YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS CRISIS AND CAN BE REMOVED AND TRIED FOR TREASON
Dear Editor: The following letter was sent to the United States Supreme Court today:
endures and this is the symbol of its faith.” – Chief Justice Charles Evans
Cornerstone Address, Supreme Court Building
July 14, 2010
Supreme Court of the United States
US Supreme Court Building
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543
Dear Honorable Chief Justice Roberts:
Perhaps you and the rest of the justices have not noticed, but there is a war going on here. We the people are having a pretty hard time trying to understand just what it is the Supreme Court is doing these days. Would you care to fill us in?
Maybe you should consider a press conference where you could not only clarify the matter in which Mr. Obama attempted to discredit the Supreme Court but also maybe even rein in this rogue government. Speaking for most of the people in the United States, we would sure appreciate a fine demonstration of how the separation of powers protects all of us from an overly abusive regime. We would welcome such a demonstration at any time you can arrange for it to happen. Like now.
By the way, Justice Roberts, the complaints we raise are not political in nature. The usurper who is currently being illegally entertained as our president and his cohorts have conveniently managed to blur the line between politics and subversion so effectively that it appears even members of your illustrious judicial body have also fallen for this ruse.
Based on my daily monitoring of events to insure the safety of the Constitution, I can only imagine you might have noticed that our government has been seized by Communists and other progressives, The Constitution has been totally ignored, Congress and the everyone in the regime are violating their oaths of office, and, from what I can tell, bouncing off the walls with bribes and illegal deals that are being funded by “we” the taxpayers. It would seem that conflicts of interest abound and are the rule as opposed to the exception.
This rogue “administration” is being run by what I believe is an Islamic fundamentalist…you know, we used to call those guys “terrorists,” that is, until the main terrorist himself, “with the help of his friends,” seized control and dumbed up the terms used to describe our enemies.
He is now acting illegally as the president because the Congress and you have turned your back on the Constitution. Now perhaps you all are too embarrassed to admit the nature of your folly and maybe I am totally off-base here, but this is how I see the matter. If I am incorrect in my opinion as expressed, I would greatly appreciate your setting the record straight.
While I wait for your response, let me comment that Americans have always been characterized by our generosity, but, geeze, Justice Roberts, I am sure even the members of the Supreme Court could appreciate the bizarre circumstances of actually having invited a domestic enemy dedicated to destroying our country to assume command of our economy, our resources and the most powerful military in the world. So am I right about this, or is it my imagination?
OK, so let’s get down to brass tacks! The information below clarifies the issue about which we as citizens have been agonizing for the last 18 or so months. This one sentence says it all:
As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
So let’s knock off this foot-dragging to settle this issue of Obama’s eligibility. The responsibility is yours and yours alone. All of these divisive “No Standing” roadblocks are instruments of your doing. As I see it, your deliberate judicial shenanigans serve to delay the resolution of this Constitutional crisis and are aiding and abetting our enemy. We are losing thousands of productive man-days due to your failure to act.
As the guardian and interpreter of the Constitution, in my view, you have failed your responsibility miserably. You have permitted this problem to persist in violation of your oath of office. Justice Roberts, just what part of the following is not clear?
The Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law.
EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
As I see it, when a person runs for public office, he is no longer a private citizen. He has an obligation and a compelling duty to provide any reasonable background information. How can you possibly deny the public access to this information without incriminating yourself?
The purpose of the constitutional requirement for eligibility is perfectly clear. What is not clear is if indeed the founding documents must be applied in whole, how is it possible for any one or any entity to circumvent satisfying the requirements as it may become convenient? Certainly this practice comes under the purview of the courts and is not negotiable. So tell me, Justice Roberts, on what basis have you permitted this constitutional violation to occur?
Considering your oath of office, your responsibility is ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice. Your responsibility does not permit you the luxury to decide to what degree you will comply with this responsibility. As I see it, Justice Roberts, you and the rest of the Supreme Court have failed the American people.
We as a people are respectful of the rule of law and we honor the principles laid out in the Constitution. As you are well aware, every day we find new abuses aimed at further destruction of the Republic that has been built over the last 200 years. Many of us resent the treatment we have received and warn of limitations to our patience. The anger of the people is palpable. If you do not feel it, you had better work at it harder.
Additionally, recent evidence has emerged and many are led to believe this whole conspiracy has been orchestrated by puppet masters behind the politicians who are so powerful that they can arbitrarily change the course of history based on a handshake. So tell me, Justice Roberts, is the Supreme Court in a position to go along with this type of an “election deal?” A deal between two potential candidates, neither of whom were and still are not qualified to hold the office of the president? And even though they still might not be qualified, how is it that one of them was capable of fraudulently distorting the outcome of an election and disenfranchising the citizens of the United States?
The most damming part, Justice Roberts…all of this on your watch!
Maybe a few pages out of the Foreign Affairs Manual ”7 FAM 1131.6-2” might explain things. Let’s face it: neither candidate could possibly have qualified, so why the games? Are all of those engaged in this conspiracy so unpatriotic and lacking in ethics and morality as to permit the wholesale slaughter of the American republic for the sake of a power grab or some individual profiteering?
How could such a devious plan by a group of government/private officials be permitted? How could it be possible that such a conspiracy of this magnitude be carried out by such a broad group of people and entities and yet be kept secret from the American people?
My point here, Justice Roberts, is that your duty to assume an active role as the guardian of the Constitution is long overdue. On many occasions you have been invited to participate. However, at each occurrence, you chose to ignore the opportunity to join.
What is the key here, Justice Roberts? What is the trigger?
Editor’s Note: The quote at the top of this article from the website of the U.S. Supreme Court was taken from Mr. Charles Evans Hughes, who served as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1930-1941. In 1916, he ran for president against the incumbent, Woodrow Wilson, but did not meet the Framers’ definition of “natural born Citizen,” according to Democrat attorney and ambassador to Italy under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Breckinridge Long.
© 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.