ACTION

Right ON!!

Posted on American Thinker-By Cindy Simpson-On January 6, 2012:

“By avoiding the contentious question of Obama’s “natural born” eligibility, America’s academic establishment has also stifled discussion on the inextricably related issue of citizenship law in our country, in the greater context of immigration reform.

The first instance of academia’s cloak-throwing was noted in an American Thinker article which described the revision made by Professor Larry Solum to his scholarly paper that addressed Senator McCain’s eligibility, “Originalism and the Natural Born Citizenship Clause.”  The original version was published in 2008.  Without saying it explicitly in his footnote of explanation, Solum’s revision implied, subtly, that he also supported the eligibility of Obama, with his one citizen parent instead of two—yet Solum did not include citations or references that defended his rationale for the change, nor has he published papers since that discussed this aspect of the issue.

Solum’s unsupported rewriting was mentioned again in the more recent article, “The Great American Memory Hole.”  That column also described the strange and related story of “JustiaGate”—the “mangling” of text and citations, for approximately a three-year period beginning mid-2008, on Justia’s database for 25 Supreme Court decisions that directly cited the particular case of Minor v Happersett.  It so happens that Minor contains a succinct definition of “natural born” citizenship (essentially, born in the country to citizen “parents,” plural) that attorney Leo Donofrio contends represents binding precedent.  In addition to the anomalies noted at Justia, Donofrio discovered a complete block of relevant text missing from Ex Parte Lockwood at Cornell—a case that Donofrio argues further proves his assertion that Minor’s statements on citizenship are binding precedent vs. dicta.

Cornell’s Professor William Jacobson countered that Justia is not utilized by “practicing lawyers,” but it is revealing to note that both Jacobson’s Legal Insurrection blog and the WSJ Law Blog, for example, recently and frequently link to Justia’s Supreme decisions, and that Google searches often list Justia as a top hit—reinforcing the reality that Justia’s Supreme Court database does indeed maintain a significant voice in the court of public opinion. 

Shortly after Donofrio’s findings and further claims regarding the precedent set by Minor, Professor Jonathan Turley published a post by contributor David Drumm entitled “Holdings, Dicta, and Stare Decisis.”  The last sentence of Drumm’s post refers to the Wikipedia article on Minor as further support for his assertion that the “natural born” comments are dicta; however, that particular Wikipedia entry was revised only a couple of months ago (soon after Donofrio’s assertions) to include the very paragraph that Drumm cites.  Comments on Drumm’s post now number over 1,300, bearing witness to an ugly war that continues to rage among anonymous commenters.  The revision history for the Wikipedia entry reveals similar battle scars.

“In the Spirit of Truth,” Donofrio has, via his “Natural Born Citizen” blog, invited other attorneys to directly challenge his assertions:

The definition of natural born citizen in Minor v. Happersett is binding precedent;  Ex Parte Lockwood acknowledged Minor as precedent for the definition of federal citizenship; and the statements in Minor fit the description of precedent established by the Court in Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States.

Will any accept the offer, or, along with other legal academics, will attorneys continue the “bizarre birther intellectual dance” described by Jacobson that sidesteps reasonable questions of law and spins around only the infamous birth certificate?

In his original paper, Solum’s description of “natural born citizen” closely followed Justice Waite’s wording in Minor, yet Solum indicated that the meaning of the term simply derived from “general agreement.”  (Solum attributed his later revision to “a matter of inclusion.”)  I have been unable to locate other articles addressing the eligibility of either candidate that examined the Minor definition.  That is astonishing, for whether the statements in Minor were dicta or precedent, they were still directly relevant; yet many insisted that the term “natural born” had never been defined by the Court. 

In early 2008, at the request of the McCain campaign, Professor Laurence Tribe and former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson presented a memo to Congress stating their opinion that McCain was a natural born citizen, though born in the Canal Zone, “by virtue of his birth ... to US citizen parents.”  The memo became the basis for Senate Resolution 511, co-sponsored by both Obama and Clinton, clearing the path for McCain’s eligibility.

Professor Gabriel Chin responded to the Tribe/Olson opinion in a lengthy analysis titled “Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship.”  Chin quoted the Minor natural born definition in a footnote but without further elaboration.  In his conclusion, Chin noted that the statutes that precluded the eligibility of McCain, whom he described as “not only not a race-baiter but disapprov[ing] of race discrimination,” were the result of “antique technicalities of the legal regulation of race.”  Although Chin did not mention it, the fact that those who raise the issue of Obama’s eligibility are called racist seems even more ironic.

In 2011, describing “birthers” as focused only on Obama’s place of birth, Chin asserted that “neither the Supreme Court nor Congress has weighed in on the question” of natural born citizenship—neglecting to recall his own reference to Minor and specific citation of its definition in his 2008 paper.

Professor Peter Spiro, in his 2008 scholarly article supporting his favorable opinion of McCain’s eligibility, concluded with this general remark: “The prospect of a dual-citizen president proves the obsolescence of requiring our chief executives to be natural born citizens.”  Spiro’s statement appears to suggest that dual citizens are not natural born, yet he did not acknowledge the dual citizenship claimed by Obama on his campaign website and further confirmed by the State Department.  Factcheck also affirmed Obama’s dual citizenship, but dismissed it as irrelevant based on the opinion of an anonymous blogger.

After Obama released his long-form birth certificate in 2011, Spiro published another article, “Birthers’ Next Line of Retreat: Obama was a Dual Citizen!” in which he denigrated “birthers” as “conspiracists,” called the dual citizenship question a new “bizarre sideshow,” and referred readers to the “excellent explanation from factcheck.org.”

In the 2008 article on McCain, Spiro asserted: “Constitutional questions do not require constitutional decisions. If non-judicial actors—including Congress, editorialists, leading members of the bar, and the People themselves—manage to generate a constitutional consensus, there isn’t much that the courts can do about it.” 

However, Spiro and other academics have failed to similarly address Obama’s eligibility, much less with a level of scholarship or seriousness (if Chin’s and Spiro’s 2011 articles quoted above are any indication) that would appear to justify such a “consensus.”

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) circulated three memoranda on presidential qualifications, the first dated April 3, 2009, the second, March 18, 2010.  The first report addressed the eligibility of both McCain and Obama; the second focused primarily on Obama’s birth certificate and whether citizens had “standing” in the eligibility suits, yet both reports failed to mention Minor.

Following the activity in the blogosphere over whether Minor’s definition was binding precedent and the new state ballot challenges, CRS issued a third report, titled “Qualifications for President and the ‘Natural Born’ Citizenship Eligibility Requirement.”  Without stating the reasons behind the report’s preparation or its requestor, the author, “Legislative Attorney” Jack Maskell, asserts that based on “the nearly unanimous consensus of legal and constitutional scholars,” not only are both McCain and Obama natural born citizens, so is anyone born on U.S. soil (irrespective of the citizenship or domicile status of either parent), and even some who were foreign-born, as long as they had at least one citizen parent who fulfilled previous residency requirements.

According to Dr. Jerome Corsi, “rather than advance the eligibility debate with a truly scholarly analysis, Maskell produced ... a footnoted polemic aimed at appearing scholarly to prop up Obama’s eligibility defense.”  And unsurprisingly, this third report dismisses the definition in Minor as mere dicta.

The two-step process followed by the court in Minor (to first answer whether Mrs. Minor was a citizen and secondly whether that status gave her the right to vote) was discussed in another article, “Citizenship Jeopardy.”  The “presumed” citizenship of Hamdi and Obama’s recent drone target, al-Awlaki, was analyzed—“presumed” being the adjective used by Justice Scalia in his dissent in Hamdi v Rumsfeld, a 2005 case that argued that Hamdi, as a U.S. citizen by virtue of the “birthright citizenship” practice (born in the U.S. to non-U.S. citizens), was entitled to habeas corpus.

The controversy over “birthright citizenship” centers on the citizenship and domicile status of the parents and is thus unavoidably related to the definition of “natural born” citizenship as it pertains to Obama.  The political tension surrounding immigration reform and charges of racism levied against the “birthers,” combined with the tragic yet effective distraction of the birth certificate, have further contributed to this contentious issue.

The hot button of immigration reform was addressed in another article that mentioned the 2005 congressional hearing, “Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty,” in which all participants seemed to agree (some reluctantly) that the 14^th Amendment (as well as the really very narrow ruling in Wong Kim Ark) did not guarantee or mandate the grant of citizenship to the children, born in the U.S., of aliens.

Although opinions differ over the application of the amendment as it relates to the temporary or permanent, legal or illegal status of the aliens’ presence—if the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase is not redundant (to “born in the country”) and in fact alludes to the concept of allegiance—the legality of the non-citizen parent’s border-crossing seems far less pertinent than the intent to domicile.  In addition, while many claim that the parents’ status is irrelevant to the rights of the child, derivative citizenship laws appear to support the opposite view.

A few years after the hearing (and coincidentally, when Obama came on the scene), discussion of citizenship was labeled “birther” talk, with conservative pundits like Mark Steyn referring to “rinky-dink technicalities” and attorneys such as Mark Levin (who led the call for Clinton’s impeachment based on the technicality of lying under oath) loudly refusing to even courteously acknowledge what seem to be very valid, interesting, and timely questions:

Does mere birth in the US, regardless of circumstances, guarantee citizenship?

If foreign-born naturalized citizens are required to renounce past foreign citizenship, should a status of dual citizenship at birth (the result of the birthright citizenship practice as well as the 1922 Cable Act which no longer required that women lost their U.S. citizenship upon marriage to an alien) necessitate a renunciation of the foreign citizenship by the child at majority?

Does the dual citizenship of a large and growing proportion of our population have implications for our national security?

And if naturalized citizens are not qualified for the presidency, should dual citizenship at birth likewise preclude eligibility?

According to Dr. John Eastman, it was not until around 50 years ago that “popular perception” grew into the “idea that mere birth on American soil alone ensured citizen status.”  Eastman asserts: “We just gradually started assuming that birth was enough.”

Has such “gradual” thinking replaced the Constitution?  Will the convoluted reasoning enshrined in Wong Kim Ark and the “unabashedly result-oriented approach” in Plyler v Doe continue to shape the character of our nation’s citizenship and sovereignty?

In this nation of immigrants, assimilation was once a cornerstone of our desire to build a cohesive national character.  Today, assimilation has been replaced by multiculturalism, “press 2 for Spanish,” and voting materials printed in foreign languages.  The children of “birth tourists” are granted U.S. citizenship.  And the oath sworn by naturalized citizens requiring rejection of past foreign citizenship is no longer enforced.

Concern over whether popular elections should trump valid questions of constitutional law (with related lawsuits dismissed for lack of “standing” or “particularized injury”) combined with the apparent absence of a formal mechanism to ensure the legitimacy of candidates creates a slippery slope further heightened by the symbolic nature of the question:

Does the current commander-in-chief, sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution, actually have the right to hold that office?  Do the “folks” he serves have a right to ask that question and have it respectfully answered?

Professor Chin wrote: “The rule of law would be mortally wounded if courts, Congress or the executive could legitimately ignore provisions of law they deemed obsolete ... It would be a grim moment in history if the very oath to ‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution’ that made a person President was also a falsehood that defied the document.”  Chin was referring to a McCain presidency, but should not the same sentiment apply to any president, including Obama?

Constitutional experts who were once vocal opponents of birthright citizenship have failed to opine on the very related eligibility issue.  Does their silence imply that they now believe that a birth certificate is the only requirement for citizenship?  In an article discussing Marco Rubio’s eligibility, Solum was quoted as saying that the birthers’ “arguments aren’t crazy,” but declined to elaborate.

Will academia break that silence by addressing the question of Obama’s eligibility with at least the same attention and level of scholarship given to McCain’s?  And will academia assist our nation in reforming immigration policies that comprehensively address and resolve the issues created by the birthright citizenship practice and growing proportion of dual citizens?

According to a new study posted on Professor Turley’s blog, teaching law ranks second among professions “that pay the most for the least amount of work.”  Perhaps law professors can find time in their busy schedules to educate the rest of us on these issues, in a scholarly, and not political, fashion.”

Source:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/academia_shrugs_obamas_citizenship_and_the_presidency.html

Note:  The following article and/or blog post informs us that the issue of Obama’s eligibility remains unresolved although challenges have now been filed in at least four states, with challenges pending in several others, along with revealing that Mitt Romney may be in the same boat as President Obama when it comes to the eligibility issue because, although he was born in Detroit, Michigan, his father, George Romney, was born in Mexico of American-born parents who retained their American citizenship.  At birth, George Romney was a dual-citizen, holding both Mexican and American citizenship at birth, Mexican citizenship as he was born in Mexico and American citizenship as his parents were American.

In order for Mitt Romney to be natural born, George Romney would have had to terminate his Mexican citizenship before Mitt Romney was born.  There has been no proof forthcoming that this happened.  When George Romney ran for president in 1968, and the question of his eligibility arose, his attorneys claimed he was natural born.  That was not and is not true under the definition of Vattel’s Law of Nations used by the Founding Fathers when the United States Constitution was written, and confirmed by Minor v Happersett, 1875.

If Mitt Romney becomes the 2012 Republican candidate for the presidency, the same situation that prevailed in the 2008 presidential election, will also prevail in the 2012 presidential election; the American people will have a choice between two candidates – neither of which have been proven eligible to the office of president.

If our nation is to survive, we cannot allow what happened in 2008 – with the eligibility of both the Democrat and Republican candidates to the office of the president going unresolved, to happen again.

Barack Hussein Obama must be removed from the ballot of the 50 states, and Mitt Romney must be forced to prove his eligibility.  This is not a left/right issue; this is not a Democrat/Republican issue; this is a matter of protecting and defending our United States Constitution.-You Decide:

A Matter of Eligibility!-Posted on American for Constitutional Government Reform-By Lynn M Stuter-On January 7, 2012:

http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/05-826/

Note: The following articles and/or blog posts and videos relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

I. Undisputed PROOF that Obama is ineligible for the Presidency!

OORAH!!

Posted on Obama Ballot Challenge-By GeorgeM-On January 7, 2012:

“From researcher Tracy: I’ve researched it for 3 years and I HAVE THE PROOF and nearly all of my sources are the Library of Congress and all links are intact, so the sources are EASILY checked and being government documents from the Library of Congress, they are easily undisputable, as well.

Here is the undisputed PROOF that Obama is ineligible for the Presidency:

Representative John Bingham 1862 (Cong. Globe, 37^th, 2^nd Sess., pg 1639:
?All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.?

http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gif

In 1866 while introducing bill H.R. 127 (14^th Amendment) Jacob M. Howard (Author of the Citizenship clause) states:
“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.”


http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

MEANING that they changed NOTHING with the 14^th Amendment, only that they were declaring what was already the law. The LAW he was referring to, was the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which states:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html

Everyone seems to forget the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, which is why the Law/Amendment went astray. If you look at the congressional records, while they were debating the 14^th Amendment, you will find the truth and you will see that the 14^th Amendment has been 100% perverted!

What exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Luckily we have Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means.”

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:
“I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”


http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16

Supreme Court Case Minor V. Happersett:
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162

Representative John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the 14^th Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”
MIDDLE COLUMN 3^RD PARAGRAPH:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332

Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution says:
“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;”

When the Declaration of Independence was adopted, the people of America broke free from British rule and were made US Citizens.

When writing the Constitution, they wanted to be sure they did everything possible to keep America perpetually secure and everlasting, by letting no one, except a Natural Born Citizen (born to two citizen parents) to be eligible for the Presidency. There is an OBVIOUS distinction in the Constitution between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen, which proves there is a difference or it would have just said citizen, for all the positions, instead of saying that the President and VP must be Natural Born, but all others need only be citizens.

The original text of Article 2, section 1, is not what it is today. Here is a timeline of the changes:

June 18^th, 1787 – Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as:
 “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).

July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) – John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” [the word born is underlined in Jay’s letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]

http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:

September 2^nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”

http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483

That was the original link, which if you search it, you will see it’s all over the web but you will also see that it has since been scrubbed. But I found another link, where you can read the letter:

http://books.google.com/books?id=z0oWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=%22I+thank+you+for+the+hints+contained+in+your+letter%22&source=bl&ots=1mgttvUzrt&sig=D56Q1n9tWRdgDFGkLLEf9zUR630&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jsAHT4aaNqH30gHP-5SWAg&sqi=2&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22I%20thank%20you%20for%20the%20hints%20contained%20in%20your%20letter%22&f=false

• Only a natural born citizen can legally be President of the USA.  ”Obama” is not one. See: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Source:

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/natural-born-citizenship-and-history-timeline

II. ELIGIBILITY APPEAL SEEKS LEVEL ELECTION PLAYING FIELD: ‘Current standard ‘denies redress’ when unqualified candidate on ballot!’-Posted on WND.com-By Bob Unruh-On January 6, 2012:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/eligibility-appeal-seeks-level-election-playing-field/

III. Video: ALERT! As Sheriff Arpaio's Investigation of Obama's Citizenship nears completion - D.O.J. SUES!-Posted on YouTube.com-By ppsimmons-On January 6, 2012:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vk-WbjEUdi4

IV. Video: Fox News: Georgia Ballot Access Challenge Against Obama Gets Hearing!-Posted on YouTube.com-By BirtherReportDotCom-On January 6, 2012:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2KhFneWERAU

Note:  Americans are waking up!

Thanks to WND’s un-wavering commitment and fortitude many Americans across the country are starting to wake up to the fact that President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of President, as substantiated by his newly released long-form Certificate of Live Birth, which shows that his father was in fact born in Kenya in 1936. At the time, Kenya was a British colony. Therefore Obama Senior was a British subject by birth (due to the fact that he was born within British-controlled territory). When President Obama was born in 1961, he acquired British nationality by descent, because his father was a British subject by birth. When Kenya gained its independence from Great Britain in 1963, President Obama became a citizen of the newly-formed nation.

Sources:

http://www.wnd.com/2011/12/375625/#f2cd597738

http://constitutionalreset.ning.com/video/atty-dr-herb-titus-obama-not-a-natural-born-citizen

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/natural-born-citizenship-and-history-timeline

Additionally, Several new organizations, to include active websites, were established to educate and mobilize the American public on the significance of “natural born Citizen” and the 2012 Election, along with an initiative to assist ordinary registered voting citizens wishing to challenge President Obama’s constitutional eligibility and name placement on their state’s 2012 primary presidential ballot. The team that established and maintains this website is currently compiling election laws from all 50 states and in the near future will be providing forms, along with sample letters that registered voters can use to file a complaint. Also included is pertinent information regarding those lawsuits and/or complaints that have been filed by state, to include my own.

Sources:

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/superpac-founder-explains-mission-of-natural-born-citizen-pac

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/obama-ballot-challenge-founder-interviewed-by-post-email

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/retired-marine-captain-files-obama-ballot-challenge-in-new-mexico

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/request-that-president-obama-be-removed-from-the-new-mexico-2012-presidential-primary-election-ballot

Word of Caution:  Although its great that many Americans are now beginning to wake up and are actively taking some action to have President Obama taken off the 2012 Presidential Election Ballots we need to keep in mind that those individuals with unlimited sources and/or resources, to include the deep pockets of anti-American George Soros, our own local and national elected officials and others, with the help of the MSM, who have spent years planning and successively perpetrating what I now believe could be the greatest fraud in American history are not going to go down without a fight and thus, as a result, I also believe that now more than ever we need to stick together as Americans (it's no longer Democrat or Republican) at this crucial time when our country and/or Republic needs us more than ever to see this thru. A Republic for which so many Americans have and continue to give their all to uphold and defend.

So the question is: Are you going to be part of the problem by continuing to keep your head in the sand hoping this issue goes away by itself or are you going to be part of the solution by stepping up to the plate and doing what ever it takes to uphold and defend our Republic before its too late?-You Decide.

Note:  My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

The Greatest Fraud Perpetrated in American History!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/the-greatest-fraud-perpetrated-in-american-history/

Could the President’s newly released COLB be a forgery?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/could-the-president’s-newly-released-colb-be-a-forgery/

Was there a conspiracy to put Obama in the White House?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/was-there-a-conspiracy-to-put-obama-in-the-white-house-2/

Is it important to understand the Marxist assault on the foundations of our system?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/is-it-important-to-understand-the-marxist-assault-on-the-foundations-of-our-system/

Note:  If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial.  Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake

YOU JUST LOST 60 MILLON VOTES YOU FOOL, I THOUGHT YOU WERE SMART , BUT NO.

Obama's Roots of Corruption - Where Are Fannie & Freddie Execs Now?

Millions of families are out of work or homeless and the seed of corruption remains eerily close to its source and continues to saps our nation's wealth.  Where Are the Now????

Read the answer at the end

WHERE ARE THEY NOW? Surprise!

The three who brought  down Wall Street.

Here's a quick look into the three former Fannie Mae executives who

brought down Wall Street.

Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae's accounting activities.

Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear.

Tim Howard - was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure

a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004. Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!

Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million." Johnson is currently under investigation

for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae. Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.

*****************************************************************************************

WHERE ARE THEY NOW?

FRANKLIN RAINES ?

Raines works for the Obama Campaign as his Chief Economic Advisor.

TIM HOWARD?

Howard is a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama under Franklin Raines.

JIM JOHNSON?

Johnson was hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee.

 

 

Our government seems to be rotten to the core !

 

Are we stupid or what?   Vote in 2012..it is the most important election of our lives.

WITH  THIS,  DEMOCRATS WE NEED THE JOBS, DO NOT BELIVE THAT JOB RATE DOWN.  MANY PEOPLE HAVE GIVEN UP TRYING TO FIND REAL JOBS.  DO NOT BELIVE THE JOB RATE IS DOWN.  IT WAS HOLIDAY HIREING.  VOTE STRIGHT REPUBLICAN.

Leaving behind a year of bruising legislative battles, President Barack Obama enters his fourth year in office having calculated that he no longer needs Congress to promote his agenda and may even benefit in his re-election campaign if lawmakers accomplish little in 2012. Obama congress 2012 Absent any major policy pushes, much of the year will focus on winning a second term. The president will keep up a robust domestic travel schedule and aggressive campaign fundraising and use executive action to try to boost the economy.

THIS IS THE ANSWER FROM GOD'S WORD:~......................

I'm not one to belabor the issue; therefore I will let GOD's WORD speak to the facts! In the
book of [I Sam 15:22-23] the scripture reads~ {22} The Prophet, Samuel said, "Which does
the LORD prefer: Obedience or Offerings and Sacrifice? It is better to obey HIM(GOD)
than to sacrifice even the best sheep to HIM. {23} Rebellion is against HIM and as bad as
witchcraft, and arrogance is as sinful as idolaltry. Because you have rejected the LORD's
Command, HE has rejected you! "[1 Sam. 15:22-23] {Today's English Ver.}

I  HOPE THAT WE BUILD BETTER DRONES THAT WE CAN CONTROL.

I CALL IT MAKING US WEAK THATS THERE GOAL FROM THE START, CALL HOME OUR TROOPS FROM JAPAN AND GERMANY THOSE WARS HAVE BEEN OVER FOR 60 YEARS.  THEY DONT FIGHT THEY JUST HAVE BABYS AND WIFES. AND COST US BILLIONS OF DOLLARS,  BUT THE DEMOCRATS LIKE TO SPEND MONEY WE DO NOT HAVE, THEIR GOAL IS TO BANKRUPT US, THEY ARE DOING A GOOD JOB SPENDING MONEY WE DO NOT HAVE, THEY CALL IT BANKRUPTY.

Dear Fellow Patriots:

What follows is a letter that I recently sent to our NM U.S. Senator regarding a request that I forwarded today to our NM Secretary of State requesting that President Obama be removed from the NM 2012 Presidential Primary Election Ballot:

“January 5, 2012

The Honorable Tom Udall

United States Senate

110 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510-3101

Dear Senator Udall:

On or about December 12, 2011, I wrote to you and informed you that there was an issue that I had previously presented to you in the recent past that was currently heating up around our country, which I believed was even more important in size and scope than any other issue that I had previously presented to you because it dealt with the question of whether or not our President was eligible to hold the office of President and Commander-In-Chief of our Armed Forces and graciously asked that you give me your take regarding this extremely disturbing and time sensitive issue.

In my letter to you of December 12, 2011 I also provided you with what I considered to be a preponderance of undisputable evidence that I believed collectively proved that our President is in fact ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States and Commander-In-Chief of our armed forces since ‘he did not meet the minimum qualifications as set forth in Article II, Section I, Clause V concerning the natural born citizen status’ because when he was born in 1961 his father was not a U.S. citizen and therefore he can never be a ‘natural-born citizen,’ as that term was defined by a  ‘1875 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor v. Happersett’ in which the court defined ‘natural-born citizens’ as ‘all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.’ 

To date I have not received a response to my letter from your office and therefore, as a matter of courtesy, I would like to now inform you that I recently forwarded the following letter to our NM Governor informing her that I had recently forwarded a letter to our NM Secretary of State requesting that President Obama be removed from the New Mexico 2012 Presidential Primary Election Ballot: 

Letter to Governor Martinez follows:

"January 5, 2012

Dear Governor Martinez:

I wanted to take the liberty of sharing the following email that I recently forwarded to Mrs. Dianna Duran, New Mexico Secretary of State for your information.

This disturbing issue literally keeps me up at night because, after conducting my own extensive investigation and/or research into this issue, I now believe that there is a preponderance of undisputable evidence, which I have shared with Mrs. Duran, that collectively prove that President Obama is in fact ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States and Commander-In-Chief of our armed forces.

Please feel free to contact me at my home address listed below, if you should have any questions and/or need any additional information from me regarding this extremely disturbing and time sensitive issue.

Thank you for the excellent and professional job that you are doing as our Governor.

May you and your loved ones have a “Happy and Prosperous New Year.”

Respectfully yours,

Jake L. Martinez

Email to NM Secretary of State Follows:

January 5, 2012

Mrs. Dianna J. Duran

New Mexico Secretary of State

325 Don Gaspar, Suite 300

Santa Fe, NM 87503

Phone: (505) 827-3600

Fax: (505) 827-8081

Dear Mrs. Duran:

On or about December 13, 2011, I wrote to you requesting that your office provide me with some direction and/or guidance that would assist me in getting President Obama removed from the New Mexico 2012 presidential primary election ballot over allegations of fraud because I now believe that there is a preponderance of undisputable evidence, which I also shared with you in my letter, that collectively prove that he in fact is ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States and Commander-In-Chief of our armed forces.

To date I have not received a response to my letter from your office and therefore, as an American citizen of the United States and a registered Democrat voting native New Mexican, I am now writing to request that President Obama be removed from the New Mexico 2012 presidential primary election ballot, since “he does not meet the minimum qualifications as set forth in Article II, Section I, Clause V concerning the natural born citizen status” because when he was born in 1961 his father was not a U.S. citizen and therefore he can never be a ‘natural-born citizen,’ as that term was defined by a  ‘1875 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor v. Happersett’ in which the court defined “natural-born citizens” as ‘all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.’ 

This was in fact substantiated when the White House released his ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ on or about April 27, 2011.  A copy of which is provided again for your information:  

http://whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

As you are aware, the natural born citizen minimum qualifications are set forth in Article II, Section I, Clause V of our U.S. Constitution, along with the ‘Specific Eligibility Requirements and Duties (Section 1-8-18(A) and 1-4-16(B) NMSA 1978),’ which includes the office of the President of the United States, as outlined in the following ‘New Mexico 2010 Candidate Guide’:

https://mylocalgov.com/currycountynm/ShowImage.asp?thumb=0&rowid=1099&show=0

For your information, I would also like to take the liberty of sharing the following information that has transpired since my letter to you of December 13, 2011, which I believe further substantiates and/or supports my above request:

On or about January 3, 2012, Judge Michael W. Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings refused to dismiss a series of complaints that were brought against President Obama’s inclusion on the 2012 election primary ballot, an action that had been sought by President Obama. He also granted a motion to sever the cases and scheduled a hearing for January 26, 2012.

Source:

Judge denies president’s motion to dismiss challenge to 2012 candidacy!-Posted on WND.com-By Bob Unruh-On January 3, 2012:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/03/open-letter-to-judge-michael-malihi-of-georgia/

Additionally, on this same date an open letter was forwarded to Judge Malihi by an editor of an electronic newspaper, The Post & Email (www.thepostemail.com), who covers constitutional issues and government corruption to express her sincerest appreciation for his ruling to refuse to dismiss the complaints that were brought against President Obama’s inclusion on the 2012 election primary ballot.

Source:

Open Letter to Judge Michael Malihi of Georgia: ‘The Rule Of Law Must Be Upheld!’-Posted on The Post & Email-By Sharon Rondeau-On January 3, 2012:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/03/open-letter-to-judge-michael-malihi-of-georgia/

Please feel free to contact me at my home address listed below, if you should have any questions and/or need any additional information from me regarding my request.

I look forward to hearing from your office regarding this disturbing matter, which I believe is extremely time sensitive due to the fact the 2012 Primary Election Proclamation will be issued by our Governor on or about January 30, 2012, as noted on the ‘2012 Candidate Guide.’

Thank you again for the excellent and professional job that you are doing as our Secretary of State.

May you and your staff have a “Happy and Prosperous New Year.”

Respectfully yours,

Jake L. Martinez

Automatic Electronic Response Received From Governor Martinez’s Office Regarding My Email Above:

Thank you for taking the time to share your comments and concerns with my office. A constituent service representative will be in contact with you regarding your issue.

Sincerely, Susana Martinez”

Please feel free to contact me at my home address listed below, if you should have any questions regarding any of this information.

Thank you again for all you continue to do for our Veterans, our state and our country.

May you and your loved ones have a  “Happy and Prosperous New Year.”

God Bless You and God Bless America.

Respectfully,

Jacobo L. Martinez

Captain-USMC-Retired

Automatic Electronic Response Received From Senator Udall’s Office Regarding My Email Above:

Thank you for your message!

I look forward to reviewing your comments and questions.

Before you leave, I hope you'll explore my website. On this page, you can learn more about the work that I've been doing on important issues and legislation as your U.S. Senator.”

Note: Americans are waking up!

Thanks to WND’s un-wavering commitment and fortitude many Americans across the country are starting to wake up to the fact that President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of President, as substantiated by his newly released long-form Certificate of Live Birth, which shows that his father was in fact born in Kenya in 1936. At the time, Kenya was a British colony. Therefore Obama Senior was a British subject by birth (due to the fact that he was born within British-controlled territory). When President Obama was born in 1961, he acquired British nationality by descent, because his father was a British subject by birth. When Kenya gained its independence from Great Britain in 1963, President Obama became a citizen of the newly-formed nation.

Sources:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=358645

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

http://constitutionalreset.ning.com/video/atty-dr-herb-titus-obama-not-a-natural-born-citizen

Additionally, Several new organizations, to include active websites, were established to educate and mobilize the American public on the significance of “natural born Citizen” and the 2012 Election, along with an initiative to assist ordinary registered voting citizens wishing to challenge President Obama’s constitutional eligibility and name placement on their state’s 2012 primary presidential ballot. The team that established and maintains this website is currently compiling election laws from all 50 states and in the near future will be providing forms, along with sample letters that registered voters can use to file a complaint. Also included is pertinent information regarding those lawsuits and/or complaints that have been filed by state, to include my own.

Sources:

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/superpac-founder-explains-mission-of-natural-born-citizen-pac

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/obama-ballot-challenge-founder-interviewed-by-post-email

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/retired-marine-captain-files-obama-ballot-challenge-in-new-mexico

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/request-that-president-obama-be-removed-from-the-new-mexico-2012-presidential-primary-election-ballot

Word of Caution:  Although its great that many Americans are now beginning to wake up and are actively taking some action to have President Obama taken off the 2012 Presidential Election Ballots we need to keep in mind that those individuals with unlimited sources and/or resources, to include the deep pockets of anti-American George Soros, our own local and national elected officials and others, with the help of the MSM, who have spent years planning and successively perpetrating what I now believe could be the greatest fraud in American history are not going to go down without a fight and thus, as a result, I also believe that now more than ever we need to stick together as Americans (it's no longer Democrat or Republican) at this crucial time when our country and/or Republic needs us more than ever to see this thru. A Republic for which so many Americans have and continue to give their all to uphold and defend.

So the question is: Are you going to be part of the problem by continuing to keep your head in the sand hoping this issue goes away by itself or are you going to be part of the solution by stepping up to the plate and doing what ever it takes to uphold and defend our Republic before its too late?-You Decide.

Continue Reading:

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/the-greatest-fraud-perpetrated-in-american-history/

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake

Rev. Jerry L. Robertson’s Words of Inspiration
27] "The power and greatness of all the kingdoms on Earth will be given
to the 'people of the Supreme GOD'! Their royal power will never end; all rulers and leaders upon Earth will serve and obey them." (Daniel 7:27) {Today's English Ver.}

The Harbinger: The Ancient Mystery That Holds the Secret of America's Future

Synopsis:
Is it possible... That there exists an ancient mystery that holds the secret of America's future? That this mystery lies behind everything from 9/11 to the collapse of the global economy? That ancient harbingers of judgment are now manifesting in America? That God is sending America a prophetic message of what is yet to come? Before its destruction as a nation, ancient Israel received nine harbingers, prophetic omens of warning. The same nine harbingers are now manifesting in America--with immediate ramifications for end-time prophecy. Hidden in an ancient biblical prophecy from Isaiah, the mysteries revealed in The Harbinger are so precise that they foretold recent American events down to the exact days. The revelations are so specific that even the most hardened skeptics will find it hard to dismiss or put down. It sounds like the plot of a Hollywood thriller - with one exception... IT'S REAL. The prophetic mysteries are revealed through an intriguing and engaging narrative the reader will find hard to put down. The Harbinger opens with the appearance of a man burdened with a message he has received from a mysterious figure called The Prophet. The Prophet has given him nine seals, each containing a message about America's future. As he tells of his encounters with The Prophet, from a skyscraper in New York City, to a rural mountaintop, to Capitol Hill, to Ground Zero, the mystery behind each seal is revealed. As the story unfolds, each revelation becomes a piece in a greater puzzle - the ramifications of which will even alter the course of world history.
More Product Information
Release Date: 1/31/2012
Pages: 272
Binding: Paperback
Print Size: 

Dear Fellow Patriots:

What follows is a letter that I recently sent to our NM Governor regarding a request that I forwarded to our NM Secretary of State requesting that President Obama be removed from the NM 2012 Presidential Primary Election Ballot:

"January 5, 2012

Dear Governor Martinez:

I wanted to take the liberty of sharing the following email that I recently forwarded to Mrs. Dianna Duran, New Mexico Secretary of State for your information.

This disturbing issue literally keeps me up at night because, after conducting my own extensive investigation and/or research into this issue, I now believe that there is a preponderance of undisputable evidence, which I have shared with Mrs. Duran, that collectively prove that President Obama is in fact ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States and Commander-In-Chief of our armed forces.

Please feel free to contact me at my home address listed below, if you should have any questions and/or need any additional information from me regarding this extremely disturbing and time sensitive issue.

Thank you for the excellent and professional job that you are doing as our Governor.

May you and your loved ones have a “Happy and Prosperous New Year.”

Respectfully yours,

Jake L. Martinez

Email to NM Secretary of State:

January 5, 2012

Mrs. Dianna J. Duran

New Mexico Secretary of State

325 Don Gaspar, Suite 300

Santa Fe, NM 87503

Phone: (505) 827-3600

Fax: (505) 827-8081

Dear Mrs. Duran:

On or about December 13, 2011, I wrote to you requesting that your office provide me with some direction and/or guidance that would assist me in getting President Obama removed from the New Mexico 2012 presidential primary election ballot over allegations of fraud because I now believe that there is a preponderance of undisputable evidence, which I also shared with you in my letter, that collectively prove that he in fact is ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States and Commander-In-Chief of our armed forces.

To date I have not received a response to my letter from your office and therefore, as an American citizen of the United States and a registered Democrat voting native New Mexican, I am now writing to request that President Obama be removed from the New Mexico 2012 presidential primary election ballot, since “he does not meet the minimum qualifications as set forth in Article II, Section I, Clause V concerning the natural born citizen status” because when he was born in 1961 his father was not a U.S. citizen and therefore he can never be a ‘natural-born citizen,’ as that term was defined by a  ‘1875 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor v. Happersett’ in which the court defined “natural-born citizens” as ‘all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.’ 

This was in fact substantiated when the White House released his ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ on or about April 27, 2011.  A copy of which is provided again for your information:  

http://whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

As you are aware, the natural born citizen minimum qualifications are set forth in Article II, Section I, Clause V of our U.S. Constitution, along with the ‘Specific Eligibility Requirements and Duties (Section 1-8-18(A) and 1-4-16(B) NMSA 1978),’ which includes the office of the President of the United States, as outlined in the following ‘New Mexico 2010 Candidate Guide’:

https://mylocalgov.com/currycountynm/ShowImage.asp?thumb=0&rowid=1099&show=0

For your information, I would also like to take the liberty of sharing the following information that has transpired since my letter to you of December 13, 2011, which I believe further substantiates and/or supports my above request:

On or about January 3, 2012, Judge Michael W. Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings refused to dismiss a series of complaints that were brought against President Obama’s inclusion on the 2012 election primary ballot, an action that had been sought by President Obama. He also granted a motion to sever the cases and scheduled a hearing for January 26, 2012.

Source:

Judge denies president’s motion to dismiss challenge to 2012 candidacy!-Posted on WND.com-By Bob Unruh-On January 3, 2012:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/03/open-letter-to-judge-michael-malihi-of-georgia/

Additionally, on this same date an open letter was forwarded to Judge Malihi by an editor of an electronic newspaper, The Post & Email (www.thepostemail.com), who covers constitutional issues and government corruption to express her sincerest appreciation for his ruling to refuse to dismiss the complaints that were brought against President Obama’s inclusion on the 2012 election primary ballot.

Source:

Open Letter to Judge Michael Malihi of Georgia: ‘The Rule Of Law Must Be Upheld!’-Posted on The Post & Email-By Sharon Rondeau-On January 3, 2012:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/03/open-letter-to-judge-michael-malihi-of-georgia/

Please feel free to contact me at my home address listed below, if you should have any questions and/or need any additional information from me regarding my request.

I look forward to hearing from your office regarding this disturbing matter, which I believe is extremely time sensitive due to the fact the 2012 Primary Election Proclamation will be issued by our Governor on or about January 30, 2012, as noted on the ‘2012 Candidate Guide.’

Thank you again for the excellent and professional job that you are doing as our Secretary of State.

May you and your staff have a “Happy and Prosperous New Year.”

Respectfully yours,

Jake L. Martinez

Automatic Electronic Response Received From Governor Martinez’s Office Regarding My Email Above:

Thank you for taking the time to share your comments and concerns with my office. A constituent service representative will be in contact with you regarding your issue.

Sincerely, Susana Martinez”

Note: Americans are waking up!

Thanks to WND’s un-wavering commitment and fortitude many Americans across the country are starting to wake up to the fact that President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of President, as substantiated by his newly released long-form Certificate of Live Birth, which shows that his father was in fact born in Kenya in 1936. At the time, Kenya was a British colony. Therefore Obama Senior was a British subject by birth (due to the fact that he was born within British-controlled territory). When President Obama was born in 1961, he acquired British nationality by descent, because his father was a British subject by birth. When Kenya gained its independence from Great Britain in 1963, President Obama became a citizen of the newly-formed nation.

Sources:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=358645

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

http://constitutionalreset.ning.com/video/atty-dr-herb-titus-obama-not-a-natural-born-citizen

Additionally, Several new organizations, to include active websites, were established to educate and mobilize the American public on the significance of “natural born Citizen” and the 2012 Election, along with an initiative to assist ordinary registered voting citizens wishing to challenge President Obama’s constitutional eligibility and name placement on their state’s 2012 primary presidential ballot. The team that established and maintains this website is currently compiling election laws from all 50 states and in the near future will be providing forms, along with sample letters that registered voters can use to file a complaint. Also included is pertinent information regarding those lawsuits and/or complaints that have been filed by state, to include my own.

Sources:

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/superpac-founder-explains-mission-of-natural-born-citizen-pac

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/obama-ballot-challenge-founder-interviewed-by-post-email

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/retired-marine-captain-files-obama-ballot-challenge-in-new-mexico

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/request-that-president-obama-be-removed-from-the-new-mexico-2012-presidential-primary-election-ballot

Word of Caution:  Although its great that many Americans are now beginning to wake up and are actively taking some action to have President Obama taken off the 2012 Presidential Election Ballots we need to keep in mind that those individuals with unlimited sources and/or resources, to include the deep pockets of anti-American George Soros, our own local and national elected officials and others, with the help of the MSM, who have spent years planning and successively perpetrating what I now believe could be the greatest fraud in American history are not going to go down without a fight and thus, as a result, I also believe that now more than ever we need to stick together as Americans (it's no longer Democrat or Republican) at this crucial time when our country and/or Republic needs us more than ever to see this thru. A Republic for which so many Americans have and continue to give their all to uphold and defend.

So the question is: Are you going to be part of the problem by continuing to keep your head in the sand hoping this issue goes away by itself or are you going to be part of the solution by stepping up to the plate and doing what ever it takes to uphold and defend our Republic before its too late?-You Decide.

Continue Reading:

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/the-greatest-fraud-perpetrated-in-american-history/

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake

It is time for the 'Redeemed of the LORD', to say so. As I have often proclaimed to all who
would listen, since early in the 1990's, the problems that plague our nation, have but one cause!
That my friends is disobedience and rebellion. And we all stand responsible for the state of
our Nation. Long before the beginning of 'Baby-Boomer Generation', the seeds of rebellion
were already planted and thriving in the land.

I'm not one to belabor the issue; therefore I will let GOD's WORD speak to the facts! In the
book of [I Sam 15:22-23] the scripture reads~ {22} The Prophet, Samuel said, "Which does
the LORD prefer: Obedience or Offerings and Sacrifice? It is better to obey HIM(GOD)
than to sacrifice even the best sheep to HIM. {23} Rebellion is against HIM and as bad as
witchcraft, and arrogance is as sinful as idolaltry. Because you have rejected the LORD's
Command, HE has rejected you! "[1 Sam. 15:22-23] {Today's English Ver.}

It does not matter, whether you believe in GOD, nor believe that you have another option.
The fact remains, that we all stand accountable as citizens of this Republic of The United
States. This day, it is time for all of us to repent from being like Samson, and even though
knowing, who he was- < 'a Nazerite' >! He wanted to live like the Philitines and go about
philandering and partaking if all that the world had to offer.

Now is the time for us all to pray according [2Chron. 7:14] "If the people pray to ME(GOD)
and repent and turn away from the evil they have been doing, then I WILL Hear them in
HEAVEN, Forgive their sins, and Make their land prosperous again."[2 Chron.7:14]{Today's
English Ver.}

Now, I know that there will be many that dispute this word, that I have shared! And I'm also
aware, there are still those who want to stone the prophet's.   For those, who would like to
have more information, there is fortunately a good source, that I recommend to everyone.
This has just been released into print by a 'Messianic Rabbi ', who with GOD's Help, through
the leading of HIS Holy Spirit has found the truth revealed.  Not only does it address the

judgment that has been adjudicated, but also illustrates the truth from scripture and as well

as the true established history of this Republic of the United Sates of America.

The book is 'The Harbinger" , presented by Johnathan Cahn....! Even for the most suspicious
and all the 'doubting-Thomasa's' that find it difficult to accept the real-truth, will find that
they will be riveted to the pages of this book, unable to lay it down until they have totally
examined every last page.

That is the best description that I can offer. But, many of you will be surprised at the facts
portrayed in this book. I encourage everyone to take a good look, and examine yourselves
carefully. My regards,

ALL IN WITH JESUS~ Rev. Jerry L. Robertson 

 cont'd page 2

In the past few days, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership have ramped up their attacks on the Tea Party.

In fact, attacking the Tea Party is now the main focus of the Left’s strategy. Here’s what the Obama team said in response to the Iowa caucus results: “The extremist Tea Party agenda won a clear victory.”
Between Christmas and New Year’s Day the Pelosi-led Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out nine emails targeting the Tea Party in their “Defeat The Tea Party campaign.” Here’s what they said...................... 

•  “Tea Party radicals” want to raise taxes
•  Republicans are appeasing “Tea Party extremists…”
•  “Tea Party Republicans” are on the “attack”….
•  The “Tea Party” is “incapable of moving our country forward”

That’s TEN emails from the Obama/Pelosi machine in the past week with one theme -- attack the Tea Party!

DO NOT LET IT HAPPEN HERE WE LIKE THE OLD AMERICA, WITH NO NO CHANGES BY THE DEMOCRATS.

THE TEA PARTY MY FIGURE SOMETHING OUT , LETS HOPE SO.  AND SOON.

We are now 40,000 new laws further away from freedom!

Is America better off?

On January, 01,2012 more laws took effect in this country than at any other time in the history of this Republic. The only Main Sewer Media exposure was on, of all places, the Main Sewer National Broadcasting Company (MSNBC)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The new laws consist mostly of state passed legislation with California leading the way with over 10% of the new laws affecting everything from education to personal rights:

A law in California adds lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans, persons with disabilities, and others to the list of cultural groups whose roles and contributions to the development of the United States should be accurately portrayed in social science instructional materials. California SB 48

A law in California amends the Fair Employment and Housing Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the enumerated characteristics that require equal rights and opportunities under the law and prohibit discrimination. California AB 887

The state laws passed are again within the Framers of the Constitution intent of the 10th Amendment for states to direct and control their own destiny based on the elected directives of the states voting population. If you don't like where the state is headed you can pack up and pick up and get the hell out before it sinks under the weight of its own stupidity as California, Oregon, Illinois and a few other Socialist states are soon to experience.

What should frighten the hell out of every Freedom loving Red Blooded American who believes in the inherent greatness of this Constitutional Republic is the passing of the following law:

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

Every Single person who voted for this bill is GUILTY of Treason for violation of their Oath of Office!

Even the progressive socialists at the Huffington Post and the Washington Post and even the ACLU denounced the signing of this traitorous legislation. A breakdown of the bill from E.D. Kain at Forbes.com pretty much summarizes this bill:

The National Defense Authorization Act is the Greatest Threat to Civil Liberties Americans Face

An excerpt from that article and a brief breakdown on this legislation from the above article in Forbes is below.

"Over at Wired, Spencer Ackerman gives us the long and short of things:

There are still changes swirling around the Senate, but this looks like the basic shape of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. Someone the government says is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaida or an associated force” can be held in military custody “without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Those hostilities are currently scheduled to end the Wednesday after never. The move would shut down criminal trials for terror suspects.

But far more dramatically, the detention mandate to use indefinite military detention in terrorism cases isn’t limited to foreigners. It’s confusing, because two different sections of the bill seem to contradict each other, but in the judgment of the University of Texas’ Robert Chesney — a nonpartisan authority on military detention — “U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority.”

An amendment that would limit military detentions to people captured overseas failed on Thursday afternoon. The Senate soundly defeated a measure to strip out all the detention provisions on Tuesday.

So despite the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a right to trial, the Senate bill would let the government lock up any citizen it swears is a terrorist, without the burden of proving its case to an independent judge, and for the lifespan of an amorphous war that conceivably will never end. And because the Senate is using the bill that authorizes funding for the military as its vehicle for this dramatic constitutional claim, it’s pretty likely to pass.

I seriously don’t care if you’re a liberal or a conservative or a libertarian or a Zen anarchist. So long as you aren’t Carl Levin or John McCain, the bill’s architects, you can join the Civil Liberties Caucus. Spencer writes:

Weirder still, the bill’s chief architect, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), tried to persuade skeptics that the bill wasn’t so bad. His pitch? “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States,” he said on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill would just let the government detain a citizen in military custody, not force it to do that. Reassured yet?

Civil libertarians aren’t. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) said it “denigrates the very foundations of this country.” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) added, “it puts every single American citizen at risk.”

E.D. summarizes it well with this statement:

"So much for innocent until proven guilty. So much for limited government. What Americans are now facing is quite literally the end of the line. We will either uphold the freedoms baked into our Constitutional Republic, or we will scrap the entire project in the name of security as we wage, endlessly, this futile, costly, and ultimately self-defeating War on Terror."

Here is the senatorial roll call for the voting on HB: 1540

-The Roll Call of Honor - Senators Who Voted Against Imprisonment Of Americans Without Charge:

Senator Benjamin Cardin, Senator Thomas Coburn, Senator Mike Crapo, Senator Jim DeMint, Senator Richard Durbin, Senator Al Franken, Senator Tom Harkin, Senator Mike Lee,Senator Jeff Merkley, Senator Rand Paul, Senator James Risch, Senator Bernard Sanders,Senator Ron Wyden

- The Roll Call of Shame -
Senators Who Voted In Favor Of Imprisonment Of Americans Without Charge:

Daniel Akaka, Lamar Alexander, Kelly Ayotte, John Barrasso, Max Baucus, Mark Begich,Michael Bennet, Jeff Bingaman, Richard Blumenthal, Roy Blunt, John Boozman, Barbara Boxer, Sherrod Brown, Scott Brown, Richard Burr, Maria Cantwell, Thomas Carper, Robert Casey, Saxby Chambliss, Daniel Coats, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Kent Conrad, Chris Coons, Bob Corker, John Cornyn, Michael Enzi, Dianne Feinstein, Kirsten Gillibrand, Lindsey Graham, Charles Grassley, Kay Hagan, Orrin Hatch, Dean Heller, John Hoeven, Kay Hutchison, James Inhofe, Daniel Inouye, Johnny Isakson, Mike Johanns, Tim Johnson, Ron Johnson, John Kerry, Mark Kirk, Amy Klobuchar, Herb Kohl, Jon Kyl, Mary Landrieu, Frank Lautenberg, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, Joseph Lieberman, Richard Lugar, Joe Manchin,John McCain, Claire McCaskill, Mitch McConnell, Robert Menendez, Barbara Mikulski, Lisa Murkowski, Patty Murray, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Robert Portman, Mark Pryor, Jack Reed,Harry Reid, Pat Roberts, John Rockefeller, Marco Rubio, Charles Schumer, Jeff Sessions,Jeanne Shaheen, Richard Shelby, Olympia Snowe, Debbie Stabenow, Jon Tester, John Thune, Pat Toomey, Mark Udall, Tom Udall, David Vitter, Mark Warner, Jim Webb, Sheldon Whitehouse, Roger Wicker

Here is the link to Congressional roll call and vote ( I need room for my rant! ) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-932

This is socialist totalitarianism and is a direct violation of our Constitution and their oath of office and is sedition and treason by any name or deed. And their "good intentions" have paved this Republics road to hell by giving this Marxist tyrant occupying our highest office the last tool needed to end our Liberties as defined by the Bill of Rights.

Benjamin Franklin said: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty"

Thomas Jefferson said:“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

And my favorite Jefferson quote:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

I have quoted the opening of The Declaration of Independence on numerous occasions for a reason, it still speaks the truth as loudly today as it did 235 years ago. The Socialist progressive ruling class elites have ignored it and us for 145 years now, ramming their agenda down our throats. It ends now or never!

We are truly at the precipice where all other Republics in mans collective history have fallen apart, from ancient Greece to post WW1 Germany and the Wiemar Republic. The Constitution that formed the backbone of this Republic and the foundation of our Liberties has been assaulted by every party elected and rendered null and void by this Administration and the supporting cast identified above.

They are all as culpable and all guilty of treason!

It is time to throw off these despots and return to a free and Represented form of Government of the people, by the people and for the people before it does perish from this earth!

In our ever diminishing Freedom,

Dr. Keith C. Westbrook Ph.D.

the U.S. only needs one large military in Israel for defence in middle east, the U.S. has nuke subs off the coast of Korea. this is aa we need in these areas. bring rest of military home. using these military men & women thats home set up military posts on our borders. this would stop 100% of drugs & illegals coming,& 100% of money & guns from going to Mexico. ASAP

TEA PARTY  CONADATES MAY ALSO GET TO GETHER.

OORAH!!

Posted on WND.com-By Bob Unruh-On January 3, 2012:

“Others, including top constitutional expert Herb Titus, contend that the term “natural-born citizen,” which is not defined in the Constitution, would have been understood when the document was written to mean the offspring of two U.S. citizens. That argument is supported by a 19^th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision

Under that standard, Obama could not qualify, because his father, as identified on the “Certificate of Live Birth” image released by the White House, was a foreign national who came from Kenya to study in the U.S. and never was a citizen.

The ruling came today from Judge Michael W. Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings.

In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.

While Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had argued that the requirements didn’t apply to candidates for a presidential primary, the judge said that isn’t how he reads state law.

“Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this court finds that the cases cited by [Obama] are not controlling. When the court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step … is to examine the plain statutory language,” the judge wrote. “Section 21-2-1(a) states that ‘every candidate for federal and state office’ must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary.”

The decision from Malihi came as a result of a series of complaints that were consolidated by the court. They were brought against Obama’s inclusion on the 2012 election primary ballot by David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by attorney Orly Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield.

The judge’s decision was to refuse to dismiss the complaints, an action that had been sought by Obama. He also granted a motion to sever the cases, and he scheduled a hearing at 9 a.m. on Jan. 26 for the complaint brought by Weldon. Following immediately will be hearings for the cases brought by Swensson and Powell, and the issue raised by Farrar, Lax, Judy, Malaren and Roth will be third.

Malihi’s ruling said: “The court finds that defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

There are similar challenges to Obama’s 2012 candidacy being raised before state election or other commissions in Tennessee, Arizona and New Hampshire as well.

Taitz told WND she will present the decision to a court in Hawaii, where she is arguing to have access to Obama’s original birth documentation as it exists in the state, which for many years allowed relatives of babies to simply make a statement and register a birth, even though the child may not have been born in Hawaii.

Irion had argued in his opposition to Obama’s demand to dismiss the concerns that, “The only fact relevant to this case is the fact that the defendant’s father was not a U.S. citizen. This fact has been repeatedly documented and stated by the party opponent, defendant Obama. This fact is also evidenced by plaintiff’s exhibit 6, previously submitted with plaintiff’s pre-trial order, and apparently authenticated by defendant’s citation to this exhibit in defendant’s ‘Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute,’ number 7.

“The lengths to which the defendant goes in order to avoid the one relevant fact is telling. The defendant asks this court to interpret Georgia election code in a way that leaves the code in conflict with itself, goes against the plain language of the law, leaves the law without meaning, and conflicts with common sense. He then cites freedom-to-associate precedent to support an assertion that has never been supported by such precedent, and which would nullify election codes in several states. All of these arguments are futile attempts to distract from the undeniable conclusion: Barack Obama is not constitutionally qualified to hold the office of president of the United States,” Irion wrote.

He continued, “It is true that some states lack election codes authorizing any state officials to screen candidate selections from political parties. In these states political parties have essentially unfettered authority to determine which candidates appear on ballots. However, these instances represent decisions of the states to not screen candidates. It is the states’ right to decide how to administer its elections. The fact that some states have decided to not protect their citizens from unqualified candidates does not mean that other states don’t have the right to screen candidates. It simply means that some states have left the screening to the political parties.

“Georgia has determined that it is in the best interest of its citizens to screen candidates prior to placement on the ballot.

“Because it is undisputed that Mr. Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, the defendant can never be a natural-born citizen, as that term was defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, the defendant cannot meet the constitutional requirements to hold the office of president. See U.S. Const. Art. II Section 1.5 Georgia election code requires such a candidate to be stricken from any Georgia ballot.”

The U.S. Supreme Court opinion cited is Minor v. Happersett from 1875. It includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen,” a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.

That case states:

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Irion said the goal would be an injunction that would deprive Obama of Democratic Party certification.

“Without such certification from the party, Obama will not appear on any ballot in the 2012 general election,” his organization said in an announcement when the cases were launched.

Liberty Legal said it is not addressing Obama’s place of birth or his birth certificate.

“These issues are completely irrelevant to the argument. LLF’s lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined ‘natural-born citizen’ as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant,” the group said.

WND has reported that Maricopa, Ariz., County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has launched a formal law enforcement investigation into whether Obama may submit fraudulent documentation to be put on the state’s election ballot in 2012. A full report is expected within weeks.

The White House in April released an image of a “Certificate of Live Birth” from the state of Hawaii in support of Obama’s claim that he was born in the state. The White House has not addressed the questions raised by Obama’s father’s nationality. In addition, many computer, imaging, document and technology experts have stated the document image appears to be a forgery.

The image that the new lawsuits contend is irrelevant:

http://whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.

“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”

If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.

“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”

Source:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/court-obama-must-be-constitutionally-eligible/

Note: The following articles and/or blog posts and videos relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

I. Open Letter to Judge Michael Malihi of Georgia: ‘The Rule Of Law Must Be Upheld!’

Right ON!

Posted on The Post & Email-By Sharon Rondeau-On January 3, 2012:

“January 3, 2012

Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi


Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings


230 Peachtree Street NW


Suite 850


Atlanta, GA  30303

Dear Judge Malihi:

I am editor of an electronic newspaper, The Post & Email (www.thepostemail.com) which covers constitutional issues and government corruption, and I am writing to express my sincerest appreciation for your ruling today which supported Georgia law O.C.G.A. 21-2-5(a) in favor of a voter’s right to challenge the eligibility of any candidate for public office.

For more than three years, a debate has raged as to whether or not the man who occupies the White House is eligible to serve as President and commander-in-chief.  The questions surrounding his eligibility do not have to do with the number of years he has resided in the United States nor his age, but rather, the “natural born Citizen” requirement expressed in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

There are questions about whether or not a person born to a father who was not an American citizen can be considered “natural born” and whether or not Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims.  There are questions about whether or not birthplace is a determining factor for “natural born” citizenship or if it is something else altogether.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear all challenges to Obama’s eligibility on the merits, the American people have been forced to live under the exigencies of a constitutional crisis since the 2008 election.  No public servant in any branch of government has upheld his or her oath and commenced scrutiny of the meaning of the “natural born Citizen” clause in relation to Obama’s background.  The legislative, judicial and executive branches of government at every level have failed in their duty to their constituents, instead issuing purposely-deceitful form letters, relying on faulty information which they have repeated ad nauseum, and denying U.S. military members discovery so that they might know that the orders they have received are legally issued.

The Congressional Research Service has published four memos to members of Congress which obfuscate and even omit relevant parts of law cases which directly impact whether or not Obama is eligible for the position he holds.  The U.S. Justice Department has managed to have all cases brought to obtain the truth dismissed on technicalities rather than simply presenting the evidence.  It is now clear that our government is perpetuating a charade of mammoth proportions while holding the American people hostage, not unlike that which catapulted the 13 colonies into revolution in 1776 and eventual independence from Great Britain.

The Framers of the Constitution specifically included the term “natural born” for the office of President to indicate a higher level of qualification than simply “citizen.”  Originally, they had used the term “citizen” but changed it after considering John Jay’s letter to George Washington cautioning that the highest office in the land required absolute allegiance to the new nation.

In order for our state and federal governments to operate properly, those elected to serve must respond to those who placed their trust in them. For more than three years, millions of Americans have asked questions about Obama’s eligibility and been rebuked, ridiculed, rebuffed, ignored, or lied to by their representatives.  It is a fact that the term “citizen” is not the same as “natural born Citizen,” yet our elected representatives would have us believe that their meanings are identical.  Judges have used the “no standing” excuse myriads of times rather than hear a case on the merits, whether out of cowardice, fear, lack of principle, or perhaps something more sinister.

True statesmen and public servants are very hard to find in today’s America, and I believe it is accurate to state that confidence in our government is dangerously low.

The U.S. military has a right to know if its commander-in-chief is eligible to issue orders.  The American people have a right to know if the President has foreign allegiances which affect his ability to make decisions in the best interests of their country.  Because of your decision issued today, perhaps we will finally have that opportunity, and for that, I thank you.

During a time when morality, ethics, high standards and doing what is right are rare things, my deepest respect is extended to you, sir, for reading the law as it is stated rather than making excuses for allowing this horrendous situation to continue.  There is an abundance of evidence that many, if not most, judges in this country today issue decisions which are not based on the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, but rather, on a whim, a political viewpoint, or worse, a bribe.  For example, if one examines the judiciary in Monroe County, TN, it becomes obvious that our founding documents have not seen the light of day there in a very long time, and the rule of law is nonexistent.  This is what all of America will become if her laws are not enforced.

When we know for a fact whether or not Obama is eligible, the outcome will be dealt with and the nation can begin to heal from the tremendous conflict which has torn it asunder for so long.  Constitutional eligibility is not a Democrat or Republican issue; it is a fundamental constitutional issue which must be addressed.  I believe that today’s decision was the first step in that direction.

Very truly yours,

Sharon Rondeau


Editor


The Post & Email


www.thepostemail.com


editor@thepostemail.com


P.O. Box 195


Stafford Springs, CT  06076”

Source:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/03/open-letter-to-judge-michael-malihi-of-georgia/

II. Lawmakers: Obama ballot challenge unfairly denied!

Right ON!

Posted on Concord Monitor-By Maddie Hanna / Monitor staff-On January 4, 2012:

“New Hampshire election law officials previously rejected their request to remove President Obama’s name from the ballot in advance of next week’s presidential primary, but that hasn’t stopped several state representatives, who yesterday presented what they said was proof that officials had unfairly denied their challenge to the president’s citizenship.

“Our complaint was denied, but there appears to be an inconsistency in the process of the challenge,” said Rep. Larry Rappaport, addressing several reporters and a group of supporters at a press conference called on the eve of the new legislative session. The lawmakers demanded an investigation into Obama’s eligibility to appear on the state’s primary ballot.

In a new twist on the challenge made in November, when California attorney Orly Taitz appeared before the state Ballot Law Commission to question the veracity of Obama’s birth certificates and Social Security number, Rappaport and other Republican representatives - including Lucien and Carol Vita, Harry Accornero and Laurie Pettengill - say the New Hampshire secretary of state’s office has been inconsistent in evaluating whether candidates meet the citizenship requirement established by the U.S. Constitution.

The representatives - who say Obama isn’t a natural-born citizen because his father was Kenyan - cite two instances from 2007 and 2011 in which prospective presidential candidates were told by the secretary of state’s office they had to be natural-born citizens to appear on the ballot. They see a discrepancy between those actions and statements made during the November ballot law hearing by a representative of the secretary of state’s office, which said its purview was restricted to ensuring that candidates properly filled out their paperwork and paid the requisite filing fee.

Given the precedent for denying a candidate based on citizenship, “we believe the secretary of state should launch an investigation,” Rappaport said. He also filed an affidavit yesterday morning with the state attorney general’s office describing a conversation he said he and the Vitas had in 2009 with Attorney General Michael Delaney, who told them Obama’s citizenship was a question for the federal government and “refused to investigate,” Rappaport said.

He and other supporters seemed to believe that giving the office that affidavit would lead to action. “They’re going to be forced to do something about it, an obstruction of justice, now that they’ve been served with that information,” said Mark Rossetti, a Manchester man who attended and said he helped organize the press conference.

But the attorney general’s office doesn’t plan to respond. “There’s no request in it,” said Associate Attorney General Richard Head, when asked about the affidavit yesterday. “I honestly can’t figure it out.”

Secretary of State Bill Gardner, meanwhile, said the examples cited by the representatives had far different circumstances than the challenges to Obama’s eligibility. In the first situation, an Egyptian man who filed a declaration of candidacy in 2007 was disqualified after the man acknowledged he wasn’t a natural-born citizen.

But the office didn’t learn that as the result of an investigation, Gardner said. He couldn’t remember how it came to his office’s attention that the man was Egyptian, but when it did, the office called the man, and he said he didn’t realize citizenship was a requirement, Gardner said.

In the second example, which happened in 2011, a man wrote to Gardner’s office saying he met all the constitutional requirements to become president - except for being a natural-born citizen, Gardner said. The man had filed a federal lawsuit asking a court to overturn that requirement.

Assistant Secretary of State Karen Ladd sent the man a letter the next day saying the office would not accept a filing for a person who is not a natural-born citizen.

“If the person admits it, then we can take you off the ballot,” Gardner said. “But if you don’t admit it, we don’t investigate. We don’t deal with Social Security or try to find out. We’ve never done that.”

The state Ballot Law Commission is charged with addressing challenges to a candidate’s eligibility, but the complaint that was filed by Taitz and backed by the state representatives alleged criminal activity, which is beyond the commission’s authority to decide, Gardner said.

Head said his office had received a request for a criminal investigation of Obama, “which we declined to do.” He said complaints about the qualifications of a sitting U.S. president should be handled by Congress, and the attorney general’s office would not be investigating questions about Obama’s eligibility.

Representatives at yesterday’s press conference repeatedly tried to distance themselves from the “birther” movement. They are “in no way making a consideration about where he was born,” Rappaport said - and described their concerns as constitutional and nonpartisan in nature.

But state Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley, who attended the event, disagreed with that characterization.

“There’s no legitimate Democrat certainly north of the Mason-Dixon Line that is involved in any way with this,” Buckley said.”

• Maddie Hanna can be reached at 369-3321 or mhanna@cmonitor.com.

Source:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/301974/lawmakers-obama-ballot-challenge-unfairly-denied?CSAuthResp=1325684197%3Aeadgfvm27ehb96q8b80sucfau0%3ACSUserId%7CCSGroupId%3Aapproved%3A6B07D8A277FFFED38D03B3B67E6DDA09&CSUserId=94&CSGroupId=1

III. Video: Press Conference with New Hampshire Representatives Regarding Obama Ballot Access Challenge and Fraud!-Posted on YouTube.com-By bikerbillnh-On January 3, 2012:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OR__vYime8

IV. BREAKING!!! Georgia Court to Hear Natural Born Citizen Case vs Obama!-Posted on The National Patriot-By Craig Andresen-On January 3, 2012:

http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=3722

V. SHERIFF JOE TARGETED FOR OUSTER: ‘Faces ‘resign now’ campaign as Cold Case Posse prepares Obama eligibility report!’-Posted on WND.com-By Jerome R. Corsi-On January 3, 2012:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/sheriff-joe-targeted-for-ouster/

VI. Video: Arpaio Slaps Down Critics Who Tell Him to Step Down!-Posted on YouTube.com-By abc15com-On December 29, 2011:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a2Fz5513gg&feature=player_embedded#

Americans are waking up!

Thanks to WND’s un-wavering commitment and fortitude many Americans across the country are starting to wake up to the fact that President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of President, as substantiated by his newly released long-form Certificate of Live Birth, which shows that his father was in fact born in Kenya in 1936. At the time, Kenya was a British colony. Therefore Obama Senior was a British subject by birth (due to the fact that he was born within British-controlled territory). When President Obama was born in 1961, he acquired British nationality by descent, because his father was a British subject by birth. When Kenya gained its independence from Great Britain in 1963, President Obama became a citizen of the newly-formed nation.

Sources:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=358645

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

http://constitutionalreset.ning.com/video/atty-dr-herb-titus-obama-not-a-natural-born-citizen

Additionally, Several new organizations, to include active websites, were established to educate and mobilize the American public on the significance of “natural born Citizen” and the 2012 Election, along with an initiative to assist ordinary registered voting citizens wishing to challenge President Obama’s constitutional eligibility and name placement on their state’s 2012 primary presidential ballot. The team that established and maintains this website is currently compiling election laws from all 50 states and in the near future will be providing forms, along with sample letters that registered voters can use to file a complaint. Also included is pertinent information regarding those lawsuits and/or complaints that have been filed by state, to include my own.

Sources:

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/superpac-founder-explains-mission-of-natural-born-citizen-pac

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/obama-ballot-challenge-founder-interviewed-by-post-email

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/retired-marine-captain-files-obama-ballot-challenge-in-new-mexico

Word of Caution:  Although its great that many Americans are now beginning to wake up and are actively taking some action to have President Obama taken off the 2012 Presidential Election Ballots we need to keep in mind that those individuals with unlimited sources and/or resources, to include the deep pockets of anti-American George Soros, our own local and national elected officials and others, with the help of the MSM, who have spent years planning and successively perpetrating what I now believe could be the greatest fraud in American history are not going to go down without a fight and thus, as a result, I also believe that now more than ever we need to stick together as Americans (it's no longer Democrat or Republican) at this crucial time when our country and/or Republic needs us more than ever to see this thru. A Republic for which so many Americans have and continue to give their all to uphold and defend.

So the question is: Are you going to be part of the problem by continuing to keep your head in the sand hoping this issue goes away by itself or are you going to be part of the solution by stepping up to the plate and doing what ever it takes to uphold and defend our Republic before its too late?-You Decide.

Note:  My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

The Greatest Fraud Perpetrated in American History!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/the-greatest-fraud-perpetrated-in-american-history/

Could the President’s newly released COLB be a forgery?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/could-the-president’s-newly-released-colb-be-a-forgery/

Is it important to understand the Marxist assault on the foundations of our system?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/is-it-important-to-understand-the-marxist-assault-on-the-foundations-of-our-system/

Note:  If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial.  Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake

I KNOW THE TEA PARTY DOES NOT LIKE THE WAY IT WENT MITT A MODERT. 

FINALLY!  Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. will have her day in court!  On Jan. 26, the court will hear two atty.s here in Georgia AND Dr. Taitz as they present evidence regarding Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot here for the 2012 election.  Obamalinsky had filed a motion to dismiss, and the judge TURNED IT DOWN.  For Orly's take on this, http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=29976

For those of you who listened in on Tea Party Radio a few weeks ago, Dr. Taitz joined us on the program and this was one of the topics of discussion.  Go to the link above for more detailed information from Dr. Taitz herself.  

Tune in tomorrow, Wednesday, Jan. 4, for Tea Party Radio where we have as our featured guest conservative columnist Mychal Massie.  He will be joining us @ 9 pm EST and we will be discussing his latest observations posted on World Net Daily, and his blog @ http://mychal-massie.com/premium/

With your continuing participation and voice, we can and will make a difference!