drilling a political rallying cry.
In addition, the administration plans to announce new steps to determine how much oil and natural gas is buried off the coasts of Middle and Southern Atlantic states, where oil-reserve estimates are decades out of date.
At the same time, Mr. Obama’s plan wouldn’t allow new oil and gas development off the coasts of Northern Atlantic states or California, whose political leaders have long opposed offshore drilling. The administration will call off a plan drafted by the administration of former President George W. Bush that would have given oil companies access to Alaska’s Bristol Bay, an area teeming with wild sockeye salmon and many commercial fishing interests concerned about the impact of drilling on their livelihoods. Complete Story
By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
March 31, 2010
President Obama used his recess-appointment power to place four former federal lobbyists — representing defense contractors and the agri-chemical industry among others — in top policy jobs. Obama’s maneuver dodges a Senate floor debate and sweeps under the rug an inauspicious milestone: The appointment of the 50th lobbyist to a policymaking job by a president who claims he’s “excluded” them.
As a matter of principle I normally will not advertise anything on this blog but this time around I make an exception as:
- David Crockett
Alex show us his new barry soetoro t-shirt on the alex jones show.
http://www.infowars.com
http://www.prisonplanet.tv
Give Us Liberty published:
The officer questioning Obama’s status is Lt Col T. Lakin, Flight Surgeon. He is on the staff of 4 star General Geo. W. Casey, the Army’s Chief of Staff. I believe that is the second highest job in the U.S. Army. Gen. Casey is stationed at the Pentagon in Washington D.C. For a Pentagon Officer such as Lakin, on the staff of such a prestigious General as Gen Casey, to speak out against Obama is quite remarkable.
It’s akin to treason within the highest echelons of the Palace Guard.
The headlines reflect the awful truth real Christians always expected. President Barack Obama is not who he says he is. And he probably isn’t who many Americans say he is—namely the anti-Christ. However, his actions, tactics, and values are absolutely anti-Christ!
More...So we have a health care reform entitlement now, along with various unfunded liabilities, courtesy of the federal government. The next question is - how are we going to pay for all of it?
Last week following the passage of health care legislation, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer predicted a value-added tax (or VAT) could be in the works, which is a consumption tax that is placed on a product whenever value is added at a stage of production and at final sale.
However, former Fox News "Special Report" anchor Brit Hume, now a senior political analyst for network, said there was a possibility the VAT could be pushed into law during a lame-duck session of Congress, if loss for the Democratic Party are steep enough to force them to relinquish their control following the 2008 cycle.
"I think the projected savings, if they actually came to pass, would be in the order of 140 some billion dollars," Hume said. "That is a drop in the bucket against these levels of debt and particularly against the levels of entitlement debt, which is why I think after the news on social security and after the difficulty selling government bonds last week with lifted interest rates - you may start, as Charles Krauthammer fears, to hear about a value-added tax, a form of sales tax. You could hardly get it through the Congress right now, but you might be able to slip it through after the election, with the old Congress still seated, the new Congress not yet here during the so-called lame duck session. I don't think it is yet likely but I wouldn't rule it out."
A VAT could be detrimental for the U.S. economy and it wouldn't be a cure-all for government debt, as Chris Edwards pointed out for Cato @ Liberty last year. Instead, this would encourage more spending and higher tax rates, causing an impediment to U.S. economic growth.
"In sum, a VAT would not solve our deficit problems because Congress would simply boost its spending even higher, as happened in Europe as VAT rates increased over time," Edwards wrote. "Also, a VAT is not needed to cut the corporate income tax rate because a corporate rate cut would be self-financing over the long-term as tax avoidance fell and economic growth increasedAmerican Heroes Ready and Willing to Serve in Congress Sarah Palin
America, if you love your freedom, thank a vet! And if you’re looking for leaders who believe in integrity, service, and country first, look to our veterans.
Last week I campaigned for a true American hero, John McCain, and this week I’d ask you to join me in supporting a new generation of heroes who are heeding their country’s call for leadership in Washington.
There are a number of great veteran candidates running for office this year, and there are some excellent organizations dedicated to helping them, including: Iraq Vets for Congress and Combat Veterans for Congress (please click on the links to visit their websites).
There are three veterans in particular I’ll be supporting this week.
The first is Major Vaughn Ward, a fourth-generation Idaho native who grew up on his family’s farm in Shoshone and is running in Idaho’s 1st Congressional District. Coming from a family with a proud military tradition, Vaughn joined the Marine Corps after college and was finishing up his service when the September 11th attacks occurred. He put his life on hold and heeded his country’s call – serving first as a CIA Operations Officer and later volunteering with the Marine Corps for a combat tour in Iraq, during which he was awarded the Bronze Star with Combat V. After returning from Iraq, Vaughn went to work for the McCain/Palin campaign. I was grateful for his support then, and I’m happy to support him now because I know that he believes in the same commonsense conservative ideals that we cherish. Vaughn knows that real job growth comes from the private sector, not government. He believes in free market reforms, tax relief for families and small businesses, and a return to a constitutionally limited government that lives within its means. He’ll carry the conservative banner to Washington and will rein in the reckless growth of government to get it back on our side. And remember, a vote for Vaughn is a vote to remove the gavel from Nancy Pelosi’s grip. Please visit Vaughn’s website here to make a donation to his campaign, and follow him on Facebook and Twitter.
The second veteran is Captain Adam Kinzinger, a decorated special-operations pilot who flew combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Adam is running for Illinois’ 11th Congressional District against a freshman incumbent congresswoman who seemed to pull a bait and switch on voters to get elected. She sounded like a blue dog on the campaign trail, but didn’t vote like one in Washington. Instead, she voted in lockstep with the Pelosi agenda – on Obamacare, the stimulus, cap-and-tax – and the list goes on. She’s part of the reason for Congress’ 11% approval rating. Adam is a strong fiscal conservative with a proven track record as a reformer from his years serving on his local county board. Adam started out in local office, and, like many of us, believes in making government more accountable to the people. When you serve in local office, your constituents truly are your neighbors. Adam understands this, and I know that he will listen to his constituents and work for us, not against us, in Washington. Please visit Adam’s website here to make a donation to his campaign, and follow him on Facebook and Twitter.
The third veteran is Lieutenant Colonel Allen West, a decorated war hero who’s served with distinction in combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of you may have heard of Allen from a speech he gave last year that became a viral video on YouTube with over 2 million viewers. Allen’s personal story is a testament to the commonsense conservative belief that our nation’s greatness is rooted in freedom, because with freedom comes equal opportunity, and that, coupled with hard work, leads to success. Allen is a small government fiscal conservative running against a leftwing ideologue who’s marched to the beat of Nancy Pelosi on every issue from cap-and-tax to the stimulus, TARP, and, of course, Obamacare. It’s time to send Allen to Washington in his place. Please visit Allen’s website here to donate to his campaign, and follow him on Facebook and Twitter.
I believe that these great veterans will fight for us in D.C. to uphold and defend our constitution as courageously in the halls of Congress as they did on the field of battle. I’m so honored to offer my support to these American heroes, and I hope you’ll join me in helping them so that they can serve us all in Washington.
“EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW”—These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States . The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States . As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court is “distinctly American in concept and function,” as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence. A century and a half ago, the French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville noted the unique position of the Supreme Court in the history of nations and of jurisprudence. “The representative system of government has been adopted in several states of Europe ,” he remarked, “but I am unaware that any nation of the globe has hitherto organized a judicial power in the same manner as the Americans. . . . A more imposing judicial power was never constituted by any people.” The unique position of the Supreme Court stems, in large part, from the deep commitment of the American people to the Rule of Law and to constitutional government. The United States has demonstrated an unprecedented determination to preserve and protect its written Constitution, thereby providing the American “experiment in democracy” with the oldest written Constitution still in force.
The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society’s need for order and the individual’s right to freedom.
To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government.
The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of “judicial review” has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a “living Constitution” whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations. While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard
to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.
Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.
Despite this background the Court’s power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison . In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court’s responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. “It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is,” he declared.
In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland , a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application “would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.”
The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with “Cases” and “Controversies.” John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court’s history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases.
The Justices must exercise considerable discretion in deciding which cases to hear, since more than 10,000 civil and criminal cases are filed in the Supreme Court each year from the various state and federal courts. The Supreme Court also has “original jurisdiction” in a very small number of cases arising out of disputes between States or between a State and the Federal Government.
When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.
Chief Justice Marshall expressed the challenge which the Supreme Court faces in maintaining free government by noting: “We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding . . . intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.”
[The foregoing was taken from a booklet prepared by the Supreme Court of the United States , and published with funding from the Supreme Court Historical Society.]
Gowdy soft-pedals suspicious link in Benghazi attack
State Dept. witness stonewalls Benghazi panel
5 'significant problems' with GOP's new Benghazi report
Now feds punch holes in Hillary claim on Benghazi security
Media Matters fabricates quotes to smear Hillary critic
Hillary, Panetta misleading about arms to rebels?
Aaron Klein challenges Media Matters to Benghazi debate
Hillary contradicted over Benghazi security
Democrats join GOP in blasting Benghazi bungling
N.Y. Times caught contradicting self on Benghazi
Obama covered Muslim Brotherhood tracks to Benghazi
Is this what Hillary aides scrubbed from Benghazi probe?
76 key questions for Benghazi investigators to answer
'Dereliction of duty': Obama's worst scandal
By Peter Andrew – ConservativeAmerican.org – Leading the way Right.
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!
SCANDALS By Scandal Number:1-100. 101-200. 201-300. 301-400. 401-500. 501-600. 601-700. 701-800. 801-900. 901-1000. 1001-1100. 1101-1200. 1201-1300. 1301-1400. 1401-1500. 1501-1600. 1601-1700. 1701-1800. 1801-1900. 1901-2000. 2001-2100. 2101-2200. 2201-2300. 2301-2325.The case for impeaching Barack Hussein Obama
We the People of the United States
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.
Read more at http://www.pledgetoimpeach.com/case_for_impeachment.php#kYyR5mlEz2HbRpqu.99
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:
DONATE TO COLD CASE POSSE
Donations:
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.
Thank you very much for your donation.
To learn more about 501(c)(3) Non Profit Organization
You may also mail your donation to us at:
MCSO Cold-Case Posse
P.O. Box 74374
Phoenix, Arizona 85087
Adjectives mean something. A “Citizen at Birth” is not logically identically equal to a “natural born Citizen at Birth”. Barack Obama may be a ‘Citizen of the United States’ but he is not a ‘natural born Citizen of the United States’ and does not meet the constitutional standards as to who can be the President and Commander in Chief of our military: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html
The natural born Citizen clause in our Constitution is a national security clause inserted into our Constitution by John Jay and George Washington. Read why the natural born Citizen clause is still important and worth protecting.
Five Citizenship Terms Mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same
Of Trees and Plants and Basic Logic and Citizenship Types: http://www.scribd.com/doc/44814496/Of-Trees-and-Plants-and-Basic-Logic-Citizen-at-Birth-NOT-Identical-to-Natural-Born-Citizen
See evidence Obama forged the birth certificate posted on White House servers 27 Apr 2011: http://www.scribd.com/collections/3166684
See evidence Obama is using a SSN 042-68-4425 not legally issued to him: http://www.scribd.com/collections/3260742
See evidence of Obama’s forged and back dated draft registration here: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4428/exclusive-did-next-commander-in-chief-falsify-selective-service-registration-never-actually-register-obamas-draft-registration-raises-serious-questions/
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
A Place to Ask Questions To Get the Right Answers published
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.
All those who have been following the Obama eligibility issue well know that Article II, Section 1, clause 5 provides that “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 President. . .” At this blog, I have already explained the importance of the “natural born Citizen” clause. See my essay entitled, Why the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause of Our Constitution Is Important and Worth Preserving, located at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-natural-born-citizen-clause-is.html. In order for Obama to prove that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” he must conclusively demonstrate that he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and father. For legal support for this definition of what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, see, among others, my articles at this blog entitled, The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth, located at
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html;
Article II “Natural Born Citizen” Means Unity of Citizenship At Birth, located at
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html;
and ‘The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law’ as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is, located at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html.
At present, there is much controversy regarding where Obama was born. We have seen much contradictory information regarding this issue. Obama maintains he was born in Hawaii at Kapi’olani Medical Center and as his best evidence he has posted on the internet a computer-imaged Certification of Live Birth (COLB, which is a summary of his alleged long-from hospital-generated birth certificate) to prove that fact. According to the laws of Hawaii, this summary document, which does not contain information as to which hospital he was born in or what doctor delivered him, is only prima facie evidence of a birth in Hawaii. On the other hand, there exists evidence that Obama was born in Kenya. For a presentation of this evidence, see my essay on this blog entitled,
Obama Has Not Met His Burden Of Proving He Was Born In Hawaii, located at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2008/12/obama-has-not-met-his-burden-of-proving.html. Additionally, just over the last few days, we have seen surface on the internet old newspaper articles that were written in African newspapers in 2004 stating that Obama was born in Kenya. http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/video-documents-discovery-of-ap-story-declaring-obama-kenyan-born/; http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/2-more-african-news-agencies-declare-obama-kenyan-born/; http://thepmnews.com/2008/11/25/two-nigerians-tipped-as-potential-%E2%80%98british-obama%E2%80%99. Because of this conflicting information, the prima facie validity of the COLB must fail. Hence, Obama should present evidence that corroborates his and the State of Hawaii’s position that he was born in Hawaii and that he is a “natural born Citizen. He has without good reason refused to provide this evidence.
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