POLITIGOGO - Herald of the Revolution

For Orly

2009-10-05T00:25:00.001-04:00

Now we lay us down to sleep
We pray the Lord our Republic keep
But if it dies when we awake
The communist usurpers will tremble and quake
For the Lord has breathed a life anew
And while evil festered the giant grew
Millions of patriots hand in hand
Will never let the Obamanation stand
If the courts prove to be untrue and unjust
the Patriots have each other to trust
And from their faith the republic reborn
In the image of our fathers on a bloody morn
Some thought we forgot but we remember well
The tolling of Lady Liberty's bell
So rest well, you'll need it on this fateful night
For we stand together and have just begun to fight.

Big Bird is a Patriot!

2009-10-04T13:00:00.001-04:00

ENOUGH SAID!

: )

Liberty or Tyranny – The Courts MUST Decide!

2009-09-24T08:55:00.003-04:00

Wow! Coming up on October 5th in the federal courtroom of Judge David O. Carter is the motion hearing in Barnett et.al v Obama et. al (formerly Keyes et. al v. Obama et. al). The government has pulled out all stops and filed a detailed motion to dismiss in defense of Barack Obama, utilizing the vast resources of the United States Department of Justice. But then comes Orly Taitz and the response that she filed. In my opinion, there has not been a more lucid defense and explanation of the intent of our founding fathers since the the Federalist Papers. For those who don’t know, the Federalist, (“Papers” was added in the 20th century) was a series of articles written by three of our founding fathers that are still considered definitive in interpreting the constitution and the founders intent. The breakdown of who wrote them is: Alexander Hamilton (51 articles: nos. 1, 6–9, 11–13, 15–17, 21–36, 59–61, and 65–85), James Madison (29 articles: nos. 10, 14, 37–58, and 62–63), and John Jay (5 articles: 2–5 and 64). Numbers 18–20 were the result of a collaboration between Madison and Hamilton.
I have spent time over the last couple of days dissecting Orly’s brief and it appears flawless, the department of Justice is in trouble. I have included the text below so that you do not have to go searching for it:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SANTA ANA (SOUTHERN) DIVISION
Captain Pamela Barnett, et al., §
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. § Civil Action:
§
Barack Hussein Obama, § SACV09-00082-DOC
Michelle L.R. Obama, Hilary Rodham §
Clinton, Secretary of State, Robert M. § PLAINTIFFS’ PRELIMINARY
Gates, Secretary of Defense, § RESPONSE TO DOC. #56
Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and § DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
President of the Senate, § DISMISS (with reservation of
Defendants. § right to Amend Complaint)
PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ 9-04-09
MOTION TO DISMISS
(with reservation of rights to Respond further by filing Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint on or before Friday October 2, 2009)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, to be supplemented by filing Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint on or before October 2, 2009
Come now the Plaintiffs with this their Preliminary Response to Defendants’ September 4, 2009, Document 56 Motion to Dismiss (with reservation of rights to Respond further by filing Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint on or before Friday, October 2, 2009).

POLITICAL RELATIVITY vs. CONSTITUTIONAL ABSOLUTES:
IS THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE VIABLE AS A MEANS TO EVADE COMPLIANCE WITH UNVARIABLE STANDARDS?
Fundamentally, this case comes down to a single bifurcated question question: (1A) does the constitution mean what it says when it lays down absolute parameters, such as the age and citizenship qualifications to be President, and (1B) to whom does the investigation and enforcement of this constitutional provision: to the Congress, the People, or can the President get by merely asserting his qualifications without presenting evidence which would be competent as Summary Judgment (admissible) evidence under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?
The Plaintiffs have brought their complaint as a matter of first impression to ask this Court to determine, find, hold, and rule that the investigation and enforcement of this right belongs to the people, even members of a discrete and insular minority of the people, even if this group lacks majoritarian political power. Plaintiffs respond to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and ask this Court to rule, pursuant to the First and Ninth Amendments that they may sue to enforce constitutional absolutes, such as the constitutional requirements for President of the United States. Plaintiffs assert an inalienable, reserved right to sue for Constitutional conformity in this case even though they concede that the Defendants have shown that primary, first line actions could and should have been taken by members of Congress or the Electoral College, pursuant to the Twelfth and Twentieth Amendments for instance. Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN, Document 56, Filed 09/04/2009, Page 2o of 32: Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 13, ll. 1-14.
Of course, what Congress must do in the case of obvious electoral deadlocks or recognized and admitted problems with qualification for office is not at all the point raised by Plaintiffs’ complaint and evidence. Plaintiffs’ complaint and evidence allege and confirm is that the Presidency in 2008 was taken by fraud, and not even by fraud in the counting of votes, but by fraud in the traditional common law sense of a material misrepresentation of an important fact upon which Plaintiffs could be reasonably expected to rely to their detriment, and to the detriment of constitutional government.
The Constitution’s textual commitment of this responsibility is a responsibility that Congress has embraced. Both the House and the Sentate have standing committees with jurisdiction to decide questions relating to Presidential elections.
Idem: Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 13, ll 15-17.
Where Congress has done absolutely nothing to investigate or prosecute a question, Defendants’ position appears to be that this very inaction or acquiescence by Congress creates a presumption of legitimacy. Apparently, Defendants would have this Court believe, hold, rule, and accept that utter and complete inaction, stony silence even by the Vice-President of an opposing party sitting as President of the Senate during the certification of the electoral vote to Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. §15, is and must be sufficient to satisfy the people that the President has met the Constitutional qualifications for office. Idem: Motion to Dismiss at 13-14. The Defendants’ position in this regard is simply a preposterous “cop out”. Defendants in effect ask this Court to conclude, find, hold, and rule that “willful disregard of the letter of the law is proof of compliance with that law.” Plaintiffs submit and contend, by contrast, that Congress’ neglect and derogation of its duty to take investigative or prosecutorial action does not render any unchallenged action legitimate. Surely in a free society, the sovereign people have more and better rights.
Nor is Congressional inaction sufficient to nullify and obliterate the rights of the people to Petition the Federal Courts for Redress of one or more very specific constitutional violations, or for that matter to petition a court to declare and adjudge that the electoral process has been perverted by fraud. The rule in a free society must be the contrary: whenever authority or eligibility are questioned, Congress, and in default of Congressional action, the people, may and should presume the absence of authority and eligibility. The Federal Judicial Courts are the final recourse of the people, and the access of the people to the Courts to challenge the unconstitutional exercise of authority is guaranteed by the First and Ninth Amendments.
QUO WARRANTO
Or at least, this is the theory behind the law of quo warranto, which is and was (as a practical matter) the point at which the undersigned counsel, on behalf of her clients, the Plaintiffs, began her quest for the preservation of truth, justice, and the American Way: by what credentials, qualifications, right or title does any person who holds office claim his right to that office. The common law writ of quo warranto has been all but completely suppressed at the federal level in the United States (in that it is limited in exercise to the Attorney General), and deprecated at the state level.
Plaintiffs contend that quo warranto remains a right under the Ninth Amendment as this clause of the Bill of Rights was understood and presumed by the Founders. It is the promise of the reservation of the right to bring the sovereign prerogative writ of quo warranto, which affords the only judicial (and indeed, only politically realistic) remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents. It was to give the Courts the independence to judge and punish constitutional violations and derogations without fear of political reprisal that the Founders gave life tenure to Article III judges.
Plaintiffs accordingly demand that this Court breathe life into quo warranto and all the other royal prerogative writs preserved in the Ninth Amendment which must be combined with a general reinvigorating standing for private prosecution of public rights, subverted by the decision in Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), as is discussed in S. Winter’s, The Metaphor of Standing and the Problem of Self-Governance, Stanford Law Review July, 1988, 40 Stan. L. Rev. 1371 (see further discussion below):
It is almost de rigueur for articles on standing to quote Professor Freund’s testimony to Congress that the concept of standing is “among the most amorphous in the entire domain of public law.” One of the traditional criticisms of standing law is that it is confusing and seemingly incoherent. Even the staunchest judicial advocates of the doctrine readily admit as much: “We need not mince words when we say that the concept of ‘Art. III standing’ has not been defined with complete consistency….”
The history of Plaintiffs’ struggles to raise an effective challenge to the Defendants’ failure to prove the President’s constitutional qualifications for office merit some brief attention here.
PLAINTIFFS’ PRELITIGATION INQUIRIES: quo warranto & FOIA
Quo Warranto
On March 3^rd undersigned attorney has submitted a quo warranto complaint on behalf of some of the plaintiffs as relators to the Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Eric Holder. Mr. Holder did not respond.
On April 1^st the undersigned attorney has submitted quo warranto request on behalf of some of the plaintiffs as relators to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Jeffrey A Taylor. Mr. Taylor never responded, but rather quit his job within 60 days. No response was ever received from his successor U.S. Attorney Channing Philips either.
When the government does not proceed with quo warranto action, the plaintiffs can step into the shoes of the government and institute their own action as Relators. That what was done in this action.
Defendants show a certain confusion of mind at several points in their Motion to Dismiss, for example in their discussion of quo warranto on pages 16-18 of their September 4, 2009, Motion to Dismiss when they write that Plaintiffs express “apparent dissatisfaction with the precedents in the District of Columbia” (Motion to Dismiss at 18, ll 1-3). What Plaintiffs actually reported on pages 14-16, ¶¶32-38 of their First Amended Complaint, was the story of Hollister v. Soetero and how this case shows the futility of making demands on the Attorney General in the District of Columbia not as shown by precedent but by treatment involved in silencing a fellow attorney (Hemenway) who earlier this year dared to TRY to raise quo warranto pursuant to the District of Columbia statutes. The mere fact that several courts have unjustly closed the door on this inquiry is not evidence that the inquiry itself is frivolous or unwarranted. It is more likely evidence of the political nature of some of the courts.
The question is not one of precedent, the question is whether politics dictate the outcome in many or most Obama-related cases, where avoiding discovery and fact-finding is the primary (and outcome-determinative) goal. Plaintiff submits that if discovery is ever allowed in this case, it will be rapidly settled by the resignation or impeachment of the President. If the stone wall of secrecy and suppression is ever removed, if California sunshine is ever allowed to shine for one day on the real evidence, the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama will be rapidly brought to a rather embarrassing close, and the Defendants’ counsel know it, just as Judges Land and Lazzara know it in Georgia and Florida. Secrecy and refusal to divulge information can have only one possible purpose: to hide an inconvenient truth. Everywhere the Plaintiffs or their counsel have gone, they have been met with resistance, which can only be described as irrational if there were nothing to hide.
The purpose of pleading and arguing the elements and history of quo warranto in this case is to breach the barriers in this case and cut through to the heart of the matter. This Court has the power to do one of two things: under choice of law principles this Court MAY (because of the residence or principle place of residence or offices of most of the Defendants), under choice of law principles, apply the quo warranto statute of the District of Columbia, acknowledging on venue principles that Plaintiffs will never have any fair trial or anything close to due process in what is effectively the Defendants’ backyard. Alternatively, this Court, pursuant to its powers under the declaratory judgment principles of 28 U.S.C. §2201-2202 or 42 U.S.C. §1988(a), utilize the principles of constitutional and common law to fashion an appropriate modern remedy to take the place of the “ancient writ” of quo warranto. Traditional petitions for writ of quo warranto or an equivalent remedy SHOULD be available to ensure the sovereignty of the people over their government, and the democratic ability of the people to engage in self-governance and supervision over their servants:
The notion that standing is a bedrock requirement of constitutional law has a surprisingly short history. Frothingham v. Mellon, which rejected a taxpayer suit to enjoin a federal spending program, is generally thought of as the first modern standing case.
. . . . . .
One legitimately may wonder how a constitutional doctrine now said to inhere in article III’s “case or controversy” language could be so late in making an appearance, do so with so skimpy a pedigree, and take so long to be recognized even by the primary academic expositors of the law of federal courts.
Steven L. Winter, supra, 40 Stan.L.Rev. at 1375-1377
It does indeed seem that the doctrine of standing has served to act as a highly arbitrary and somewhat capricious guard at the Courthouse door, and Plaintiffs demand their sovereign right of entry, even if this requires that the Court reform or restrict the doctrine of standing to reinvigorate the First Amendment in the Federal Courts by reinforcing the right to petition for redress of grievances. As has been shown above, legal criticism of the effect of the standing doctrine on jurisprudence is very intense. The simple truth is that this doctrine is overextended and overreaching and should be reigned in.
Without the sovereign right of to presume lack of authority, and to demand strict proof thereof, via quo warranto or its declaratory judgment equivalent pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§1988(a), there may be no residual rights or powers of self-governance left in the United States of America. The majority of the people by majority vote control all that happens within the framework of constitutional law.
By judicially revisiting its origins in the First Amendment (“right to petition”) and Ninth Amendment (intended to reserve royal prerogative writs to the people) this Court can and should allow and empower the Plaintiffs by resuscitation and renewal of quo warranto under its civil rights declaratory judgment power or borrowing the use of this writ (by choice of law from the District of Columbia).
To the extent that it allows Plaintiffs’ Complaint and thereby does so (resuscitates or renews the vitality of quo warranto), this Court will give fresh breath to Footnote 4 as it declines to construe the Constitutional provisions and statutes cited by the Defendants in their Motion to Dismiss in a manner which would tend only to disempower or disenfranchise the Plaintiffs as a discrete and insular minority, in particular as members of a conscientiously objecting minority. In short, Plaintiffs ask this Court allow the constitutionally correct but politically powerless minority to restore the majority to the straight and narrow path, not just even, but especially when this majority have lost their path midway along the road of life in a dark wood. (cf. Dante, Inferno, Canto 1, ll. 1-4).
FOIA
Lead Plaintiff Captain Pamela Barnett alleges that she has in effect exhausted her FOIA requests to the United States State Department, United States Department of Justice, and other sources prior to the de facto inauguration of Barack H. Obama in January 2009 (Plaintiff Barnett is pregnant and concerned for her security and her original FOIA request and State Department response could not be properly redacted in time for this submission). In addition, other Plaintiffs have submitted FOIA requests and the structural and functional equivalent thereof since becoming aware of the doubt concerning Barack H. Obama’s citizenship, but the details on these other Plaintiffs’ requests were not available at the present time. Plaintiffs can and do allege exhaustion of FOIA requirements as a practical and substantive matter. The most valiant efforts on Plaintiffs’ behalf, however, were not made formally under the rubric of FOIA, but directly and informally by their undersigned counsel in the format of her dossiers (Exhibits B-C). Another one of the concerns raised by the defendants, was that of venue based on residence in Orange County, and in fact, several plaintiffs reside in Orange County or elsewhere within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern Division of the Central District of California, although this is one of several matters that will best be resolved by the filing of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.
CLASSES OF PLAINTIFFS: OATH TAKERS and CANDIDATES
In addition to being citizen members of the body politic, American Citizens at least within the meaning of the 14^th Amendment, electorate, the people, all the Plaintiffs in the case in any event, are taxpayers, and they possess the reserved rights of the First and Ninth Amendments, as well as certain more specific rights, according to the several classes of the Plaintiffs (civilian, legislative, and military). Four Plaintiffs in this case are also candidates for Article II elective office who ran against the de facto President and Vice-President in 2008, two of whom (Dr. Alan Keyes and Gail Lightfoot) are represented by the undersigned counsel.
First to be noted is that there are currently 46 Plaintiffs represented by the undersigned counsel. The largest group of Plaintiffs is composed of members of the United States Military (all branches), Active, Reserved and Retired subject to lifetime recall. The oath of a military officer is established by 5 U.S.C. §3331, which states:
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.
See also: http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm
Any officer who has taken this oath faces a personal decision and choice regarding his answer to a question in life, the importance of which is hard to measure or understand: what does it mean to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign, and domestic,” and what general or specific conduct does it require “to bear true faith and allegiance to the same?” The answer is that if the Courts will not decide, “say what the law is,” it is difficult to know or imagine who will. Cf., e.g., Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
But given the doctrines of standing, redressability, and political question, who enforces the Constitution and by what presumptions should an officer[1][1] answer or even evaluate the critical question:
When the whims of a political majority violate the constitution, how does a soldier reconcile the liquid and transient, almost effervescent, political realities of command with his or her absolute constitutional oath, which brooks no exceptions? The oath of a commissioned military officer is a solemn covenant between that officer and all higher authorities, both of this earth and outside it, that he will do not merely that which is ordered, but that which he believes to be right. During the conduct of this case, the undersigned attorney has seen at least two fine military officers punished and threatened on account of their exercise of conscience, in accordance with their oath.
When the military Plaintiffs became commissioned officers and officers of the United States, they took an oath to support, defend, and bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and to “well and faithfully discharge” the duties of their commissions. Plaintiffs herein allege that they are being injured in their employment by being required to serve under, take direction from, and report to a constitutionally ineligible superior, Mr. Barack Obama. Plaintiffs allege that this requirement is in direct and unequivocal conflict with their oath and that they cannot serve under Mr. Obama, without violating their oaths. Plaintiffs also allege that, should they refuse to serve under, take direction from, or report to Mr. Obama, they will be at substantial risk of disciplinary action, including removal, for insubordination or other, related grounds. The recent cases of Major Stefan Frederick Cook and Captain Connie Rhodes lend credence to the fears of swift and brutal D.o.D retaliation for military officer’s exercise of their First Amendment rights.
Plaintiffs further allege that being required to serve under, take
direction from, and report to a constitutionally ineligible superior materially and fundamentally (and adversely) changes the terms and conditions of their employment as Military Officer. Both the U.S. Supreme Court and several lower courts have recognized that placing a plaintiff in a position where he either must violate his or her oath of office or risk substantial, adverse consequences constitutes a direct, personal, and concrete injury for purposes of standing. In Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236 (1968), a local school board brought an action challenging the constitutionality of a state statute that required local public school authorities to lend textbooks free of charge to private parochial schools. The Court found there could be “no doubt” that the school board members had a personal stake in the outcome of litigation sufficient to confer standing:
Appellants have taken an oath to support the United States Constitution. Believing [the state statute] to be unconstitutional, they are in the position of having to choose between violating their oath and taking a step — refusal to comply with [the state statute] — that would be likely to bring their expulsion from office . . . .
Allen, 392 U.S. at 241, n.5.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia reached a substantially similar conclusion in Clarke v. United States, 705 F. Supp. 605 (D.D.C. 1988). In Clarke, the members of the City Council of the District of Columbia brought suit to challenge a federal statute that required them to adopt an amendment to the District of Columbia Human Rights Act or face a loss of federal funding. The Court found that the members had “oath” standing, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Allen:
Alternatively, the court finds plaintiffs have oath of office standing, under the principles recognized by the Supreme Court in [Allen]. In Allen, the Court found that legislators who had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution had standing to challenge the constitutionality of a law when they risked a concrete injury by refusing to enforce the law. In that case, plaintiffs faced a choice of violating their oaths by enforcing a law which they believed to be unconstitutional or risk expulsion from their jobs. Plaintiffs here are similarly placed. Because Congress has conditioned all District funds on the Council’s vote, the Council members must either vote in a way which they believe violates their oaths, or face almost certain loss of their salaries and staffs as well as water, police and fire protection.
Clarke, 705 F. Supp. at 608 (internal citations omitted).
Other courts have reached this conclusion as well. See Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. NACC, 560 F.2d 352, 363-64 (8th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 434 U.S. 978 (1977); Aguayo v. Richardson, 473 F.2d 1090, 1100 (2d Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1146 (1974).
If anything, Plaintiffs’ injuries in this case is more concrete and compelling than the circumstances of the board members in Allen and the city council members in Clarke because Plaintiffs’ injuries is far more directly and inextricably inter-twined with his employment. Because Plaintiffs are military officers, they must serve under, take direction from, and report to de facto President Obama. Requiring Plaintiffs to serve under, take direction from, and report to a constitutionally ineligible superior in violation of their oath is not merely an “emotional response” that Plaintiffs might have to seeing de facto President Obama’s name on official documents, orders, or photographs in a military mess hall. It is a fundamental and material change in the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment. De facto President Obama and the Department of Defense have placed Plaintiffs in the position of either violating their oaths or disregarding their chain of command, either action which would result in almost certain disciplinary action, including removal, being taken against Plaintiffs.
WHAT IF THE POLITICAL MAJORITY CHOSES SLAVERY?
If the State of California were, for example, by its famous system of “Propositions” whereby the people amend the state constitution regularly, to violate the plain letter of the Federal constitution by reinstituting chattel slavery, in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, there is little doubt that the reaction would be swift: the United States Department of Justice would file suit (with hundreds of amici curiae) to have the newly (but democratically) enacted proposition declared unconstitutional. The reason for this is simple: the constitution places outer boundaries on that which is politically permissible.
The restrictions on the natural born citizenship status of a President of the United States constitute a similarly absolute boundary. This United States District Court can and indeed must decide whether the First and Ninth Amendments reserve to the people their sovereign right to question (by Petition) their grievances concerning electoral (political) violations of or derogations from the absolute constitutional qualifications of the President. As Daniel Webster argued to the Supreme Court in “the mother of all” political question cases, Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1, 12 L.Ed. 581, 7 HOW 1, 43-44 (1849):
1st. That the sovereignty of the people is supreme, and may act in forming government without the assent of the existing government.
2d. That the people are the sole judges of the form of government best calculated to promote their safety and happiness.
3d. That, as the sovereign power, they have a right to adopt such form of government.
4th. That the right to adopt necessarily includes the right to abolish, to reform, and to alter any existing form of government, and to substitute in its stead any other that they may judge better adapted to the purposes intended.
5th. That if such right exists at all, it exists in the States under the Union, not as a right of force, but a right of sovereignty; and that those who oppose its peaceful exercise, and not those who support it, are culpable.
6th. That the exercise of this right, which is a right original, sovereign, and supreme, and not derived from any other human authority, may be, and must be, effected in such way and manner as the people may for themselves determine.
In that case, Chief Justice Taney also held that whatever the power granted by Article III, the power of the Federal Judiciary did not extend to judging state constitutional violations of the “Republican form of Government” guarantee of Article IV, Section 4:
Again, the Constitution of the United States enumerates specially the cases over which its judiciary is to have cognizance, but nowhere includes controversies between the people of a State as to the formation or change of their constitutions. (See Article 3, sec. 2.) Though at first the federal judiciary was empowered to entertain jurisdiction where a State was a party in a suit, it has since been deprived even of that power by a jealous country, except in cases of disputed boundary. (Article 3, sec. 2; Amendment 11th; Massachusetts v. Rhode Island, 12 Peters, 755.)
If it be asked what redress have the people, if wronged in these matters, unless by resorting to the judiciary, the answer is, they have the same as in all other political matters. In those, they go to the ballot-boxes, to the legislature or executive, for the redress of such grievances as are within the jurisdiction of each, and, for such as are not, to conventions and amendments of constitutions. And when the former fail, and these last are forbidden by statutes, all that is left in extreme cases, where the suffering is intolerable and the prospect is good of relief by action of the people without the forms of law, is to do as did Hampden and Washington, and venture action without those forms, and abide the consequences. Should strong majorities favor the change, it generally is completed without much violence. In most states, where representation is not unequal, or the right of suffrage is not greatly restricted, the popular will can be felt and triumph through the popular vote and the delegates of the people in the legislature, and will thus lead soon, and peacefully, to legislative measures ending in reform, pursuant to legislative countenance and without the necessity of any stronger collateral course. But when the representation is of a character which defeats this, the action of the people, even then, if by large majorities, will seldom be prosecuted with harsh pains and penalties, or resisted with arms.
Changes, thus demanded and thus supported, will usually be allowed to go into peaceful consummation. But when not so allowed, or when they are attempted by small or doubtful majorities, it must be conceded that it will be at their peril, as they will usually be resisted by those in power by means of prosecutions, and sometimes by violence, and, unless crowned by success, and thus subsequently ratified, they will often be punished as rebellious or treasonable.
48 U.S. at 54-55, 12 L.Ed. at 604-605, 7 HOW at 122-124 (1849).
Whatever the virtues of this bright-line choice (between political action by ballot and revolution, with no possibility of judicial intervention) may have seemed to Chief Justice Taney, author of the Dred Scott opinion which triggered the War Between the States of 1861-65 and earlier (as Attorney General) architect of the Cherokee Removal and “Trail of Tears” under President Jackson, Taney’s “political question” doctrine plainly was NOT intended to apply to power of the judiciary to regulate the Federal Government’s compliance with the Constitution.
As an alternative to Taney’s somewhat brutal implicit formulation “love the status quo, change it by politics, or go foment a violent revolution and deal with the consequences,” Plaintiffs herein join with and in the arguments presented by their co-Plaintiffs Robinson and Wiley in their parallel brief in this case. Robinson & Wiley have pointed out that where no Constitutional remedy exists for an outrageous and egregious constitutional violations, the Courts ought to infer one, as they did in the application of the standards of a civil action under 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1988 to Federal Law Enforcement officers in the case of Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). See Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN, Document 67, Filed 09/18/2009, Page 6 of 18: Markham Robinson & Wiley Drake’s Response to Motion to Dismiss at 2.
Standing-Political Question-Redressability
The Flast v. Cohen + First & Ninth Amendment
“Reserved Rights” Solution
As discussed above, the Defendants ask this Court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s complaint within a triangular stranglehold and vice of standing-redressability-political question. Parallel to but independent of this three-pronged argument, the Defendants claim that certain statutes, as well as the historical custom, practice, and policy, of the evaluation of elections in the United States has effectively deprived the Article III Courts of any power to adjudicate the constitutional qualifications of the president.
The Defendants also claim that these same statutes, historical customs, practices, and policies, deprive the people of any meaningful access to the Courts to determine whether their highest Constitutionally designated officers are in compliance with the elemental mandates set forth in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, Defendants would now and forever leave the people bereft of all power, short of the electoral power achieved by tyrannical majorities (as they were described by Hamilton, Jay, and Madison in the Federalist Papers) to demand that constitutionally unqualified leaders be removed from office. As suggested above by the quote from Chief Justice Taney—this only leaves the unattractive option of armed revolution, and one primary social function and practical purpose of the Courts is to uphold respect for law and government and thereby to maintain the peace.
The residual power of discrete and insular minorities to protect not only their own constitutional rights, but to assert the constitutional rights of all the people, is one of the great and perennially recurring constitutional conundrums in American legal history (cf. United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, Footnote 4—“the most famous footnote in history”). In the field of First Amendment freedom of speech and religious free exercise, the power of discrete and insular minorities such as the Amish to delineate constitutional absolutes is legendary, see e.g. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).
In the present case, Plaintiffs are a discrete and insular minority who demand full enforcement and respect be afforded to that clause of Article II of the Constitution which states: “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; 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.” This clause is not self-enforcing on its face, unfortunately. Who is to judge whether a person has met these qualifications? Are any rights reserved by the Constitution to the people, except as political majorities?
Plaintiffs contend that the First, Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments all reserve rights to “the people” acting neither as individuals nor as political majorities, but collectively as discrete and insular minorities of conscience, and that Complaint or Petitions filed with the Article III Constitutional Courts are the legitimate paths of access by which the people, so defined, may address the wrongs, and correct the deviations and derogations, which the somnolent if not somnambulating political majority may from time-to-time allow. In short, it is the right, province, and constitutional place and power of discrete and insular minorities of dissenters to utilize their equal access to the courts to preserve the constitution when the political system fails so to do, regardless of long-standing but constitutionally untested customs, practices, and policies. The theory, the hope, the dream is, upon proper petition, the Article III judiciary alone will have the strength and courage to reaffirm the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, and thereby to set aside abuses or individual violations and derogations that long-standing customs, practices, and policies (which is to say political decisions) have allowed to occur.
The boundary between custom, practice, and policy having the appearance or force of law and actual law is often difficult to survey and trace in the landscape of litigation, and it is quite true that as a matter of historical custom, practice, and policy, the Courts of the United States have never been seriously called upon to judge the constitutional qualifications of any person politically elected to the office of President of the United States. But at some stage, the Courts must accept and recognize their judicial responsibility and status as the effective forum of last peaceful resort in hours of national crisis. The Court’s duty in this case is to address first whether the Article II, U.S. Constitutional legal requirements have been followed by the body politic, and then to investigate whether any derogations resulted from fraud, which was, if it occurred, massive, systematic, and quite unprecedented.
That is the sum and substance of Plaintiffs’ complaint, and by its very nature these questions, which attack the heart and function of the political system as having been constitutionally corrupted, are not susceptible to a merely political resolution.
The Plaintiffs in this case demand that the Court delineate the boundaries of the political and the constitutional, and declare and adjudge that the people of the United States have the right to delineate that which is the constitutional right of a politically powerless minority of the people to secure for themselves, and to protect the majority, even, from the follies of their own majoritarian blindness.
All the cases concerning the establishment clause, and the excessive entanglement of Church and State in this country, have been raised on behalf of minorities such a Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Quakers, and similar groups whose specific beliefs were offended by majoritarian laws enacted by political majorities.
Plaintiffs propose quite simply that the rule of taxpayer standing applicable to public support of religion, e.g. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 S. Ct. 1942, 20 L. Ed. 2d 947 (1968), be applied to the constitutional qualifications of the President. The general rule is that both federal and state taxpayers do not have Article III “case and controversy” standing to challenge a particular expenditure of funds simply because they are taxpayers. Plaintiffs submit that the Flast v. Cohen exception is applicable in this case, essentially for all the same reasons (including a focus on the fundamental rights secured by the First Amendment) that it was applied in that other case to which no other ready means of allowing entry to the Courthouse was possible. By application of Ockham’s razor, Flast v. Cohen offers the simplest, and for that reason the best, possible solution to the question of standing. It is appropriate because the First Amendment’s Establishment clause is analogous to the Article II “natural born citizen” clause as an absolute limitation on the unconstitutional exercise of power by government whose effect (i.e. injury) will always be by definition diffuse rather than particularized to any individual or group of individuals.

THE CONSTITUTION IS AN IMMUTABLE FRAME:
POLITICS ARE A MOVING PICTURE WHICH CANNOT EXTRUDE
Another way of putting this is that the “political question doctrine,” properly applied, should exclude court challenges to anything, which may be constitutionally done within the framework of the Constitution. It is well known, however, that different levels of scrutiny apply even to that which may (under certain circumstances), permissibly be done within the constitution[2][2]. But in no case should the ability of people to assert constitutional absolutes be limited or constrained, because of Congress and the President fail to abide by the Constitution, what recourse is there other than to the Court? Titles of nobility, bills of attainder, ex-post facto laws, and intergenerational “corruption of blood” are all absolutely forbidden, just like slavery. But so is the accession to the presidency of any person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States.
This case, the Plaintiffs’ status as a discrete and insular minority (which includes an exceptionally large number of members of the U.S. Military) has made them members of new class, scorned in the establishment press as “birthers”. Plaintiffs’ status as an ideological, politically powerless, minority arises from their constitutional devotion to the enforcement of a constitutional clause which, probably because of its simple and self-explanatory nature, has never before been judicially recognized as an enforceable right of the people to be pronounced and enforced in a constitutional court. Defendants’ attempt to trivialize the importance of the constitution and its mandates by arguing that any supposed violation of Plaintiffs’ individual rights is too slight to support standing.
Earlier in this Memorandum of Points and Authorities, an implausible hypothetical reintroduction of Slavery by popular plebescite in California was proposed as an example of a popular electoral act that would not receive even the slightest “political question” abstention nor demand that anyone be “enslaved” before a Court would declare this proposition to be unconstitutional. The redress would come in the declaration of unconstitutionality. Even if the proposed new slavery had no proposed “target class” of persons to be enslaved, it would doubtless be enough to say that “all Americans are offended if there is the chance that even one would ever be sold and reduced into slavery.” The offense to all Americans is likewise complete if a President was inaugurated on January 20, 2009, despite having concealed, disguised, and obfuscated his true natural born citizenship as that of another country.
So, the fact that this is a case of first impression does not render it frivolous. In fact, in this case, it is the Plaintiffs who rest their case on an express, simple, but sound constitutional mandate, and the Defendants who can find no constitutional text whatsoever to support their own position.
The Defendants’ open, and make a cornerstone, of their September 4, 2009, Motion to Dismiss with a rather curious confusion arising from their own difficulty in line-drawing between the roles of Congress and the Courts when they write:
Plaintiffs cannot use this Court to investigate and decide the President’s fitness for office or their related claims, however, without contravening the very Constitution that they purport to uphold, which provides that the Electoral College and the Congress have exclusive jurisdiction of such political disputes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plaintiffs have failed to meet the jurisdictional and statutory prerequisites or again seek to have this Court adjudicate issues that are textually committed to other branches.
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 56 at Page 8 of 32; Obama et al. Defendants Motion to Dismiss at 1, ll. 8-12.
The issues sought to be raised by Plaintiffs in this case regarding both whether President Obama is a “natural born citizen of the United States,” and therefore qualified to be President, as well as any purported claims raised by any criminal statutes cited in the First Amended Complaint are to be judged, according to the text of the Constitution, by the legislative branch of the government, and not the judicial.
Idem at 11, ll. 23-29,-12, l. 1
Plaintiffs and their undersigned counsel are astonished at this bold assertion by the Defendants of a precept of constitutional law, without any textual citation. The Defendants’ failure to cite or quote any language from the Constitution is understandable because the precept articulated above simply does not exist. Nowhere does the constitution or any statute or other law limit the direct power and right of the people to demand an accounting of the constitutional qualifications of their (even if duly) elected leaders, including a judicial interpretation of the “natural born citizen” clause of Article II, and a resulting judicial application of that interpretation to the President, even if that application includes a recommendation of removal:
In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 731, 51 S.Ct. 220, 75 L.Ed. 640 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 9 Wheat. 1, 188, 6 L.Ed. 23 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.
D.C. v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2788; 171 L.Ed.2d 637, 648 (2008)
A further source of the Defendants’ confusion and inability to draw proper lines and boundaries between historical custom and practice, on the one hand, and the right and power of the people to demand punctilious compliance with the plain letter of the constitution on the other, arises from their profound mischaracterization of this case as one exclusively concerning elections and electoral procedure and related law. Electoral law concerns the procedures for voting and allocation of representation among the population and geographic territory of the United States.
The Plaintiffs’ complaint in this case concerns the reserved rights of the people, specifically the fundamental First and Ninth Amendment rights of the people. The First and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution give power to the people individually and collectively, by and through all lawful means and not merely through the electoral process, to demand strict conformity and compliance with the elementary precepts of constitutional integrity. Defendants show their confusion of questions of electoral procedure with the constitutionally absolute rights of the people in writing:
Plaintiffs ask this Court to entertain a challenge to the 2008 election of President Barack Obama by requiring the President to disprove, in this Court, their innuendo alleging that he is not a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of the United States Constitution.
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 56 at Page 8 of 32; Barack Obama et al. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss at 1, ll. 4-8.
And then further:
This Court, therefore, is without jurisdiction to determine any issues related to the President’s fitness to hold office, and this case should be dismissed with prejudice and judgment entered accordingly.
Idem at 1, ll. 21-24
The word “people” is highlighted above because the Supreme Court has recently and importantly construed the rights of the “people” as having certain rights secured to them as a group. Indeed, Plaintiffs dare to approach this Court to assert that the enforcement of the letter of the Constitution is in fact a “Right of the People”:
The first salient feature of the operative clause [of the Second Amendment] is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (”The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.
Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”–the famous preamble (”We the people”), § 2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.
“‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”
D.C. v. Heller, supra, 128 S.Ct. at 2790-1; 171 L.Ed.2d at 650 (2008)(citing United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 108 L.Ed.2d 222 [1990])(bold emphasis added).
CONCLUSIONS
This response is timely filed on the Equinox, Monday, September 21, pursuant to Rule 6(a)(2) because of the intervening Federal Holiday on Labor Day. Plaintiffs pray that the Court deny Defendants’ Document #56 Motion to Dismiss in all respects, grant Plaintiffs’ taxpayer standing on analogy to the Establishment Clause standing authorized by the United States Supreme Court in Flast v. Cohen and/or, either in addition or in the alternative, find and hold that the First and Ninth Amendments expressly reserve to the people a generalized right to petition for redress of grievances caused by constitutional violations such as the establishment of religion or the violation of the “natural born citizenship” requirement of Article II.
Respectfully submitted,
Monday, September 21, 2009
The Equinox
By:__________________________Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., Attorney-at-Law
(California Bar 223433)
Attorney for the Plaintiffs
29839 S. Margarita Pkwy
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
ph. 949-683-5411
Fax: 949-766-7036
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
PROOF OF SERVICE
I the undersigned Charles Edward Lincoln, being over the age of 18 and not a party to this case, so hereby declare under penalty of perjury that on this, Monday, September 21, 2009, I provided facsimile or electronic copies of the Plaintiffs’ above-and-foregoing Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Defendants’ 9-4-09 (Document #56) to the following attorneys attorneys whose names were affixed to the “STATEMENT OF INTEREST” who have appeared in this case in accordance with the local rules of the Central District of California, to wit:
THOMAS P. O’BRIEN
LEON W. WEIDMAN
ROGER E. WEST roger.west4@usdoj.gov (designated as lead counsel for President Barack Hussein Obama on August 7, 2009)
DAVID A. DeJUTE David.Dejute@usdoj.gov
GARY KREEP usjf@usjf.net
FACSIMILE (213) 894-7819
DONE AND EXECUTED ON THIS Monday the 21^stday of September, 2009.
Charles Edward Lincoln, III
Tierra Limpia/Deo Vindice
c/o Peyton Yates Freiman
603 Elmwood Place, Suite #6
Austin, Texas 78705
charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com
Tel: (512) 923-1889

[1][1] Or for that matter an enlisted man, who takes a significantly different oath, which includes, significantly, [inserted after exactly the same language to take this obligation freely, adds the language] “and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice”.
[2][2] For example, content-based restrictions on Freedom of Speech should only be allowed on the most extreme of circumstances, whereas “time-place-and-manner” (e.g. “media or location specific”) limitations on Freedom of Speech are subject to only intermediate scrutiny, and restrictions on the content of purely commercial speech (e.g. commercial advertising) is often subjected only to the lowest “rational basis”- test of constitutional scrutiny.

BREAKING NEWS! PELOSI AND DNC KNEW OBAMA NOT ELIGIBLE!

2009-09-12T12:33:00.002-04:00

BELOW ARE THE STORIES YOU CAN CHECK THEM OUT AT THE SOURCE BY CLICKING THE TITILE OF EACH ONE!

What does Pelosi know about Obama's eligibility?

Online images for certification of nomination raise questions

A commentator at Canada Free Press says he has obtained copies of two documents apparently prepared by Democrats to certify Barack Obama as their nominee for president in 2008 that suggest House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew there was an unresolved issue with his eligibility under the U.S. Constitution.
Writer JB Williams describes himself as a "no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy." And he say's he's gotten possession of copies of the documents in question.
The first includes a verification that Obama and Joe Biden, then-candidate for vice president, "are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution."
One image of the certification for Barack Obama's nomination, including includes the affirmation Obama and Joe Biden "are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution"
The second form obtained by Williams appears identical, although the signatures are different, including the same strategic typographical error. But in this one, the verification of eligibility under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution is gone.
Another image of a certification, on which the certification of eligibility has been removed
"Now this is the stuff real conspiracies are made of!" Williams, who also maintains his own website, wrote. "Please allow me to connect the dots here…"
(Story continues below)
"The DNC drafted, signed and notarized TWO slightly different versions of their Official Certification of Nomination documents, not one," he wrote. "One of those documents had complete legal language, and one of them was missing the text concerning the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama.
"The version which is absent any certification of constitutional standing for the office of president is the version that was filed with every state in the country, and the one used by the DNC to elect Barack Obama president," he wrote.
WND contacted the Democratic National Committee multiple times over three days to request an explanation of the two images, including whether one might be a forgery. A spokeswoman in the press office confirmed, "We are aware of it," but declined to elaborate.
Likewise, WND contacted the office of Pelosi, but got no response over several days. And the White House declined to respond to multiple e-mails asking for a comment.
Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president's birth certificate documentation here.
"The fact that TWO DNC Certifications exist, both signed, dated and notarized by the same individuals on the same day, means that a very real conspiracy to commit election fraud was under way, and since it took until six months after the election to uncover it, the conspiracy was indeed successful," Williams wrote.
"Are you still wondering why Barack Obama has spent nearly $1.5 million in taxpayer's funds to race Department of Justice lawyers around the country to stop all cases questioning Obama's eligibility before discovery can force Obama to open up his top secret life?"
He described the discoveries as "actually very serious business."
"We are talking about the top-down leadership of the ruling political party knowingly and wantonly defrauding voters by way of playing monkey business with fraudulent election documents."
The documents show the "Official Certification of Nomination" of Obama, of "5046 South Greenwood Avenue" in Chicago and Joe Biden, of "1209 Barley Mill Road" in Wilmington, Del., as the party's candidates.
They were signed by Pelosi as chair of the Democratic National Convention as well as Alice Travis Germond, the secretary of the Democratic National Convention at its nominating meetings in Denver a year ago.
They were notarized by Shalifa A. Williamson of Denver.
Other bloggers also speculated that a document was signed with the verification of constitutional eligibility, and Democratic officials then decided to generate another without, suggesting at least an awareness of the issue involved.

CANADA FREE PRESS

The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don’t Lie

By JB Williams Thursday
-Please read update at bottom of article
Though we live in an era when all undesirable facts are often blindly labeled “conspiracy theories” by political operatives with an agenda at risk, a very real conspiracy unfolds every now and then.
While it is indeed true that not all theories are actual conspiracies, like when Hillary Clinton developed an imaginary “right-wing conspiracy” out to get her husband, when in fact, the semen stained dress provided all the necessary (but unfriendly) facts and a perfectly logical explanation for all of those nasty rumors – it is also true that some conspiracies are much more than just crackpot theory.
To be a bonafide conspiracy, two or more individuals must knowingly conspire, plot or plan an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious act. In politics or law, an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act, is a “conspiracy.” Not in theory, but in reality.
Such is the case today!
A political national committee, the Chair of the Party convention, the Secretary of the Party, Party offices in each of fifty states, and maybe many – many more, have knowingly and wantonly defrauded the American election system and more than 300 million American citizens.
They plotted and planned an act of evil, unlawful, treacherous fraud in a blind quest for unbridled political power, and they hoped that you would never catch it. They almost got away with it too…
They snuck it past fifty state election commissions, congress, the US Supreme Court and Justice Department, the Federal Elections Commission and countless members of the Electoral College nationwide. Not a single member of the, as Limbaugh says, “drive-by media” caught it either, or if they did, they decided to become complicit for their own political reasons.
But as is always the case with liars, cheats and thieves, they slip up – make a silly mistake – overplay their hand – leave evidence lying around that they had forgotten about. And as with all chronic liars, they eventually get caught in their own web of lies.
Then, one day, someone stumbles into that evidence, and the house of cards comes crashing down around them. It’s almost poetic…

The Mistake

Aware of the fact that Barack Hussein Obama does NOT meet Article II – Section I constitutional requirements for the office of President, what well-seasoned professional politician would be stupid enough to sign their name and stake their personal career upon certifying Obama as eligible?
Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates are nominated at their respective Party Conventions.
Believe it or not, each Party is assigned the duty of vetting and certifying the legal eligibility of their own candidates. I know, like asking the fox to guard the henhouse, right. But hey, we are talking about a country which still thinks there is a separation of powers between the High Court and the Executive branch, which seats that court by way of political appointment, confirmed by congress, which wants a piece of the judge and expects a few political favors too.

The Evidence

In this case, the Democrat Party was responsible for vetting and certifying Barack Hussein Obama as legally eligible to seek the Oval Office. The U.S. Constitution has only three very specific requirements for the job. The proper legal text used on the DNC Party “Official Certification of Nomination” document reads as follows, and I quote;

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

Click to enlarge
Yes, I know…. there is a typo in there. Not my typo, it belongs to whoever prepared the official document at the DNC. Did you catch it?
The document is signed by Chair of the DNC Convention and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, DNC Secretary Alice Travis Germond and Colorado Notary of Public Shalifa A. Williamson. It is dated August 28, 2008.
However, this document was never delivered to a single state DNC Office for state certification, and it was therefore, never presented to any state Election Commission as certification of these candidates, although I do have a copy of this notarized document myself.
Instead, a very similar document was delivered to fifty state DNC offices, which those offices certified to each of fifty state Election Commissions, who then date-stamped the document and stuck it in a file cabinet, and proceeded to place these “certified” candidates on the ballot.
The “Official Certification of Nomination” that was presented by the DNC in all fifty states for the 2008 Presidential election, in which Barack Hussein Obama became the new President of the United States, was almost identical, and it too was signed by Chair of the DNC Convention and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, DNC Secretary Alice Travis Germond and Notary of Public Shalifa A. Williamson, dated August 28, 2008.
But this version of the document was missing the following text, and I quote;

“- and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

The legal certification text on the DNC certified nomination document used for the DNC ticket was limited to, and I quote;

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:

Click to enlarge
Oops, another typo? The reference to Obama’s constitutional eligibility was missing… An accidental omission?
The text certifying that Barack Hussein Obama was “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution” had been removed from the document sent to the states. And yes, I have a copy of this version of the DNC Official Certification of Nomination letter too!
In fact, this version is in Election Commission files of all fifty state Election Commission offices, state DNC headquarters, complete with date stamps, matching signatures, even the same Notary of Public authentication, and absent the constitutional text.
Just in case you are wondering, the answer is yes. This version also includes the same typo present in the version not submitted by the DNC, but including the constitutional text, which means both documents have the same place of origin.
The individual at DNC headquarters who prepared this very important document was not only a poor typist… they were sloppy enough to leave both versions of the signed documents lying around.
Now this is the stuff real conspiracies are made of!

The Implications

Please, allow me to connect the dots here…

The DNC drafted, signed and notarized TWO slightly different versions of their Official Certification of Nomination documents, not one.
One of those documents had complete legal language, and one of them was missing the text concerning the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama.
The version which is absent any certification of constitutional standing for the office of President is the version that was filed with every state in the country, and the one used by the DNC to elect Barack Obama President.

Oh, there is one more important document in this story.
The RNC “Official Certification of Nomination” for John McCain and Sarah Palin reads, and I quote:

“We do hereby certify that a national convention of Delegates representing the Republican Party of the United States, duly held and convened in the city of Saint Paul, State of Minnesota, on September 4, 2008, the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of President of the United States, and the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of Vice President of the Unites States, were nominated for such offices to be filled at the ensuing general election, November 4, 2008, viz;”

Click to enlarge
The certification of constitutional eligibility is there in the RNC Certification of Nomination presented to the state Election Commissions. It’s there in the document which the DNC had prepared, signed and notarized, but did NOT deliver to the states.
But it is NOT there in the DNC Certification of Nomination that the DNC used to certify and elect Barack Hussein Obama President and Joseph Biden Vice President of the United States of America.
Last, the fact that TWO DNC Certifications exist, both signed, dated and notarized by the same individuals on the same day, means that a very real conspiracy to commit election fraud was underway, and since it took until six months after the election to uncover it, the conspiracy was indeed successful.
Are you still wondering why Barack Obama has spent nearly $1.5 million in taxpayer’s funds to race Department of Justice lawyers around the country to stop all cases questioning Obama’s eligibility before discovery can force Obama to open up his top secret life?
Now I realize that leftists, I mean liberals, no “progressives” – don’t like getting all bogged down in minutia and nit-picky details like the Constitution, but this is actually very serious business here. We are talking about the top-down leadership of the ruling political Party knowingly and wantonly defrauding voters by way of playing monkey business with fraudulent election documents.
As Al Gore once said, the debate is OVER!
There is no honest debate on the matter anymore. Obama is NOT a constitutional president, which is to say, we do NOT have a constitutional federal administration at present and every anti-American policy of the last six months is also, BINGO! – Unconstitutional!
What is still in question however – does any court in America have the backbone to do what must be done? – And what do the American people do, if not one court in the nation has that kind of constitutional backbone today?
Obama’s DOJ has thus far been successful in blocking the people’s access to the courts by claiming that no American citizen, including another presidential candidate, has “proper standing” to demand proof of Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the office he fraudulently holds.
To be very clear, the RNC nomination form filed with the states certifies that John McCain met all constitutional requirements for the Office of President. But the DNC nomination form filed with the states is absent any such language.
I know what I conclude from these facts, but what do you conclude from these facts?
More importantly, what will a court of law conclude? Will they ever even agree to hear the evidence?

The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don’t Lie

– Update 09-11-09
First, thank you all for your comments. It is vital to the future of our beloved nation, that every American patriot awaken from apathy and engage in the defense of freedom, liberty and justice. The comments on this story demonstrate that this is happening, none too soon.
I want to respond to several comments regarding this story.
I was first made aware of these two documents when an anonymous reader sent them to me. The documents were posted here — Document #1 and here — Document #2 and I provided these proper links in my September 9, 2009 column Tennessee Grand Jury Joins DOJ in Obstructing Justice.
A poster has taken issue with a couple typos in this column. They make a good point, but more importantly, prove a very important point about this story in that process. Typos are more common than not, and that’s why it is significant that the same typo appears in both versions of the DNC Certification document. Like my column typos, which spellchecker missed in both cases, they are a way of identifying the authenticity and place of origin of a document. I usually take great pains to cross all t’s and dot all i’s just to eliminate any opening to discredit a story strictly on the basis of a typo. In this case, the story is of such magnitude, that it was more important to get the word out than to wait for the normal editing process. My apologies for the typos, but they change nothing.
Upon seeing the two DNC documents posted, I contacted several state election offices and requested copies of the DNC and RNC Certifications filed and in all cases, received the DNC version absent the constitutional eligibility reference. Since the RNC document included the constitutional reference in all cases, and the DNC document did not in all cases, I made the assumption that the same documents were fax-blasted to all states. Some states date-stamp and some don’t. I have NOT viewed all 50 state filings. I recommend that each of you contact your state Election Commission office and obtain a copy of the document filed in your state.
It has been posted here that Hawaii received a version of the DNC Certification that included the constitutional text. I have not verified this claim due to time constraints. However, assuming that the “constitutional” version of the document was filed in Hawaii or other states, this only further raises the question - “why two different documents?” Contrary to the assumption made by the Hawaii Cert poster, whether a state requires Article II – Section I text in its certification process or not, the U.S. Constitution requires that all candidates meet those requirements. Further, asserting that only some states require the language in the Certification document explains why the DNC included that text in those certs. But it does NOT explain why the DNC omitted that text from all others. Why two certs?
The good news is – the Hawaii Certification proves that BOTH documents are authentic and official, that all matching signatures on BOTH documents are authentic and that the DNC used BOTH when only the one with constitutional text was necessary. It adds complete credibility to the story as both documents appear to have been not only drafted, signed and notarized by the DNC, but filed differently in different locations. Why not just file one version including the constitutional text?
Last, this story confirms that some form of a conspiracy to mislead and ultimately defraud voters took place at the top of the Democrat Party. No story in recent history is of greater gravity. Yet, some prefer to focus their attention upon John McCain, who was not only a well known war hero from a well known US Military family of distinction, but a Senate confirmed Natural Born Citizen who was NOT elected President. Others prefer to focus attention on a typo missed by spellchecker, and still others hope to derail the story by asserting that Hawaii’s doc changes the only question raised by this report – Why TWO documents? Why eliminate constitutional text from any of them?
This is a very typical strategy of the left, and its purpose is to deflect attention away from the real crisis at hand, and focus attention upon typos, other candidates not elected, and technicalities that change absolutely nothing about the story or the only question of concern, why two different certificates and why omit the reference to constitutional eligibility regarding a candidate who clearly does not meet those requirements?
I reported what I found in a clear factual manner, and even the comments seeking to discredit, further confirm the basis for the story. So, in the end, I must ask, what do you make of all evidence presented?
If I missed any typos here, I apologize!

I WILL NEVER FORGET!

2009-09-12T00:01:00.002-04:00

From the Blog of Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire

2009-09-10T16:08:00.001-04:00

Tomorrow at 2pm hearing for Captain Connie Rhodes MD in GA
September 10th, 2009
I just got word from Ms. Sweeden, clerk for District Court Judge for the Middle District of GA. We were granted an emergency hearing for Captain Connie Rhodes, MD, flight surgeon, who is scheduled to be shipped to Iraq day after tomorrow on September the 12th. Capt Rhodes states that she is willing to go to Iraq, as long as she knows that the orders going down the chain of command are lawful orders. We asked this case to be certified as a class action case, as she represents a whole class of plaintiffs situated in similar position. The hearing will be tomorrow at 2pm in Columbus GA, Federal Building 1201 12th street. Judge Clay D. Land courtroom. Judge Land was gracious and a real Southern gentleman in that he waived the technical requirement of a signature of the local counsel as a contact.

I hope that members of the military and other patriots of this country will be in the courtroom to support Cpt. Rhodes MD.

I will be making my travel arrangements shortly.

Let’s all wish them well!

Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire

Shocker! Judge orders trial on eligibility issue

2009-09-08T17:59:00.001-04:00

Check out the Link Below! Judge carter Kept his Word!!!!!

Shocker! Judge orders trial on eligibility issue

A Little Prayer

2009-09-08T12:49:00.001-04:00

God, you created us in your image and granted us free will. As with all of your creatures you granted us freedom in your ultimate wisdom. Now, I ask that you watch over Dr. Taitz and the plaintiffs and grant to Judge Carter the wisdom of Solomon that this Obamanation be removed from the backs of your people.

The Constitution is in the Balance on September 8th

2009-09-07T11:38:00.001-04:00

The mainstream media is currently in a frenzy defending the nationally broadcast speech to our school children by Barrack Obama on September eighth. This is just one in a string of many attempts to socialize our nation. In this attempt he tried to use the United States Department of Education as a tool to indoctrinate our children, complete with lesson plans asking our children to complete exercises in support of his agenda both prior to and after his speech. These were presented in the form of lesson plan ideas posted on the homepage of the Department of Education. Fortunately, Fox News and others caught it, and despite immediate spin, the Dept. of Ed. was forced to modify their requests.

The speech is still planned and many schools and school districts are now being bombarded by the calls of concerned parents and are being forced to come up with policy in regard to the speech. Schools in North Texas will not be showing it at all. Parents across the nation have decided to make it a “Skip Day” and to keep their children home in an act of civil disobedience. The actions of these parents is keeping within the finest traditions of freedom and protecting their rights as parents to educate their children with their own ideals and not those of the state.

Unfortunately, this very important issue is not the reason that I am writing this. Although monumentally important, there is an event that is taking place on the same day, at almost the same time. It is an ordinary event that is takes place hundreds of times a day here in the United States, at least on the days when the courts are open.

In a federal courtroom in California at 8:30 a.m. PT there will be a discovery and motion hearing held in the courtroom of the Honorable David O. Carter. Judge Carter, a former active duty marine and combat veteran, is the ONLY judge that has shown any willingness to honor his oath to “protect and defend the Constitution…”. He stated in the previous hearing that technicalities would not prevent the case from going forward and that “as a former Marine he recognizes the importance of having a constitutionally qualified president.” The case is Barnett et al v. Obama et al. Dr. Orly Taitz, attorney for the plaintiffs, is hoping for an order of expedited discovery. If granted, she stated that she would immediately head to Occidental College and then board a flight to Hawaii.

We can only hope that Judge Carter remains true to his word. We shall see by noon on Tuesday.

What a “Birther” REALLY is!

2009-08-19T14:54:00.005-04:00

What a “Birther” REALLY is!

What You’re NOT Told By the Mainstream Media

Todd C. Salzer
Free American Citizen and Patriot

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

The Mainstream Media has given a name to what they refer to as a “fringe group of the Republican base” that is defining the party by their craziness and unwillingness to let go of a conspiracy theory. The theory, they say, is that Barack Hussein Obama was not born in the United States and is therefore ineligible to be president. They go on to state that this has been proven NOT to be true and the fringe group is just unwilling to let go of the fact that they lost the election and now a black man occupies the white house. According to them, most if not all are racist and all of them have no business occupying the country’s time with their silliness and nonsensical argument. The courts have thrown out their cases because there is nothing to them. The mantra is: Barack Obama has proven his eligibility and if he hadn’t – someone other than this small group of losers, someone a lot smarter than them, would have figured it out by now. Their argument centers around a digital image of a Hawaiian “Certificate of Live Birth” that debuted during the summer of 2008 on a recently defunct Obama Campaign website, http://fightthesmears.org/. The term they have given the members of this group is meant to derogatory. It is “Birther.”

Well, I humbly disagree. My name is Todd Salzer and I am a Birther. I wear the label proudly.

First of all, I am neither a racist nor crazy. I am not prone to subscribing to the latest conspiracy theory. I did not think either John McCain or Barack Obama would make a good president regardless of personal heritage. I am just a normal guy, a former active duty marine, proud father, adoptive parent and foster parent. Three of my children are adopted from the foster care program and one of them is of mixed race. A current foster child that joined our family prior to the presidential election is 100% African American and may eventually be adopted by us. Not to brag, but I have a high enough I.Q. to have been invited to join Mensa, a venture that I consciously chose not to pursue. I am a “Birther”, I am proud of it, and I apply my own definition to “Birther” that has been constantly evolving.

Research into the matter of Obama’s eligibility now occupies much of my free time when I am not working or playing with my children. I have not written as much as I have over the last several months in all of the rest of the past ten years. My writing includes letters to my congressman, and senators, a little bit of posting and discussion on a few blogs and news sites, emails to a few news organizations and a little dabbling on my own blog at http://draft.blogger.com/www.politigogo.com. Now, as the mainstream media awakens in defensive posture to the subject of Obama’s eligibility, I am compelled to write this essay in order to explain my position, a position that I can voraciously defend with my research and the research of others like me, and to get it out to as many people as possible. I would love to find out tomorrow that I am wrong, but the deeper I dig the more convinced I become that I am right.

If I am right, then our republic has been stolen in a very well planned and executed coup de ‘tat. A complicit media is ignoring and/or obfuscating facts that are easily researchable and has embarked on a campaign to discredit and destroy any who would challenge their position. The CNN chief, John Klein, has even released an internal email as “news” where he outright lied to his staff by telling them that the original Hawaiian birth records of Obama were destroyed after Hawaii converted such records to a digital database in 2001. This was immediately refuted by Janice Okubo, the public information officer for the Hawaii Department of Health. Hawaii has NOT even confirmed that they provided the Certificate of Live Birth that first surfaced via the Obama campaign during the presidential election. Every American, regardless of political persuasion, should be pushing back against this with every last ounce of energy that they have.

This matter would already be settled if the press was acting honorably as it has in the past. The reasons that it is not operating thus currently are a matter of a different discussion that I will not address here. Fortunately, this applies only to the “mainstream” media and those of particular note. The Achilles' heel to their entire presentment is the proliferation of the internet. The alternative media has usurped much of the role of traditional media. That is why newspapers are failing and television viewership is down. The competition for viewership or readership, and therefore advertising dollars, has become increasingly stiff among the traditional outlets as the discerning consumer seeks alternate forms of informing themselves. Sensationalism has become the order of the day among the major networks in an attempt to attract this audience. One thing that can therefore be concluded from the monotonous response to the “Birther Movement” is that there IS an overarching continuity of coverage on the matter that is WAY out of the norm.

The single themed answer in all the major media outlets is essentially, “Obama produced his birth certificate during the campaign and it was verified by independent organizations such as Factcheck.org, Snopes.com and Politifact.com. If there were something the matter with his eligibility Hillary Clinton or John McCain would have used it in their campaigns. No more discussion, therefore, need take place.”

As a “Birther” it is not only my right, but my duty to challenge this. I therefore ask the questions the media should be asking:
1. Since when is producing a digital image the same as producing a notarized document?
2. Why is the digital image that of a document that does not contain defining information such as a hospital name and a doctor’s name?
3. Why was the “document” turned over to Factcheck.org for examination but NOT turned over to any of the people challenging its legitimacy?
4. Why hasn’t it been given to any member of the House of Representatives or a Senator for examination?
5. Why has no member of the House of Representatives or Senator asked to examine the document?

The major media never examine these questions and will not let them be asked in their venues. Yet, the story has broken and now occupies a great deal of marketable time on these networks over the last few weeks, especially among the cable news networks and their various hosts. In this normally very competitive arena common sense would dictate that the above questions be answered and debated among panels on these shows if for nothing else but the pure polarizing effect that these questions have in drawing responses from all sides that would be sure to sensationalize and drive ratings. But the questions are avoided at all costs. The ONLY thing that is ever presented is that there is a “fringe group” of “crazy people” that don’t believe the president is legitimate and they wave printed copies of the COLB as if it were the gospel. This should make the discerning television viewer deeply suspicious as it is such a departure from the norm as to be glaringly obvious.

But the viral growth of the “Birther Movement” is fed on these questions and many more such as:
6. Why has no one in government challenged the fact that the founding fathers’ definition of “natural born citizen” required that both parents be citizens at the time of a child’s birth and Obama’s father was NOT a citizen of any type of the United States before, during or after the birth.
7. The Senate, in regard to John McCain’s eligibility, confirmed the requirement of both parents being citizens with Senate Resolution 511 during the presidential campaign. (A resolution does not carry the force of law and the modification of Vattel’s definition of a “natural born citizen” in regard to place if birth is constitutionally questionable.) However, the fact that the Senate unanimously confirmed the resolution with the plural “citizens” (as parents) and the fact the THEY DID ADDRESS McCain’s eligibility when questioned but NOT Obama’s is glaringly obvious.
8. Why has no member of the House of Representatives or Senate asked to examine a copy of the long form birth certificate?
9. Why has Obama had his passport records sealed?
10. Why has Obama had his school records sealed?
11. Why has Obama had his medical records sealed?
12. Why has Obama spent so much money, over one million dollars, hiding these records instead of merely producing them.

The logical conclusion is that he knows that there is something among these records that would seriously challenge his claim to the office of the presidency. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Many of you may not know the true story of Benjamin Franklin who was confronted by a Mrs. Powell upon emerging from the last day of the Constitutional Convention. Mrs. Powell inquired, “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or monarchy? Franklin’s response was very profound, “A republic if you can keep it.” He knew the dangers of an over reaching federal government and the difficult task that lay ahead. Thomas Jefferson had this to say, “Who will govern the governors? There is only one force in the nation that can be depended upon to keep the government pure and the governors honest, and that is the people themselves. They alone, if well informed, are capable of preventing the corruption of power, and of restoring the nation to its rightful course if it should go astray. They alone are the safest depository of the ultimate powers of government.”

I would submit to you that we have lost our republic. When the elected officials no longer follow the will of the people but view them as a mob and dissenters, even dangerous terrorists, then we have moved to a tyrannical society with the federal government at its head. If any of you think this is extreme consider the evidence.

· The federal government seized ownership and control over two major automobile companies, firing the CEO of General Motors and forcing both into bankruptcy.
· The federal government has taken over more banks then there are states in the union.
· The federal government is attempting to nationalize one seventh of the U.S. economy in the form of “Healthcare Reform.”
· Ranking members of Congress, the peoples elected employees, are defining objectors as “mobs, Nazis, racists, monsters, partisans, terrorists and several other negative names. Everything except what they really are, American citizens exercising their right to “redress grievances”.
· Members of Congress have bussed in organized members of ACORN, Moveon.org, Service Employees International Union and various other groups. These groups have been allowed to fill the town halls prior to the meetings, thereby shutting others out. These “thugs” have been videotaped assaulting people and physically ejecting them from town hall meetings.

Anyone who thinks this is “conspiracy theory” or worse, unimportant, is the worst kind of citizen, “uninformed and uninvolved”. A simple glance at history will show
that these are the same tactics used by totalitarian regimes all throughout the 20^thand 21^st century in their rise to power. The complicity of the press, also a main ingredient in the rise of totalitarianism, can only be defined as treason. The result has always resulted in either one or both of two things. Subjugation of the citizens or civil war.

I am a “Birther”. I am informed. I am involved. I am proud of it.

In the evolution of my definition of the term I have come full circle in my realization of its meaning. It is synonymous with one other word in the English language: “PATRIOT”.

Chris Matthews Has His Ass Handed to Him!

2009-08-12T00:31:00.001-04:00

Chris Matthews makes every attempt to make this apparently well informed and patriotic American look like a whack job but the tables are turned!

Threats, media manipulation on Obama eligibility - We have proof (from The Northeast Intelligence Network)

2009-08-05T00:42:00.001-04:00

Threats, media manipulation on Obama eligibility - We have proof

For those not familiar with the Northeast Intelligence Network please check the “Staff” page on their website. The article above goes a long way in explaining the media complicity in the Obama cover-up. Please read it and pass it on to everyone you know.

Birthers Gaining More and More Attention

2009-08-01T01:28:00.001-04:00

This is a short list of recent articles that are among the ever increasing awareness of what is going on in our country. REALLY GOOD READING!!!!

The first, is from the Huffington Post!

“last campaign, John McCain faced similar questions and promptly responded by releasing his original”

Mark Joseph: The Only Thing Weirder Than The Birthers....

REPORT COMMISIONED BY FORMER CIA AGENT!

Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report

Lou Dobbs Doesn’t Back Down!!!

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105345

New Recipe: How to Bake A Communist State Cake (It’s Easy!)

2009-07-26T04:05:00.001-04:00

INGREDIENTS:
1/2 cup vanilla
1/2 cup imported chocolate
2 tons complicit media
2 tons secret donors
Smidge of political appointments
1 left leaning political party
Generous helping of community activism
1 Ivy League education
Ton of anger
Full set of empty promises
Team of political handlers
Law School
Lots of Smiles
Drugs
Alcohol

Mix vanilla and imported chocolate well. Where you do this is not important. Move mix to Muslim nation for several years and expose to anti-American sentiment. Bring to fringe state and enroll in expensive left wing prep school. Tell mix often that the country in which it resides is unjust.

Send to Ivy League schools on scholarship, (foreign if necessary), and donations from secret donors. Stir well with drugs and alcohol and add generous helpings of anti-American sentiment. Tell mix that it is special and has the ability to make everything better for everyone and make it all “fair”.

Send to law school but DO NOT publish any of mixes opinions. When mix has graduated, add to left leaning political party, place in liberal law firm in center of country and expose to community activism. Use smidge of political appointments to place on liberal boards and bribe officials to grant chairmanship on the board of any organization “for the children”. Make sure that mix learns political-speak well.

Use funds from secret donors and bribes to place in state legislature. Give minor assignments on “Civil rights” committees. Continue –anti-American training. Use scare tactics in general election with additional secret funding to have mix elected to national legislature. Give mix key-note speakership at national party presidential election. Keep mix well away from its own causes for the next four years and instruct it to voice opposition to current administration.

Use more secret funding to sponsor presidential campaign of mix. Use Political Handlers to stir in equal parts anger , smiles, complicit media and empty promises. Tell citizens you are going to make the best and most transparent “American” cake ever and show them the picture on the box. Allow mix to laugh and rise all the way to the top of left leaning party.

Bring to a boil until elected President. Place in Oval Office and begin to bake. Conceal all evidence of secret recipe and force agenda on citizens. DO NOT let ANYONE look inside of ANY of the mixing bowls or baking pans. If someone sneaks a peak tell everyone they are crazy and they don’t know what they saw. If any citizens get too noisy use complicit media to tell everyone they are just trying to make your cake fall, call them “crazies” and “racists” and that they are just angry that you are making the best American cake ever because they don’t think everyone should have cake.

Slowly gather all of citizenry’s rights and property while telling them you are just trying to make a bigger and better cake for everyone . Once you have gathered everything from everyone your cake is done!

Tell all of the citizens “Welcome to the Party”! Use rationing system to distribute crumbs to everyone that is still around. If anyone complains, show them the picture on the box again.

ENJOY!

Mainstream Media – Cowards and Conspirators

2009-07-22T14:11:00.002-04:00

Chris Matthews,

You Sir, are a joke of an interviewer and investigative reporter. Your one-sided display, although the norm for you, betrays your anti-American leanings. It is incumbent upon EVERY American to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. As Thomas Jefferson said, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance”.

Your recent interview of Congressman John Campbell is insulting to a VERY large and growing number of the American people and is obvious in both its intellectual and factual dishonesty. Fortunately, because of your low ratings, most will never see it. The only way I saw it is because it was linked to on an “anti-mainstream media” blog. Please be informed that we are neither stupid nor crazy but we are angry! This is evidenced by the applause and cheers supporting the woman in the video of the town hall meeting that you showed on your program with the John Campbell video. Congressman Campbell should resign for his unwillingness to stand up t o the facts.

Let’s outline your complicity in the cover-up of Barack Obama’s seemingly illegitimate presidency. But first, please be aware that even those who are just discovering the legitimacy of this controversy are aware that up until very recently all of the mainstream media has shirked its traditional duty and ignored the growing awareness. We are also aware that you and your colleagues are embarking on a campaign to discredit everyone involved on the side of right because of a couple of recent victories that our side has made. You will fail. You and the rest of the “mainstream media” have given up every last ounce of the little bit of legitimacy and integrity that you have in support of Obama. This will be your downfall.

We have legitimate questions and we deserve answers. The ONLY thing you have is a digital image of a “Certificate of Live Birth” (not a long form birth certificate) that has been in the eyes of most who currently know completely discredited and to most others “Highly suspect”.

I am only going to highlight a few of the MANY questions that are out there and that I am certain you are more than aware of. These should be plenty for any truly independent investigative reporting team to take off and answer. Might as well start now because you are going to have to eventually explain it to your viewers anyway.

The Legitimacy Question – Mainstream Media v. Reality

Chris Matthews and Mainstream Media

Reality

Obama produced his birth certificate a long time ago.

1. Obama HAS NOT produced a birth certificate. His campaign (not Obama) produced a digital image of a short form, computer produced, “Certificate of Live Birth”.

2. If downloaded from www.factcheck.org and opened with a text editor such as “Notepad” (which is on ALL Windows based computers) it can easily be shown that the digital image was modified using Adobe Photoshop”

3. The Hawaiian Department of Homeland WILL NOT accept a “Certificate of Live Birth” as proof and requires a “Long Form” Birth Certificate.

Obama is an American “Citizen” or “Native Citizen”.

Both of these have not been proved but even if they are TRUE – he is NOT constitutionally eligible and this is why:

The Constitution States in Article II Section I: …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; 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. …

The definition of “natural born citizen” at the time of the adoption of the Constitution comes from the internationally accepted “Law of Nations” by Vattel. It requires that the citizen in question be born of “parents” plural who are citizens of that nation.
This was to prevent divided loyalties and WISELY inserted and adopted as part of our Constitution.

Maj. Stefan Cook is “crazy” a “coward” and “has a political agenda”. He is alone among the military.

Maj. Cook is a 21 year veteran who is a combat veteran and is highly decorated. His “political agenda” is to the constitution of the United States of America.

Several member of the military, both active duty and retired, all the way up to the rank of Major General, are challenging Obama’s legitimacy in lawsuit.

The Courts have already thrown this out.

NOT TRUE! Some cases have been dismissed on procedural grounds, based on the “standing” of the plaintiffs. This means the judges have decided that even if the facts of the case are true, the individuals filing the cases did not have the legitimacy to file suit. Many of these are under appeal. NO JUDGE has of yet heard the case on the merits.

(By the way, why has Obama spent around 1 million dollars fighting these lawsuits instead of producing the documentation that is requested?)

Judges do not think there is anything to these cases so will not hear them.

LIE. See above and from July 14, 2009.

Judge David O. Carter is standing true to his oath and will give a fair hearing on the merits to Keyes et al v. Obama et al. This is a time for celebration if for nothing else than the fact that it is sure to expose more people to the truth behind Obama. Judge Carter, a former active duty marine who earned both the Bronze Star and a Purple Heart in Vietnam, is known for being a straight shooter and is not easily intimidated.
Attorney for Allen Keys, Dr. Orly Taitz, earlier this evening reported to Worldnet Daily that the Judge

“said as a former Marine he recognizes the importance of having a constitutionally qualified president.

While no attorneys appeared on Obama's behalf, several members of the U.S. Attorney's office in California were in attendance, and sought to intervene on behalf of Obama over his actions before becoming president.

The judge ordered them to accept service of the lawsuit immediately and then continued the case to an unannounced date.”

Well Mr. Matthews, let’s see where good journalism and fairness can take us. I’m going to sit over here and hold my breath.

Sincerely,

Todd C. Salzer
Patriotic and Informed Citizen

IF YOU THINK THIS IS GARBAGE READ ON…

2009-07-21T01:07:00.001-04:00

For any who think my postings here are all garbage, please read on.

First, a U.S. district judge has promised to hear the case of Keyes et al v Obama et al. He stated that he would not dismiss the case on procedural errors as he understands the necessity of having a Constitutionally eligible president.

Up until very recently, even the right wing major media has been silent on the issue of Obama’s natural born citizenship. But with the recent lawsuit by patriot Major Stefan Frederick Cook even they have not been silent. Recent mentions have taken place on Fox News Channel, Lou Dobb’s radio show, CNN and even Rush Limbaugh. Check out the exchange on Rush’s site right here: RUSH LINK.

Wait for these 2 cases to develop. Even with these cases people have commented to me that these are just individual cases and they are going nowhere. I heartily disagree for a number of reasons but the simple evidence on the under reported rise of American Patriots can

best be witnessed in the following video. The man at the microphone is U.S. Representative Mike Castle of Delaware. He is an 8th term member of the House of Representatives and is holding a town meeting in his home state that voted for BHO to the tune of 62%! The woman who makes her statement and asks a question is not identified in the video but when you watch the reaction of the crowd you will see how prevalent the “birther” movement is. Enjoy!

WTF? Foreign Troops? Training in OUR country to Police US?

2009-07-18T01:46:00.001-04:00

ATTENTION!!!

THIS IS NOT CONSPIRACY THEORY!!!! THIS IS FROM THE FEMA SITE!!!!
I have added the emphasis to show you the relevant wording but I have changed NONE of the words or punctuation. You can check it our yourself at: http://www.fema.gov/media/fact_sheets/nle09.shtm.

PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOUR GOVERNEMEN IS DOING!!!!

NEVER BEFORE!

Never before in the history of the United States of America have we felt the need to deploy or to train foreign troops on our soil to “protect” us. We do not have the need now. WHY IS FEMA DOING THIS???

IMAGINE MEXICAN TROOPS PATROLLING U.S. STREETS TO PREVENT TERRORISM. THES ARE THE SAME GUYS THAT CAN’T STOP THEIR OWN DRUG GANGS FROM TAKING OVER ENTIRE TOWNS!!!! YAY!!! LET’S GIVE THEM AN EASY JOB LIKE DISARMING LAW ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZENS UNDER MARTIAL LAW!!!! WHY DO YOU THINK TENNESSEE AND MONTANA ARE ENACTING LAWS THAT CLEARLY STATE THAT PRIVATE CITIZENS CAN RETAIN THEIR FIREARMS DURING MARTIAL LAW? GOOGLE IT!!!

FROM THE OFFICIAL FEMA WEBSITE:

National Level Exercise 2009 (NLE 09)

National Level Exercise 2009 (NLE 09) is scheduled for July 27 through July 31, 2009. NLE 09 will be the first major exercise conducted by the United States government that will focus exclusively on terrorism prevention and protection, as opposed to incident response and recovery.

NLE 09 is designated as a Tier I National Level Exercise. Tier I exercises (formerly known as the Top Officials exercise series or TOPOFF) are conducted annually in accordance with the National Exercise Program (NEP), which serves as the nation's overarching exercise program for planning, organizing, conducting and evaluating national level exercises. The NEP was established to provide the U.S. government, at all levels, exercise opportunities to prepare for catastrophic crises ranging from terrorism to natural disasters.

NLE 09 is a White House directed, Congressionally- mandated exercise that includes the participation of all appropriate federal department and agency senior officials, their deputies, staff and key operational elements. In addition, broad regional participation of state, tribal, local, and private sector is anticipated. This year the United States welcomes the participation of Australia, Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom in NLE 09.

EXERCISE FOCUS

NLE 09 will focus on intelligence and information sharing among intelligence and law enforcement communities, and between international, federal, regional, state, tribal, local and private sector participants.

The NLE 09 scenario will begin in the aftermath of a notional terrorist event outside of the United States, and exercise play will center on preventing subsequent efforts by the terrorists to enter the United States and carry out additional attacks. This scenario enables participating senior officials to focus on issues related to preventing terrorist events domestically and protecting U.S. critical infrastructure.

NLE 09 will allow terrorism prevention efforts to proceed to a logical end (successful or not), with no requirement for response or recovery activities.
(POLITIGOGO COMMENT: This is AGAINST THE LAW ESTABLISHING THE FEMA POWERS. THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY EMPOWERED FOR RESPONSE AND RECOVERY!!!! FEMA ONLY ASSUMES CONTROL IN AREAS THAT ARE UNDER MARTAIL LAW. THEY DISARMED EVERYONE AFTER HURRICANE KATRINA!)

NLE 09 will be an operations-based exercise to include: activities taking place at command posts, emergency operation centers, intelligence centers and potential field locations to include federal headquarters facilities in the Washington D.C. area, and in federal, regional, state, tribal, local and private sector facilities in FEMA Region VI, which includes the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.

EXERCISE OBJECTIVES

Through a comprehensive evaluation process, the exercise will assess prevention and protection capabilities both nationally and regionally. Although NLE 09 is still in the planning stages, the exercise is currently designed to validate the following capabilities:

Intelligence/Information Sharing and Dissemination
Counter-Terrorism Investigation and Law Enforcement
Air, Border and Maritime Security
Critical Infrastructure Protection
Public and Private Sector Alert/Notification and Security Advisories
International Coordination

VALIDATING THE HOMELAND SECURITY SYSTEM

Exercises such as NLE 09 are an important component of national preparedness, helping to build an integrated federal, state, tribal, local and private sector capability to prevent terrorist attacks, and rapidly and effectively respond to, and recover from, any terrorist attack or major disaster that occurs.

The full-scale exercise offers agencies and jurisdictions a way to test their plans and skills in a real-time, realistic environment and to gain the in-depth knowledge that only experience can provide. Participants will exercise prevention and information sharing functions that are critical to preventing terrorist attacks. Lessons learned from the exercise will provide valuable insights to guide future planning for securing the nation against terrorist attacks, disasters, and other emergencies.

For more information about NLE 09, contact the FEMA News Desk: 202-646-4600.
FEMA leads and supports the nation in a risk-based, comprehensive emergency management system of preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation, to reduce the loss of life and property and protect the nation from all hazards including natural disasters, acts of terrorism and other man-made disasters.

Last Modified: Thursday, 04-Jun-2009 11:54:54 EDT

Ready for martial law? They will

be!

A PATRIOT

2009-07-17T01:20:00.001-04:00

"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." - Mark Twain

From the Declaration of Independence:
”He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance….For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments….”

Today, walking among us, is a true patriot. Someone whose service to the country, defined as "We the People”, is worthy of the sacrifices of our founding fathers. Someone who is exposing the tyranny that our current government imposes.

This man stands on truth and principle and the powers that be are persecuting him at breathtaking speed. I’m speaking of U.S. Army Reserve Major Stefan Frederick Cook. His lawsuit seeking to clarify the legitimacy of his deployment orders because of the belief that Barack Obama is a usurper is nothing less than the boldest courage and an altruistic action taken not only on his own behalf but on behalf of all of his subordinates, whom he is duty bound to protect.

Having sought relief in the federal court system in Georgia, as he was to deploy from Ft. Benning, the Army rescinded his orders without his request less than twenty-four hours prior to his hearing. But things did not stop there, according to Orly Taitz’s blog, (Orly is Maj. Cook’s Attorney), he has been fired from his civilian job as a result of exercising his Constitutional rights at the order of the Pentagon!

Maj. Cook worked as a senior systems engineer and architect for Simtech, Inc. which was contracted through the Defense Security Services, an agency of the Department of Defense. Simtech CEO Larry Grice reported told Maj. Cook that it was the Defense Security Services that compelled him to fire Cook. This is brought to you by the same administration that thought it was okay to fire the CEO of General Motors. However, Maj. Cook will fight on as a true patriot for what is in the common good. This, folks, is the very definition of patriotism.

I stand with you Major Cook, as a former active duty marine. May God bless and protect both you and Orly Taitz and of there is anything I may do to personally assist you I am forever at your service.

Semper Fi

“…And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Technorati Tags: Orly Taitz,Obama,Barack,BHO,birth certificate,Constitution,tyranny,NWO,New World Order

Major Cook’s Orders Revoked! An Admission!

2009-07-15T01:19:00.001-04:00

Yesterday, July fourteen,less then one day prior to the hearing on the matter, Major Cook was surprised to find that his orders to Afghanistan were revoked.

This is a tacit admission from the Army chain of command that they can not defend against his claims. Major Cook did not make a request that the Army revoke his orders, it was done on the order of someone on high and “Privacy Act” claims were made by the Army as to the who and why. THERE IS NO DEFENSE! Now, every soldier who wishes may file a claim in federal court that they are not convinced of Obama’s eligibility and they can feel confident that the brass is listening.

Dr. Orly Taitz, attorney for Maj. Cook states that she will seek and order demanding the production of Obama’s long form birth certificate and other documentation that would clarify his eligibility to serve as President. Two articles on the subject are linked below.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/breaking_news/story/777472.html

FIRST HEARING ON THE MERITS!!!! LET FREEDOM RING!!!!!

2009-07-14T01:15:00.001-04:00

There is GREAT news for the Republic tonight! Finally, a judge who understands that we are a nation of laws, not of men, and the Constitution is the SUPREME LAW of the LAND!

Judge David O. Carter is standing true to his oath and will give a fair hearing on the merits to Keyes et al v. Obama et al. This is a time for celebration if for nothing else than the fact that it is sure to expose more people to the truth behind Obama. Judge Carter, a former active duty marine who earned both the Bronze Star and a Purple Heart in Vietnam, is known for being a straight shooter and is not easily intimidated.
Attorney for Allen Keys, Dr. Orly Taitz, earlier this evening reported to Worldnet Daily that the Judge

“said as a former Marine he recognizes the importance of having a constitutionally qualified president.

While no attorneys appeared on Obama's behalf, several members of the U.S. Attorney's office in California were in attendance, and sought to intervene on behalf of Obama over his actions before becoming president.

The judge ordered them to accept service of the lawsuit immediately and then continued the case to an unannounced date.”

These incredible developments are sketchy at the moment so no further comment is possible without being gratuitous embellishment so I will sign off here. CONGRATULATIONS AMERICA!!!!

The Confounder-in-Chief

2009-07-08T02:07:00.002-04:00

Please check the World Net Daily article linked below.
Obama birth mystery: More than 1 hospital
Many of us are confused as day to day about both words and actions that emanate from the BHO administration seem to conflict. One of the most enduring is the confusion among Barry’s confidants and acolytes as to which hospital on Honolulu, Queensland Memorial or The Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children, he was supposed to be born in.
It seems that his people forget this seemingly insignificant detail and which is the current story promoted by the Obama Camp. Not surprising, since his own campaign website states as of 1:16 a.m. this morning that it was Queensland Memorial. Further, a UPI story from November 4, 2008 states, “Obama described his birth at Queen's Medical Center in Hawaii Aug. 4, 1961, to a young white woman from Kansas and a father of Luo ethnicity from Nyanza Province in Kenya, as an "all-America" story transcending orthodox racial stereotypes and experience.”
It also seems that the revisionist usurper himself can’t keep his lies straight and has forgotten the story du jour himself since he signed a letter and sent it to the Kapi’olani Medical Center congratulating them on being the place of his birth. Below you will find a screen shot of the campaign site showing the Queensland claim and below that you will see the letter he wrote to Kapi’olani.

It’s just amazing that the mainstream media doesn’t call him on this crap. Just amazing!

An Open Letter to Congress

2009-06-30T16:00:00.001-04:00

To Our Elected Representatives of the 111^th Congress,

Almost 233 years ago an august group of courageously committed men signed off on a now famous open letter to King George with the following line:

“‘And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” (The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America)

Is there not one among you that bears that same courage of conviction borne by our founding fathers? Not ONE out of all 535 of you? NOT ONE?!?!?!

If there is not, then after the almost 233 years of our independent republic we have failed and the republic no longer stands and as we approach the eve of the 233^rd birthday of our great nation I would submit and declare the following:

Amongst the body of Congress there appears to have developed a pervasive attitude of privilege and rank that is antithetical to the Congress of the United States that I support and was designed by our founders. This was most recently publically demonstrated in the exchange between Barbara Boxer and Brigadier General Michael Walsh in which she asserted that she had worked very hard to earn her title as “Senator” and that he should address her as such. Ms. Boxer, if I may address you personally for a moment, maam, let me guarantee you that anything in your life that you have worked hard for and earned pales in comparison to what Brigadier General Walsh has earned. He would never demand respect as you did. It is not within his character. He does not have to because HE has earned it and now owns it and receives it from all who matter. This is something you will never have because you do not know how to earn it. Respect is not a function of title, wealth or ability. It is a description of character and is automatically and freely given to those who have earned it. Your “title” of “Senator” was not earned through hard work and it affords you no special demand for respect. Instead, it is the result of a popularity contest among the unpopular. In contrast, the General has volunteered to serve this nation, very often in austere conditions and always at great personal sacrifice for the last 33 years. In your professional life you have begged We the People for a job each election cycle. We, the General included, are NOT your inferiors nor your subjects. We are your employers.
Let me now move toward the main point of this letter. Prior to arrival, please know that I am NOT a subscriber to conspiracy theories. I am also neither blind nor stupid. I am also not alone. Many more are joining us each and every day as the word virally spreads. It is snowballing into an avalanche. There are millions of us and we are intent on informing millions more. Soon, we will not be a minority.

Finally, before I continue, let me offer my thanks. Because of you, our elected representatives, an unbelievable number of people are once again beginning to read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and are for the first time discovering a very simple truth that has been hidden over the recent decades by the education system, media and judiciary in this country. They are discovering that these documents were written and ratified in very simple, easy to read and unambiguous English. Many of the younger ones are also discovering that they are not quite sure they have ever had all of the rights guaranteed to them that are guaranteed by the constitution and they are researching as to when and why they may have lost those rights and who was responsible. To paraphrase a quote often mistakenly attributed to the Japanese Imperial Admiral Yamamoto after the attack on Pearl Harbor, “"[You] have awakened a sleeping giant and have instilled in him a terrible resolve". That is the sum of what I feel that I may currently thank you for.

Despite the media blackout on the subject, denial via belittling and dismissive form letters from your offices and the continuing campaign to marginalize us, our numbers continue to grow at an accelerated pace. We are not going away and we will be heard.
We KNOW these TRUTHS to be SELF-EVIDENT:

1. We KNOW Barack Hussein Obama has NOT produced an original vault copy birth certificate. Instead, his campaign published what they claimed was a birth certificate but is actually a short form called a “Certificate of Live Birth”.
     a. We KNOW that if the Certificate of Live Birth image is downloaded directly from Obama’s website and opened by way of a ‘text editor’ it can be plainly shown that the picture/document was altered via Adobe Photoshop prior to being published.
     b. We KNOW that the Factcheck.org “verification” of this same” birth certificate” is without value considering Obama’s close ties with the Annenberg Foundation, the angles and distance at which they shot the follow up pictures and their intentional misrepresentation of what Hawaiian officials have stated about the subject.
     c. We KNOW that the State of Hawaii issued such certificates of live birth, as a matter of law, to persons that both were and were not born in Hawaii, merely on the claim of ONE relative.
     d. We KNOW that Dr. Fukino, the director of the Hawaiian Department of Health DID NOT verify that Obama was born in Hawaii. She VERY CAREFULLY avoided saying so in her press release!
     f. We also KNOW that the Hawaiian Department of Homelands WILL NOT accept the same document, legitimate or not, from any Hawaiian as proof of birth and instead REQUIRES that the long form birth certificate be submitted.
     g. We also KNOW that Obama has spent a sum just either side of one million dollars to date in order to prevent this document from coming to light despite his promise of having the most transparent administration ever. It would not cost more than twenty-five dollars to produce his true birth certificate.

2. We know that the Selective Service registration card of Mr. Obama has been examined and contains a number of anomalies. We know that if he was not properly registered that, notwithstanding any other reason, he is ineligible for the office he now occupies.

3. We KNOW that he also refuses and is currently fighting not to release ANY of the following additional potentially damning documentation:
     a. Kindergarten records – They are mysteriously the only records missing among his classmates.
     b. Soetoro adoption records
     c. Fransiskus Assisi School application and records
     d. Punahou School records
     e. Occidental College records
     f. Passport and Passport Records
     g. Columbia College records
     h. Columbia thesis: “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament”
     i. Harvard College records
     j. Harvard Law Review articles (do not exist?)
     k. Illinois Bar Records
     l.   Baptismal certificate
    m. Medical records
     n. Illinois State Senate records
     o. Illinois State Senate schedule
     p. Law practice client list
     q. University of Chicago scholarly articles (do not exist?)

The Obama camp REFUSES to release any of these documents. These are the KNOWN list that would establish two things. First, they would confirm the citizenship status of Mr. Obama and thereby his eligibility or ineligibility to hold the office he now occupies. Second, the political philosophy or at least the roots of the political philosophy of Mr. Obama would become evident.

There is also the Constitutional question of what exactly is a “natural born” citizen. In my opinion, even if Barak Obama were born in Hawaii, he does not meet this definition. This was actually borne out and admitted to indirectly during the vetting of Senator McCain, who is ashamedly silent on this issue. Of course, I never considered him a viable candidate either despite the fact that he was eligible to run for the office. Yes, despite his VERY honorable service to our nation, I am challenging his courage to stand up for what is right. He DID stand up for what is right as a young man but I fear that his experiences as a young man and age have sapped his courage. There is no excuse, no matter how outlandish, that dictates the silence and cowardice of the entire Congress.

Without the production of these documents it is without doubt that Mr. Obama WAS NOT properly vetted in any form by anyone! Yet the Congress and media sleep. That is okay, the giant is awakened.

Gentlemen and ladies, there is a challenge that now exists in our country that is without comparison and threatens to become a Constitutional Crisis. Many would argue that it has already reached that level. There are several cases challenging the eligibility of Mr. Obama but no one except individual private citizens and individual members of the military have challenged the eligibility of Mr. Obama and those same citizens are being halted at every turn by the courts, not on the merits of their cases, but on the non-constitutional concept of “standing.” A premise, which even if granted legitimacy, is a concept when applied in this matter, is patently false. The individual citizen does suffer injury in almost innumerable ways if Mr. Obama is ineligible to hold the office that he currently occupies. Military members have the right to know if the orders they must follow are from a legitimate Commander-in-Chief, and thereby lawful. The Constitution was designed to severely limit the powers of government in order to preserve the rights and freedom of the individual and the body as “We the People”. No one EXCEPT citizens has “standing” under the Constitution and that same document GUARANTEES us the right to redress our grievances. Why is this not being allowed? Why are our elected representatives not guaranteeing that the Constitution is preserved as the Supreme Law of the Land and the rights of the people may be freely exercised?

Documentation not withstanding, these other anomalies are also SELF EVIDENT:

     1. The “President” of the United States has fired the CEO of a major corporation, General Motors, shortly before the federal government seized control of that same corporation. Where in the Constitution are these powers granted to the federal government by We the People?
     2. The federal government has seized more banks and their assets then there are states in the Union. Forty-five this year alone! Where in the Constitution is the Federal Government granted this authority by We the People?
     3. The federal government has seized control of a second major corporation, Chrysler, and dictated its restructuring. Again, where in the Constitution have We the People authorized this?
     4. The “President” has abandoned one of the historically great allies of the United States, Israel, a democratic freedom loving and constantly embattled nation, while apologizing to our historic enemies abroad and most recently is attempting to prop up the socialist dictator in Honduras. This is despite the facts that Israel is arguably more threatened now then at any other time in history and the Honduran Supreme Court nullified a referendum that the dictator is enforcing. Our government is abandoning the very principals that we have always stood upon.
     5. You, the Congress, are attempting to muscle legislation through, in the form of “Cap and Trade”, that is a prohibitive and liberty reducing bill even while admitting that it will create a burden on We the People. This bill is based upon the VERY questionable theory that human beings are causing cataclysmic global warming despite the fact that the leading climatologists tell us that we are entering a “cooling” period and that over the last 10 years global temperatures have consistently dropped.
     6. You are attempting to pass “card check”, at the behest of labor unions, which will destroy the time honored and necessary tradition of the secret ballot and replace it with intimidation.
     7. We the People have watched as the Attorney General declined to prosecute the most blatant case of voter intimidation ever recorded on video in this country.
     8. We the People have watched over the last few decades as the federal government has seized our public education system and forced teachings under the threat of the loss of funds (our own money) that most Americans do not agree with.
     9. The “President”, in collusion with members of Congress, is attempting to seize control of the entire healthcare system which will not only destroy the best health care system in the world but will result in the rationing of health care as well as further erode our freedoms. The federal government will have a free pass and open access into the most personal details of our lives as well as control over every aspect that could affect our health. This is not liberty! IT is being sold as a “Right”. Any “right” that would erode my freedom I will joyfully surrender for the liberty to pursue my own solution as the Constitution guarantees. Government, by definition, cannot provide or distribute anything that it has not taken from someone because it produces nothing.
    10. The “President” has recently fired three inspector’s general, the internal watchdogs of our bureaucracies, without cause and without due process. When the previous administration replaced a handful of federal district attorney’s, a move that has become traditional and IS within the authority of the President, there were calls for investigations and even impeachment! Yet now you do not act! I pray that these inspectors have the courage to file “Quo Warranto” suits against Mr. Obama directly challenging his legitimacy to hold the office and therefore, remove them from theirs. Considering the lack of courage or worse, the complicity of the Congress, I believe this will be the Republic’s best chance to recover our liberties and to reestablish itself as it was intended.
   11. Despite the dozens of lawsuits the ENTIRE Congress has refused to assert its authority to examine the eligibility of the “President” or to even address it in any manner. This is the same body that has historically subpoenaed witnesses, held hearings and authorized special prosecutors for the mere whisper of wrong doing among political figures. Despite the growing popular concern and unparalleled threat to our Constitution there is silence. We the People are asking, “Why?”. Your silence and inaction will not be forgotten.

Congress should immediately and unanimously pass a law nullifying all laws that have currently been signed by Mr. Obama as well as all executive orders that he has issued and should halt all other legislative activity until such time as the Constitutionality of his Presidency is either firmly established or proved illegitimate. Failing that, every single one of you, without exception, should immediately resign in shame in order to allow for your replacements as your individual state constitutions and statutes provide. Perhaps then, we as a nation can recover and restore our republic. It appears that you no longer carry the moral imperative nor exercise your sacred duty to carry on in office and conduct the business of "WE the PEOPLE. There seems to be no honor, sacred or otherwise, among the lot of you.

I could expand my grievances in great number and detail but it would be pointless until those included are resolved. Instead, let me just conclude with the following facts, We the People ARE NOT going away. We the People ARE NOT going to comply. We the People ARE NOT going to forget.

It would, however, seem that the Congress has forgotten “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” We the People have not forgotten this.

There is a VERY large number of American citizens that are beginning to believe that we have been the victims of a coup d'état. We watch, many of us silently, as our government performs tyrannical actions that even just one year ago would have seemed impossible in our republic. We now number in the tens of millions and are getting bigger and bigger and bigger. This cannot and will not go away until it is demanded of Mr. Obama that he produce the documentation and until the Supreme Court clearly defines the term “natural born citizen.” We know what our founder’s meant, relying heavily in our founding, upon the common law definitions of Vattel’s The Law of Nations. Since there seems to be confusion among the members of Congress, We the People would like it set in stone.

I am asking that someone, ANYONE, among you stand up in the tradition of our founding fathers and start the Congressional snowball rolling. There should be NO OTHER issue before Congress until this is resolved. We are watching and we will replace those that would subvert our Constitutional Republic by their actions or inactions.

May God bless and preserve the union and guide the hearts, minds and actions of those for whom this is intended and all who read it.

Respectfully Submitted,

Todd C. Salzer
Awakened American Citizen and Voter

!!!!BREAKING NEWS!!! That MSM IS NOT Reporting!!!

2009-06-03T15:49:00.001-04:00

!!!Barak Obama Admitted that He Could Not Pass Constitutional Muster!!!

From his recent C-SPAN interview:

SCULLY: William Howard Taft served on the court after his presidency, would you have any interest in being on the Supreme Court?
OBAMA: You know, I am not sure that I could get through Senate confirmation...
You can find the transcript here: http://www.cspan.org/pdf/obamainterview.pdf and video here: http://www.cspan.org/Watch/Media/2009/05/23/HP/A/18933/CSPAN+Interview+with+Pres+Obama.aspx

This of course is par for the course! But there's more:

The White House recently opened a website entitled: OPEN GOVERNMENT DIALOGUE for commentary and voting from the public with the following mission statement:

"How can we strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative?"

But the supposed "open dialogue" is subject to government censors! I read much of this site yesterday and what has disappeared today is ASTOUNDING!!!! OPEN GOVERNMENT DIALOGUE MY ASS!!!

Many of the top posts and commentary have been removed and NO ONE in the Mainstream Media is reporting this!!!! These posts requested that Obama make available his original long form birth certificate, (not the PROVEN forged short form COLB that he has posted and DID get press attentionas a LEGITIMATE form of proof despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.) as well as his college records and passport records. For evidence that the one provided by OBAMA'S minions is a forgerery begin here: COLB FORGERY

For more on the story go here: CENSORSHIP AT WHITEHOUSE!

The simple truth is this: No one is asking for the world here. We are simply asking that he produce the same documents you and I would have to produce to get a duplicate social security card, apply for a professional license, apply for a passport, take advantage of state tuition breaks in higher education, register our children in Little League, become a polie officer or fire fighter or many other very common tasks. Why should we request the same from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

Of course, I MUST give recognition where it is due. Fighting this sort of thing is old hat for the Democratic Party that long pre-dates the Obama Conspiracy. After all, these are the same people that have been successfully fighting having to show a picture I.D. before you vote and trying to hand out legal i.d. to illegal aliens, ("undocumented workers" for those of you leaning left). Damn! I wish we'd won that one already - then this discussion would not be necessary.

S.O.S. (SAVE OUR STATE!)

2009-05-20T01:49:00.001-04:00

There is nothing you can tell a moron that will make any sense to him. By the time the last word is given on the eligibility of Barrack Hussein Obama the country will be so steeped in socialism you will not be able to find the Constitution. There is no hope unless people like us band together and wholly reject the proposals of Pretendant Obama before it is too late.

We need to band together NOW in order to force him to produce the same documents we would need to supply in order to register our child for Little League, apply for a position on a police force or fire department, obtain a professional license or join the military. WHY should it be different for the President of the United States? Just to give you a taste of the State of the Union please click any or all of the links below.

Birth Certificate Billboards
Pedophile Protection Act
GM BANKRUPTCY PLAN: QUICKIE SALE TO GOVERNMENT
The Cost of Free Government Health Care

Need I go on? Don't worry, I will. There is Definitely more to speak of but that is a good start!!!

Now, check out this woman! This is what being an American Patriot is all about!

ORLY TAITZ
Her official blog: ORLY'S BLOG!

See you soon!!

Between Friends

2009-05-18T01:02:00.012-04:00

This is an email I received from someone I recently met at work and my response to that email.
He is a retired Chief Petty Officer of the US Navy and an OBOMORON. I am trying to educate him.

THE EMAIL:

Copy and paste link

http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/elections/presheadlines/35721884.html
Read entire article to the last Paragraph where it states

But state officials in Hawaii say they checked health department records and have determined there's no doubt Obama was born in Hawaii.
The nonpartisan Web site Factcheck.org examined the original document and said it does have a raised seal and the usual evidence of a genuine document.
In addition, Factcheck.org reproduced an announcement of Obama's birth, including his parent's address in Honolulu, that was published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961.
(Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
I bet you have an answer for that to!
The link for his birth certificate is located in related content at left of page

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69126
Here is another article about his birth Certificate

Do a Google search On President Obama Birth Certificate Fact or fiction and several link will show up
take your pick and see for yourself

I think no matter how many articles you read you will still be a non believer.
We live in a democracy and the people (majority) have made there decision for good or bad
now we have to deal with it...
Jay

Jay

______________________________________________________

Hi Jay,

This is going to be rather long but I sincerely hope you read it all.

In the main body I will attempt the following:

First, I will address the issues that you raised in your email which I understand to be:

1. But state officials in Hawaii say they checked health department records and have determined there's no doubt Obama was born in Hawaii.

2. The nonpartisan Web site Factcheck.org examined the original document and said it does have a raised seal and the usual evidence of a genuine document.

3. In addition, Factcheck.org reproduced an announcement of Obama's birth, including his parents' address in Honolulu, which was published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961.

Second, I will present some information, well researched and referenced that will allow you to not only go behind me but beyond me in verifying the information I present. This will not be, as you stated in person, “twisted any way someone wants and someone else can come and twist it to just the opposite. As you will come to see, it will be well researched and annotated (maybe even footnoted and/or end noted if I decide to get really in depth. But at the very least it will enable YOU to duplicate and expand the research I have committed to.

When I report a fact I will provide supporting evidence or the path for you to find it and when I report opinion I will clearly state that it is an opinion and when appropriate provide the credentials of whoever is offering the opinion. Failing that, I am certain that I will at least educate you about some things you did not previously know and in the process gain a friend. That is something I will enjoy.

I only ask that if you see an annotation, foot note or link to a website that you immediately follow that annotation, foot note or hyper link before moving on. The purpose for this is twofold. One is to prevent you from dismissing information that I present “out-of-hand” so that you can see what I present IS fact based or very well reasoned opinion. The second is that it will have contextual merit and will enhance and stimulate your own thinking and consideration as you progress to the end.

Now, before I get started, I wish to briefly address one other statement you made because it is central to my personal beliefs and will be thematic throughout this presentation. It will also give you a good idea as to who I really am as a person. The statement to which I am referring is:

“I think no matter how many articles you read you will still be a non believer."

We live in a democracy and the people (majority) have made there decision for good or bad now we have to deal with it...”

I am going to break your statement down into its component parts:

1. “I think no matter how many articles you read you will still be a non believer.” This part of your statement is probably true. However, it is NOT due to ideological blindness but rather it is due to logical reasoning based on two main facts.

a. Barrack Obama HAS hired teams of lawyers to fight the various defunct and active lawsuits around the country challenging his eligibility to be President. This has cost a tremendous amount of money already and will continue to cost more. Some estimates have it well over a million dollars in personal funds and over two million from the Democratic National Committee at this point. The actual dollar amount aside, the one question that is glaringly obvious is “Why would he spend so much money to stop these lawsuits if he has nothing to hide rather than simply produce the requested documentation?” This is the “President” who promised transparency in his administration. The answer, of course, is that there is no logical reason other than that there IS something to hide.

b. The second fact is that I have never and will never rely on news articles to sway my opinion one way or the other. This applies especially to those articles that are poorly researched or intentionally misstate facts.

2. “We live in a democracy and the people (majority) have made their decision for good or bad now we have to deal with it...”

A. First of all, the word, DEMOCRACY, representing the form of government that exists as the United States of America’s form of government has been misused for decades now. The federal government of The United States of America was not designed as a democracy and it has never existed as such. In fact, our founding fathers, all of them highly educated men, feared establishing a democracy because they understood the definition and consequences of a democracy AND they knew the history of every democracy that was ever attempted and their abject failure and demise. Instead they established a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

The difference is:

Democracy = mob rule. It does not care for the rule of law but only for the rule of the majority. In a “pure” democracy every public issue of consequence would be put to the vote of every citizen and the majority would always win. Obviously, this does not allow for ANY protection of a minority as any pre-existing protection could be simply voted away by the majority.

Constitutional Republic = A form of government where the people elect representatives to make and enforce the law based on a Constitution. As John Adams, one of our founding fathers put it, “a government of laws, and not of men.”

Nowhere within the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States of America will you find the word democracy but you will find the word republic throughout. Then, of course, there is the Pledge of Allegiance” I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.”

We DO NOT have to deal with the will of the people or the majority of the people, good or bad. That is THE beauty of living in a republic versus living in a democracy. My fear, (and it started long before Barrack Obama came on scene), is that our republic has been and continues to be severely eroded. But that, Jay, is a conversation for another day.

Before I directly respond to your email there is one more thing I must remind you of, and that is the oath that you took several times over during your career in the United States Navy. Here it is in case you do not remember it:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; (and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.) So help me God...”

Let's start with the relevant definition of “oath”. From http://www.merriam-webster.com/

1 a (1): a solemn usually formal calling upon God or a god to witness to the truth of what one says or to witness that one sincerely intends to do what one says (2): a solemn attestation of the truth or inviolability of one's words.

b: something (as a promise) corroborated by an oath.

This means that you promised before God to defend first and foremost the Constitution of the United States of America against ALL enemies whether they be from outside or inside the country and that you will believe in (bear true faith) and remain loyal (bear allegiance) to the same Constitution. PERIOD. (a semi-colon acts to complete a thought or distinguish unique parts of the same thought in written English. It serves in one sense as a period when a period is not used.) If your word is ANY good at all it can get no more basic then abiding by the OATH you made on several occasions.

In the second part of the oath you promise in addition: “and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.) So help me God...” This presupposes via the first part that the president's and therefore the subordinate officers' orders are legitimate and that in fact the president is legitimate. If you are presented with evidence to the contrary and choose to ignore it rather than investigate the information, then you have in fact proved that the oath you took was meaningless and your word as a man, God fearing or not, is worthless. I truly did not get that sense about you and I hope that you do not prove me wrong. Having uttered the oath it is your solemn duty to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Now that I have dealt with all of that I feel a little bit vindicated but we still have much ground to cover. Just so you know, I wanted to be a United States Marine since I was a small child. Although the school systems had already begun to change I was very lucky in that I spent my primary years in a parochial school that still believed in teaching history as a report of past events versus a sociological discussion of the way things might have been if only this or that was done or as a revisionist discussion that ignores the actual contributions of our founding fathers and the miracle that they brought forth upon this continent.

I am a die-hard patriot that truly believes that the United States of America is by far man's greatest accomplishment in its original design and that it is and has been THE beacon of light for oppressed people throughout the world. I further believe that forces within our nation have actively worked to undermine the system that our founding fathers created and have entrusted to each succeeding generation. It is our turn to stand up for what we believe in or turn tail and run. I, sir, am standing and facing into the wind, saddled up and prepared for the ride.

Now, Jay, I will address your assertions as supported:

1. But state officials in Hawaii say they checked health department records and have determined there's no doubt Obama was born in Hawaii.

This statement is patently false. The truth of the matter is that a single state official, a registered Democrat in a Democratic Administration, made a single statement that did not at all resemble the report of it made by the AP and redistributed by news sources including the article that you referenced at http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/elections/presheadlines/35721884.html.

The actual official press release may be found here at the state of Hawaii’s official Government site: http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf.

The relevant statement versus the AP claim is, “Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

As you can see, this is a far cry, from the claim made by the AP. There is nothing in her statement that indicates that he was born in Hawaii or that the birth certificate that is on file is even a Hawaiian birth certificate showing that he was born in Hawaii. Further, the article that you cited stated that officials, with an “s”, had made such statements. NOT TRUE, Dr. Fukino referenced another official, also a Democrat, who as of this writing has still not commented on it. Jay, words mean things. It is VERY important to note that the carefully crafted press release DOES NOT state that they confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii. ONLY the media made that claim that they had.

On to your 2nd point as listed in your original email”

2. The nonpartisan Web site Factcheck.org examined the original document and said it does have a raised seal and the usual evidence of a genuine document.

The complete name of the site http://factcheck.org/ is:” Factcheck.org Annenberg Political Fact Check”. This can be confirmed by simply visiting the site and reading the title on the homepage.

NOW HEAR THIS:

Senator Obama was the first Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Division, or Project, of the Annenberg Foundation. It was a failed attempt to alter the Chicago school system to train a future work force rather than classically educate the children of Chicago. VERY interesting reading can be started from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge.

As you will see, Bill Ayers was and remained neck deep in this. As you do your research you will discover that Barak Obama, like Ayers, is a communist. The major difference is that Ayers admits it and was only one of MANY mentors in socialism/communism that helped to form Barak Obama. You will learn this by his membership in all of the organizations he has belonged to as well as the philosophy of his early statements and writings up to and including statements he made as a United States Senator prior to his campaign for the Presidency. You will also see that Bill Ayers WAS deeply involved in the development of Obama, his candidacies and his political philosophy.

So, Barak Obama is a little too close to the Annenberg Foundation to rely on them for a valid opinion. The relationship goes much deeper than this, but I will leave that up to you to discover.

Also, even if the document was genuine, it is a Certificate of Live Birth and NOT a long form Birth Certificate and it does NOT indicate that he was born in Hawaii. Hawaiian law allowed and still allows parents of children born abroad to register the births in Hawaii as long as one parent is a resident of Hawaii. From the official Government of Hawaii website: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html, “Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country.”

The presentation of the long-form birth certificate stating the hospital and having the attending physician’s signature would have quelled these rumors long ago and perhaps halted the investigations of many people into the actual facts and other issues besides the legitimacy of a birth certificate that present a problem for Obama. But I will get to those in a little while.

BY THE WAY: The State of Hawaii DOES NOT accept a certificate of live birth as proof of natural born citizenship for their Department of Home Lands: “In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.” This can again be found on the official website at: http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl. Yet we are supposed to accept it as definitive proof that he is in fact a natural born citizen?

Now, for you third and final assertion:

3. In addition, Factcheck.org reproduced an announcement of Obama's birth, including his parents' address in Honolulu, which was published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961.

http://picasaweb.google.com/POLITIGOGO/BloggerPictures?authkey=Gv1sRgCPyfs_qk2Nf2Rw#5337006211905327506

Proud grandparents everywhere list the birth of their grand children, as you can see, the only thing stated in the announcement is that a child was born on August 4, and the parents name and address. There is nothing in the announcement to indicate that the child was in fact born in Hawaii. Enough said about that!

Now, I am going to list for you ALL of the problems to date with Obama’s status as a natural born citizen that have nothing to do with his birth certificate! Let’s assume for the moment that he WAS born in Hawaii!

This is from www.defendourfreedoms.org/flysheet.html

Top Ten Things That You Should Know About
Barack H. Obama’s, (a/k/a Barry Soetoro) US Citizenship

1. He may not be a natural born citizen qualified to serve as President under Article II of the Constitution

2. He is a suspected illegal alien for two possible reasons

3. He took elected office and was admitted to the Illinois Bar under an alias He admits he was born to an American mother and a British subject, suggesting dual citizenship at best. If he was not born on U.S. soil, and his mother was a minor, she was ineligible to convey US citizenship. Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, he was born a British Citizen. His paternal grandmother claims to have attended his birth in Kenya. Kenya memorializes his place of birth.

At age 3, his mother and father divorced. His mother remarried and his step-father enrolled him in school in Indonesia as "Barry Soetoro."

At age 10, after his mother's second divorce, he reentered the US by casually and illegally assuming his birth name. Later still, he ran for and won elected office under his birth name without disclosing his legal name or his prior use of alternative names.

No record of any legal name change from ‘Barry Soetoro’ to ‘Barack Obama’ has ever been found.

4. He probably lost his citizenship. An Indonesian citizen at age 6 , having been adopted by a national, he may be in the US illegally. USC §1481(a)(2) provides loss of nationality by natural born citizens upon "taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state ... after having attained the age of eighteen years," in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1401(a)(1). Indonesia did not allow for dual citizenship. If Obama got an Indonesian passport in 1981, when he was 20 years old, he effectively renounced any U.S. citizenship he may have had.

5. He is suspected of secretly holding a foreign passport. When he traveled to Pakistan ‘in college’, Americans were not allowed into that country. If he traveled on an Indonesian passport in 1981 at age 20, he was and remains an Indonesian citizen.

6. He posted an illegitimate birth record to deflect questions and allegations.

7. The Certification of Live Birth is a suspected forgery. The "Certification of Live Birth" shown on FightTheSmears.com is not a birth certificate, but an image of an abstract that was invalidated by alteration. As indicated on that same image, the blacked out certification number invalidates the document. Document analysis shows it to be a suspected forgery.

The border is one that is used in 2007 COLBs. As a security measure, Hawaii changes their borders every year. This is when the Obama campaign claims the certificate was obtained. However, the seal and signature stamp are from a 2008 COLB. As revealed by a process called edging, the Hawaiian seal and signature stamp on the back of the document are revealed to be from the wrong year. Document experts have analyzed other aspects and find forgery.

8. He refuses to release relevant records. Since matters available in the public domain raise these issues, the burden rests on Obama/Soetoro to explain. He declines to release college applications, transcripts, his birth record, or addresses of where he has lived.

9. His selective service registration may be falsified. A FOIA document shows a 2008 sequence number for a supposed 1980 registration, an incorrect date of signature, an obsolete postal stamp and other discrepancies. Did he register at age 18 like everyone else?

10. Not a single cause of action has been won by Obama on the merits. All pending suits attempting to get Obama/Soetoro to produce simple documents have been dismissed on technical grounds such as the standing of the plaintiff. Therefore, the courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States have never ruled on the merits of his citizenship.

The movement is growing Jay. I hope that this inspires you to look beyond “CHANGE” – and look back to your oath.

I hope this finds you in good health and as always you have my very best regards.

Semper Fi,