Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
OBAMARELEASE YOURRECORDS ON 6:37 PM
OBAMARELEASE YOURRECORDS ON 1:43 PM
OBAMARELEASE YOURRECORDS ON 2:25 AM
Oh come on, give me a tough one… but since you asked.
Let’s assume Sybrina Fulton [yes, her last name is different than her son Trayvon Martin aka "@NO_LIMIT_NIGGA"] recently trademarked the phrases “I am Trayvon” and “Justice for Trayvon” forall the right reasons. (ahem)
Point being, the budding entrepreneur could simply trademark various phrases containing, ‘Trayvon”, with or without “Martin.”
But if that ain’t yo’ thang, you’ll need to go deep inside Trayvon Martin’s ‘culture‘ to produce effective taglines…
Or, you could grab some hoodies, Skittles® and iced tea, then parade your kids around town.
OK. Now the parents…
Kill Zimmerman Twitter account is initiated. On it states, this page is 4 Ppl who believe Zimmerman should be shot dead in the street the same way Trayvon was. No Justice No Peace.
No due process of law required. This is the example of our government/civil leaders who have led in disgrace of public discourse. This is their call for civility. Vigilantism is alive and well in America.
By the way, Palin is blamed/responsible for the cross-hairs used in the photo.
Kill Zimmerman Active Twitter Account Click Here
I’m over this government-subsidized Travyon Martin media fiasco. And I plan to stop covering it unless/until the riots – provoked by our race-baiting president and select black men openly putting out ‘consequence-free’ contracts and ‘soft’ hits on George Zimmerman – begin.
Last night it hit me. There is something all too familiar about Obama’s zeal for praising rebellion and aligning himself with it. Egypt. I called him on it. So did every other conservative out there, including Rush Limbaugh,
“Obama can’t complain if we go Egypt on him because he said that’s how democracy works, that’s what he said on Friday. This is the way real democracy works, so he can’t complain if it happens to him, and it will.”
Ladies and gentleman, I present to you our Nobel ‘Peace’ Prize winning president…
Right. On with the 2nd round of thug-like Tweets from Trayvon Martin (‘insightful comment’ follows):
Second Trayvon Martin Twitter Feed Identified
(Daily Caller) The Daily Caller has identified a second Twitter handle that was used by the late Trayvon Martin during the last weeks of 2011. Tweeting in December under the name “T33ZY TAUGHT M3,” Martin sent a message that read, “Plzz shoot da #mf dat lied 2 u!”
It’s unclear who Martin intended the message for, or whether he intended it to be taken literally.
The photo Martin chose to represent himself on Twitter as “T33ZY TAUGHT M3″ depicts him in a black Polo cap, looking into the camera and extending his middle finger. The photo’s file name on Twitter’s server indicates that it was taken on the afternoon of June 17, 2010.
(courtesy of Daily Caller)
At least one website issued a retraction this week after mistakenly linking Martin to a middle-finger-salute image on a Facebook account corresponding to a Georgia teenager who shares Martin’s name. This image, however, was uploaded to Twitter by the teen himself.
On Tuesday TheDC published 152 pages of Martin’s Twitter activity that were retrieved using the social analytics product PeopleBrowsr.
Additional searches via the same website yielded the Twitter handle “T33ZY TAUGHT M3,” whose activity spanned just one month and ended shortly before Martin began tweeting as “NO_LIMIT_NIGGA.” His Twitter activity under that newer screen name began with the tweet: “NEW NAME, NEW BACKGROUND, NEW TWEETCON, I MAKE CHANGS B4 NEW YEARS!”
Perhaps the most insightful comment I’ve come across regarding the Trayvon Martin ‘culture’ – Sad Hill:
“But if you don’t act like this you are “acting white” and a porch nigger. Those of us who step out of this culture trap are beaten by these thugs and called the most vile things. But success is the best revenge and while all those losers are in jail or on welfare I’m still acting white and owning businesses. I also wont hire these thugs. Not only do the fail basic math and English they have no people skills. Its a self perpetuating cycle of worthlessness.”
Black men issuing contracts and ‘soft’ hits on George Zimmerman: HERE
BREAKING NEWS: liberal ‘mainstream’ media releases new photos of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman: HERE
The Trayvon Martin our government-subsidized media won’t let you see: HERE
The last Tweets of Trayvon Martin: HERE
Obama, ‘If I had a son, he’d look like…’: HERE
But Sad Hill, how can we profit from all the Trayvon Martin race-baiting?: HERE
Washington Post and CBS receive $2 million in ObamaCare Taxpayer subsidies: HERE
American Holocaust – Obama defends the extermination of 54+ million lives: HERE
Obama praises Egyptian protestors: HERE
Barack Hussein Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize: HERE
We go ‘Egypt’ on Obama – that’s how democracy works: HERE
Democrat Official credits Obama with Mubarak resignation: HERE
Obama honors Nobel winner with a statement about himself: HERE
Nobel winner, Obama, misquotes another Nobel winner, Martin Luther King, Jr.: HERE
Obama, bad egg: HERE
When developing a new U.S. Constitution for the United States of America, Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft on June 18, 1787. In addition, he also submitted to the framers a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:
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.
Many of the founders and framers expressed fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future serve as President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. This question of foreign influence was elevated when John Jay considered the additional power granted to the Presidency during times of war, that is when he serves as Commander in Chief of the military. Jay felt strongly that whoever served as President and Commander In Chief during times of war must owe their sole allegiance to and only to the United States.
Because this fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was strongly felt, Jay took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements for the office of the President.
John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s codification of natural law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. Rather, Jay wanted to make sure the President and Commander In Chief owed his allegiance solely to the United States of America. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word ‘natural’ goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents via natural law.
Below is the relevant change to Hamilton’s proposed language detailed in Jay’s letter written to George Washington dated 25 July 1787:
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 Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington at this link.
Upon receiving Jay’s letter, General Washington passed on the recommendation to the convention where it was adopted in the final draft. Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 September 1787:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation and the answer.
Hamilton’s suggested presidential citizenship eligibility requirement was that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. But that citizenship status was overwhelmingly rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person “born a citizen” to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of future Presidents owing allegiance to other foreign nations or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military.. Therefore, the President of the United States must be a “natural born citizen” with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth. [SOURCE CREDIT]
So why do we keep hearing about the President only needing to be “born a citizen”? Well, let’s start with the fallacy of the 14th amendment trumping Article II -
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The intent and purpose of the (14th) amendment was to provide equal citizenship to all Americans either born on U.S. soil or naturalized therein and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It does not grant “natural born Citizen” status. It only confers “citizen” status, as that is the exact word used by the Amendment itself and that is the same word that appears in Article I, II, III, and IV of the Constitution. It just conveys the status of “citizen,” and as we learned from how the Framers handled the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, being a “citizen” does not necessarily mean that one is a “natural born Citizen.”
The Fourteenth Amendment only tells us who may become members of the community called the United States, i.e., those born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens. The amendment was needed because under Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), slaves and their descendents, whether free or not, were not considered as being members of that community even though born on U.S. soil and unlike the American Indians subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the amendment only allowed these slaves and their descendents to become a member of the U.S. community by making them U.S. citizens. Once those persons or anybody else (e.g. Wong Kim Ark) so became a member of the U.S. community (became a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil or through naturalization), then that person could join with another U.S. citizen and procreate a child on U.S. soil who would then be an Article II "natural born Citizen."
Hence, during the Founding, the original citizens created the new Constitutional Republic. Through Article II’s grandfather clause, they were allowed to be President. Their posterity would be the "natural born Citizens" who would perpetuate the new nation and its values. These “natural born Citizens,” born after the adoption of the Constitution, would be the future Presidents.
Subsequently, a “natural born Citizen” was created by someone first becoming a member of the United States (a U.S. citizen) by birth on its soil to a mother and father who were U.S. citizens or if not so born then through naturalization, and then joining with another similarly created U.S. citizen to procreate a child on U.S. soil. The product of that union would be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
After the Fourteenth Amendment, it became sufficient to be a citizen if one were merely born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That U.S. citizen would then procreate with another similarly created U.S citizen and produce a “natural born Citizen.”
As we can see, becoming a U.S. citizen is only the first step in the process of creating a “natural born Citizen.” The second step is the two U.S citizens procreating a child on U.S. soil. It is these “natural born Citizens” who can someday be President or Vice President of the United States. Stated differently, a President must be a second generation American citizen by both U.S. citizen parents. A Senator or Representative can be a first generation American citizen by naturalization or birth. It is the extra generation carried by a President which assures the American people that he/she is born with attachment and allegiance only to the United States. [SOURCE CREDIT]
Now, let’s take a look at the Godfather of the 14th amendment and see what he had to say about “born a citizen” vs “natural born citizen” –
During a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:
As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth. (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)
Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US.
John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:
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. - (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:
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.... - (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
According to Justice Black, Bingham’s words uttered on the floor of the House are the most reliable source. Bingham made three statements, none of them challenged on the Floor, which indicate that a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to parents who were US citizens. [SOURCE CREDIT]
And of course we’ve all heard the Supreme Court has never ruled on or defined what a “natural born citizen” is, but that is a folly –
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
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.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
"But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”. [SOURCE CREDIT]
Let’s take a look at the numerous attempts congress has made over the years to change the definition of Article II even though any educated American knows that to change the constitution in any shape or form a constitutional amendment is required. -
The effort to remove the natural-born citizen requirement from the U.S. Constitution actually began in 1975 – when Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment underH.J.R. 33: which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution – “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.”
Bingham’s first attempt failed and he resurrected H.J.R. 33: in 1977 under H.J.R. 38:, again failing to gain support from members of congress. Bingham was a Yale Law grad and member of the secret society Skull and Bones, later a lecturer at Columbia Law and thick as thieves with the United Nations via his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations.
Bingham’s work lay dormant for twenty-six years when it was resurrected again in 2003 as Democrat members of Congress made no less than eight (8) attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record…
1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59: in the 108th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].
2. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]
3. On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128: – “Natural Born Citizen Act – Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]
4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104: – “Constitutional Amendment – “Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No co-sponsors.
5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2: to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]
6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor
7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]
8. All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678: on February 28, 2008 – “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.” – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [AZ] would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.)
From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee — All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.
In politics, there are no coincidences… not of this magnitude.
Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511: – declaring Sen. John McCain a “natural born citizen” eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There was never any honest doubt about McCain, the son of a U.S. Navy Commander. The Sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO]
S.R.511 States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. S.R511 passed by a 99-0 unanimous consent of the Senate, with only John McCain not voting. The basis was – “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” – a condition not met by Barack Hussein Obama II. – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]; Sen Webb, Jim [VA]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (They had made certain that John McCain would run against Barack Obama)
However, in the McCain resolution is also this language – “Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States; – Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;”
The U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary. The definition of “is” is not in the constitution either. Yet this is the text that would later be issued in Congressional Research Service talking points memos distributed to members of congress, to protect an individual that all members of congress know and understand to be an “unconstitutional” resident of the people’s White House – Barack Hussein Obama II.
Once again, as the political left was unable to alter the U.S. Constitution by way of legitimate constitutional process, they resorted to altering the constitution via precedent setting, in short, knowingly electing and getting away with seating an unconstitutional president in order to alter Article II requirements for the office via breaking those constitutional requirements.
The press would not ask any questions and the American people were already too ill-informed of their constitution to know or too distracted by daily life to care. The press would provide the cover, swearing to the lies of an unconstitutional administration put in power by criminal actors focused only on their lofty political agenda of forever altering the American form of government.
The people would be caught up in a steady diet of daily assaults on their individual freedom and liberty and overlook the most obvious constitutional crisis in American history, the seating of an unconstitutional and anti-American president. [SOURCE CREDIT]
As you can see our past presidents eligible after the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 were all born on U.S. soil to Citizen parents.
Then we have the 13 eligibility bills introduced between 2009 and 2011 by Republican’s in their respective state general assemblies. Two made it to a Governor’s desk for signature – New Hampshire’s Governor signed HB1245 into law and Arizona's Governor, who was the Secretary of the State Board of Elections in 2008, vetoed HB295/529 – with the rest dying in committee,
So there you have the facts of this roaring debate in a nutshell. The people are dismissed as clueless while the congress, the media, the current crop of presidential contenders, the Republican and Democrat Parties and the legal system are all living in a fantasy land. The people are 100 percent correct, and the people have every intention of showing those who continue to obfuscate this extremely serious constitutional crisis the door.
1. Constitutional Convention - Navy CDR Charles Kerchner(Ret) www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
2. The Fourteenth Amendment - Attorney Mario Apuzzo www.Puzo1.blogspot.com
3. Rep. John Bingham - Attorney Leo Donofrio www.NaturalBornCitizen.wordpress.com
4. Supreme Court Cases - John Charlton www.ThePostEmail.com
5. Attempts to Amend Article II - J.B. Williams www.NewsWithViews.com
6. Citizenship Under Article II - Navy CDR Charles Kerchner(Ret) www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
7. Thirteen Eligibility” Bills - Art2SuperPAC www.Art2SuperPAC.com
Individuals and member organizations of the American media were threatened with FTC and FCC investigation if information gathered by Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse concerning the forgery of Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate were passed on to the American public.
It was Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo who made this stunning revelation, stating “During our investigation, we actually were told [that media] had been threatened with FTC investigations. Commentators [had been] threatened with their jobs.”
And Jerome Corsi, author of “Where’s the birth certificate,” the book whose imminent publication was responsible for forcing Barack Obama to quickly create and place the fraudulent long form birth certificate on the White House web site, has said that “Testimony is being developed that the White House is intimidating, in a systematic way, the mainstream media and if any broadcasters dare go into this birther story, they’re going to risk FCC investigations… people are going to have careers ruined… thrown off the air.”
Zullo went on to say the threats actually caused some individuals to “…quit their positions over safety concerns for their families.”
Those who tuned in to the web-cast of the Cold Case Posse report will recall that the scant few media members in attendance made it their business to represent the President rather than report on the information presented about the fraudulent birth certificate. Each “reporter” in his turn questioned the motives of Sheriff Arpaio and the political leanings of Mike Zullo, clearly far more interested in developing a tale of “right-wing conspiracy” than in the facts reported by Posse investigators.
And as only the internet would make the American people aware of what is arguably the most extraordinary crime committed against the American public in the past century, Zullo and Corsi teamed up to create an e-book which would make known all of the pertinent facts and findings of the investigation–facts which had of course been blacked out by the legacy media.
Naturally, the writing of the e-book has led to accusations of profiteering by Zullo and Corsi. In fact an AP article accuses the pair of using the Arpaio investigation “…as a promotional tool to sell [their] books and theories.” And although nowhere in the short article does the author present any of the facts supporting the claims of the Arpaio-led group, the AP hack does offer an Obama spokesman ample opportunity to ridicule the Posse’s work by comparing it to “the TV series ‘The X-Files.”
The entire episode of media and White House corruption has been summed up by on-line newsman Jeff Crouere as he writes, “Such a bombshell should have led the national news coverage throughout the country. Instead, it was completely ignored by a corrupt network of media elites who are decidedly liberal and wholeheartedly support Obama’s re-election.” “The vast majority of the American people have been denied the truth by a media who want to shield Obama.”
And apparently those select few members of the media actually interested in reporting the truth were intimidated out of doing so by minions of the Manchurian Candidate.
Published: 1 hour ago
Editor’s note: This is another in a series of “WND/WENZEL POLLS” conducted exclusively for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.
Questions have been raised about Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president since before his election, but with a mainstream media leading cheers for him there have been a lot of Americans who haven’t realized the seriousness of the situation – the possibility that the sitting president is ineligible and constitutionally devoid of authority to sign bills, set foreign policy or even host lavish parties for friends in the White
That’s changing and a large part of the reason is that Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., conducted a six-month Cold Case Posse investigation and revealed that there is probable cause to believe there was forgery in the creation of the image of Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth” and fraud in its presentation to the nation as a genuine document.
The evidence that the word has been reaching Americans comes in the latest WND/Wenzel Poll conducted exclusively for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.
It reveals that almost 40 percent of Americans – that would be somewhere in the range of 130 million or 140 million or so – now think the nation is facing a constitutional crisis because of a lack of documentation regarding Obama’s eligibility.
NOTE: In case you missed the news conference of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s “Cold Case Posse,” you can view it here.
The scientific telephone survey was conducted March 10-13 and has a margin of error of 3.72 percentage points.
The poll reveals that 25.8 percent of respondents say they strongly agree with the statement that the country now is facing a constitution crisis on the issue of an eligible president. Another 13.7 percent say they somewhat agree.
Critics long have raised the question about the impact on the nation should Obama be proven to be ineligible. There would be many issues to consider: Are the laws he’s signed still laws? What about the money he’s spent? And how about the commitments he’s made to allies overseas? What about significant social changes he’s brought about, such as opening the U.S. military to open homosexuality?
Could any of those be reversed. And who would pay for that?
Or does anybody care?
Arpaio’s investigation, done by experienced law enforcement investigators as well as attorneys, was released only a few weeks ago, and has been serving to wake people up on the issue, Wenzel said, despite mainstream media efforts to keep the information under wraps.
The poll showed 11 percent of respondents are very familiar with the conclusions in Arpaio’s report, and another 19 percent are somewhat familiar. Still, nearly 70 percent were not very or not at all familiar, a tribute to the work of mainstream and influential media outlets to conceal the facts of the dispute.
The poll also showed that because of Arpaio’s report, 40 percent of the respondents now concede they are more likely to believe Obama in ineligible to hold the office of president. Another 20 percent said they weren’t able to express an opinion on that question.
Also, more than 46 percent said they agree that now there needs to be more extensive investigative work done into Obama’s eligibility to determine the facts, while 39 percent said they disagreed with that.
And then there was the key question about the nation facing a constitutional crisis.
At issue would be consequences like the fallout of court decisions made by judges appointed by Obama. There are two new U.S. Supreme Court judges, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, who owe their lifelong appointments to Obama.
But if Obama was ineligible to start, what about those appointments, and what about the decisions in which those judges have participated?
Respondents also were divided, with 30 percent saying media coverage that did occur of the Arpaio report was favorable to Obama and another 25 percent who said it opposed Obama. Significantly, 30 percent were “not sure.”
Wenzel suggested that the issue needs to be in the news, so people know about it, can do their research and make up their minds.
“This issue is very much like the government takeover of the national health care system engineered in the first two years of the Obama term in that it produces a visceral and negative reaction from many voters, but it requires constant discussion to keep it in the minds of voters. This is not a subject on which voters want to dwell, but forced to think about it, many react in a negative way,” Wenzel said.
“This may be the very reason Obama’s supporters in the mainstream media do not want this topic discussed, and there has been a concerted effort to marginalize those who raise questions about this issue,” he said.
“But the truth is that if Americans came to realize just how many of their neighbors harbor the same skepticism about Obama’s eligibility that they share, the political and societal ramifications could bring dramatic change to this nation,” he said.
He did note his concern is that Americans so far mostly have been content to “sit idly by while an apparent imposter raids their national treasury and runs their once-great nation into the ground.”
The issue is that while the Constitution requires a president to be a “natural born citizen” the documentation that would reveal that for Obama remains unrevealed.
Obama has refused to allow access to whatever original documentation there might be in the state of Hawaii, where he said he was born, as well as many other documents, such as passport records, kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, University of Chicago articles, Illinois State Bar Association records, Illinois State Senate records and schedules, medical records, Obama/Dunham marriage license, Obama/Dunham divorce documents, Soetoro/Dunham marriage license and adoption records.
There also are his critics who say that “natural born citizen” at the time the Constitution was written would have meant the offspring of two citizens of the country, and since Obama’s father was a foreign national, he would not qualify under that standard.
WND previously reported that some of the silence from the media may be due to threats that were issued to intimidate them.
Lead Cold Case Posse investigator Mike Zullo told WND, “During our investigation, we actually were told [that media] had been threatened with FTC investigations. Commentators [had been] threatened with their jobs.”
The threats were so intimidating that some individuals quit their positions over safety concerns for their families, he said.
See detailed results of survey questions:
Sheriff Arpaio’s report found that there is probable cause to believe Barack Obama is NOT eligible to serve as president, and that the birth certificate he released last year was a forgery. Based on this information, and whatever else you have heard about this investigation, were you more or less likely to believe that Obama is eligible to hold the office of the presidency?
Thinking about how the media has covered the release of this new report, do you agree or disagree that the story was reported appropriately, fairly and objectively, do you think that most of the news coverage was slanted in favor of Obama, or do you think that coverage was slanted against Obama?
jueves, 08 de marzo de 2012
Published: 13 hours ago
Video footage of President Obama during hiscollegeyears atHarvard Universitywas intentionally suppressed by news media andacademiaduring the 2008 presidential campaign in order to hide Obama’s connections with radical leftists, according to the editors of Breitbart.com, the website of late conservative activist Andrew Breitbart.
“Open up your hearts and your minds to the words of Professor Derrick Bell,” Obama says during his speech before hugging him.
The embrace between the pair had been edited out of a video that was released earlier in the day by Buzzfeed. (Video of the embrace can be seen here.)
“This is just the beginning. And this video is a smoking gun showing that Barack Obama not only associated with radicals, he was their advocate,” said Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro.
Referring to Professor Bell, Shapiro explained, “This is a close associate of [controversial Obama Rev.] Jeremiah Wright, a man who was quoted by Jeremiah Wright regularly. This is a man who posited that the civil rights movement was too moderate because it accepted the status quo, and believed that the entire legal and constitutional system had to be transformed in radical fashion. This is a man so extreme that, as we’ve reported, he wrote a story in 1993 in which he posited that white Americans would sell black Americans into slavery to aliens to relieve the national debt, and that Jews would go along with it.”
Shapiro says the original video “was spliced and diced by the media to avoid showing just how close Obama was to Bell. More than that, a close associate of the Obama campaign, Harvard Law School’s Professor Charles Ogletree, admitted on our exclusive tape, ‘We hid this throughout the 2008 campaign. I don’t care if they find it now.’”
Portions of the tape had apparently been aired on PBS during the campaign four years ago, but without the audio of Obama’s statements and without video of Obama’s embrace of Bell.
“The media cover-up was very real. Ogletree’s cover-up was very real,” Shapiro said.
The videos were broadcast tonight on “Hannity” on Fox News, where columnists Juan Williams and Michelle Malkin were asked to weigh in on their content. (Video of “Hannity” can be seen here.)
“I thought this was going to be so much more,” said Williams. “I thought it was going to be a smoking gun. … But it really didn’t come to much.”
Malkin disagreed vehemently.
“I reject this idea that we should just shrug our shoulders and buy the PBS/Buzzfeed line that ‘There’s nothing new here.’ Stop it!” Malkin exclaimed.
“This is news. They didn’t want to talk about it then, and they don’t want to talk about it now. Do you think it’s a coincidence of timing that Barack Obama has now hired people to put out some 17-minute documentary? This is all about the Alinskyite control of who tells the story.”
Breitbart editors say today’s release was just the beginning.
“We’ve got plenty more and a lot will be released next week,” Shapiro said.
WND reported earlier that Andrew Breitbart had been investigating Obama just before the activist’s sudden death March 1, which is being probed by a coronor.
He told a crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington he had obtained videos of Obama from the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee’s college days.
“I’ve got videos, by the way. This election we’re going to vet him. I’ve got videos – this election we’re going to vet him – from his college days to show you why … racial division and class warfare are central to what hope and change was sold in 2008,” Breitbart told CPAC.
He said the videos would reveal Obama during a time when he was meeting a “bunch of silver ponytails” – referring to Weather Underground terror group members Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.
It was in the couple’s Chicago home that Obama’s political career reportedly was launched, and his ties to the two run deep. There’s been a solid argument made that Ayers ghost-wrote Obama’s highly acclaimed memoir, “Dreams from My Father.”
The possibility of videos producing revelations about Obama’s college days is significant, as Obama has carefully kept concealed evidence about his life during the time he reportedly attended Occidental College in California and later two East Coast schools.
A lawsuit at one point obtained an order for Occidental to reveal Obama’s student records. The aim was to find out whether he obtained aid or assistance as a foreign student, lending credibility to the argument that he does not qualify to be president under the Constitution’s “natural-born citizen” requirement.
The video posted by Buzzfeed without the embrace:
At a news conference, lead investigator Mike Zullo said his team believes the Hawaii Department of Health has engaged in a systematic effort to hide from public inspection any original 1961 birth records it may have in its possession.
“Officers of the Hawaii Department of Health and various elected Hawaiian public officials may have intentionally obscured 1961 birth records and procedures to avoid having to release to public inspection and to the examination of court-authorized forensic examiners any original Obama 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health may or may not have,” Zullo said.
NOTE: In case you missed the news conference of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s “Cold Case Posse,” you can view it here.
Barack Obama is indeed succeeding in his plans to “transform America,” but not in the way voters expected on Election Day in 2008. The number of the president’s actions that arguablyqualify as impeachable offenses is staggering.
The question before the country is what to do about it.
True, Obama faces the voters in 8-9 months, and that will be seen by many as a reason to avoid the turmoil of an impeachment proceeding. But one process has nothing to do with the other. Elections proceed on an established calendar, but if he has committed acts that warrant removal by way of impeachment, that process should proceed independent of the election calendar. While impeachment must never be used to override an election victory, neither should the prospects of electoral defeat be used as an argument to avoid impeachment.
Obama has demonstrated contempt for the Constitution and is increasingly resorting to rule by decree. He is recognized by a growing number of Americans as a danger to the republic – certainly a danger to our liberties and also a serious threat to our national security.
It is time for the House of Representatives to take its constitutional responsibility seriously and launch an impeachment investigation. The investigative committee should hold hearings, collect and weigh the evidence, and then present its findings to the Congress and the nation.
Has Obama committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” that warrant impeachment and removal? There is much evidence that says, yes, he has.
A special report with evidence galore: “The Case for Impeachment: Why Barack Hussein Obama Should be Impeached to Save America”just $4.95!
Impeachment of the president is justified on constitutional grounds if any of the following 12 questions is answered in the affirmative:
If the president is not guilty of any of these crimes, then a thorough investigation by a House committee with subpoena power will clear the air. If he is guilty, then the U.S. House of Representatives has a moral obligation to vote for a resolution of impeachment, and the U.S. Senate must bring him to trial.
If the leaders of the House believe that some or all of these actions are indeed impeachable offenses but nonetheless refuse to launch a formal investigation to ascertain all the facts, then there are two parties involved in Obama’s assault on the Constitution – the perpetrators and their accomplices. In layman’s terms, Obama and his radical cronies are busy robbing the bank, while the House Republican leadership waits in the getaway car.
If some or all of the allegations are adopted as true by the House but rejected by the Senate as inadequate grounds for removal, that means the president of the United States can ignore the particulars of his oath to defend the Constitution. It means he can govern by edict instead of “taking care to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.” It means that Barack Obama has indeed succeeded in his plans to “transform America.” It means we are perilously close to crossing the line between constitutional republic and dictatorship.
There is no question that the impeachment and removal of Barack Obama is within the proper scope and purpose of the Constitution’s impeachment provisions.
The history of the nation’s two presidential impeachment cases shows that although treason and bribery are the only crimes mentioned by name, this does not limit Congress’ authority to bring an indictment on other serious charges. Constitutionally speaking, “high crimes and misdemeanors” can mean almost anything Congress in its wisdom wants it to mean.
Clearly, the authors of the Constitution did not intend that presidents should be vulnerable to removal for light or petty reasons, hence the use of the adjective “high” in front of the words “crimes and misdemeanors.” Nevertheless, what constitutes a “high crime” is up to Congress to decide.
It is also clear from history that the identification and naming of impeachable offenses is as much a political judgment as a legal one. The assignment of separate and distinct roles to the House and the Senate – and the two-thirds vote requirement for conviction and removal – were deemed by the founders as sufficient safeguards against removal of a president for transient or narrowly partisan reasons.
We learned that lesson forcefully in the Clinton impeachment case. Politics can and will play a part in the process, but that is expected and entirely consistent with constitutional principles.
President Clinton was charged with two counts each of perjury and obstruction of justice. The House thought the crimes serious enough to adopt the impeachment resolution in December of 1998. Two months later, the Senate disagreed and voted for acquittal – or more precisely, failed to muster the required two-thirds vote for conviction. In the House vote, only five Democrats voted for impeachment, and in the Senate, not a single Democrat voted for conviction. So much for keeping politics out of the courtroom.
The peculiar and revealing thing about those two Clinton impeachment votes is that no one seriously doubted the guilt of the president on the perjury and obstruction charges. But Democrats in Congress believed that even if true, the charges did not warrant removal from office. They reasoned that the charges dealt with a private matter – Clinton’s sexual escapades – and not government business.
The Clinton case illustrates that for both Democrats and Republicans, in the last analysis, what is an impeachable offense is inevitably a political question as much as a legal one. Scholars and lawyers may have an opinion, but Congress’ opinion is the only one that matters. Congress’ supreme authority on impeachment questions is as much an embodiment of our separation of powers doctrine as the president’s broad prerogatives in foreign policy.
Admittedly, the likelihood of the present Democrat-controlled Senate casting a two-thirds vote for conviction and removal is almost zero. However, this does not discharge the House from its constitutional obligation to pursue the matter if – in their considered judgment – the evidence warrants.
The questions posed above all relate to actions affecting national security and unlawful political intervention in the execution of our nation’s laws – not mere policy differences. Obama’s disastrous economic policies, his ideological war against domestic energy production and his reckless proposals to add new trillions to our national debt– all are policies that are damaging to our nation’s well-being. However, such policies are not in themselves impeachable crimes. His contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law is a different matter altogether.
It is our distinct honor to now carry the commentaries and reports of Tom Tancredo, former Representative to Congress of the State of Colorado and 2008 candidate for U.S. President. His CongressmanTomTancredo.comregularly features his articles, as does WorldNetDaily.
Former Congressman Tancredo currently serves as chairman of Rocky Mountain Foundation, co-chairman of the anti-illegal immigration Team America PAC, and honorary chairman of Youth for Western Civilization. He speaks frequently on cable news, talk radio, and on college campuses – where his mere presence has led leftists to riot on multiple occasions. His book, In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America’s Border and Security was published in 2006.
Showdown: Sheriff Arpaio vs. the legend of Barry Soetoro as Barack Hussein Obama II
Last week, the six-month investigation Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to be the President of the United States by a commissioned law enforcement body concluded with a press conference by Joe Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona. Among their investigative findings was the conclusion that there has been a systematic effort to obscure the truth about Obama, including but not limited to his birth certificate, selective service registration and citizenship status. Catching our attention as investigators was one finding in particular: records were missing from the national archives.
Specifically, records from the Immigration and Naturalization Service documenting the identities of individuals entering the U.S. on international flights from foreign countries were missing. More specifically, only the records for the period between August 1-7, 1961 were gone and presumably removed from the archives, while all other time periods remained intact.
Our investigative report published on April 8, 2011, provided readers with this very same finding, except larger in scope. We noted that “the scrubbing and altering of records pertaining to Obama began well before he became an Illinois state senator in the 1996 election cycle. The ‘scrubbing’ or alteration of records did not begin or end with Obama, but also extended to his mother and other associates as well.”
As investigators, researchers and investigative journalists, we’ve seen this happen before. We’re also familiar with the “template of denial” used by the fact-a-phobic media in response to such findings. Simply ignore the facts.
Communist ties that… mysteriously vanish
One notable case is documented by M. Stanton Evans in his book Blacklisted by History, The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy. While conducting research for his book, he traveled to the National Archives to view a 106-page report dated August 3, 1946. The report, known as the “Klaus memo,” identified Communist Party members, Soviet agents and their facilitators working within the U.S. State Department.
He writes that the document should exist in two locations at the National Archives. The report was missing from one location, while a notice of removal from March 1993, nearly a half-century after it was written, was found in its place in the other. Other documents entrusted to the National Archives were also found to be missing, some leaving only their covers in place.
The scrubbing of records were not limited to official or government sources - they extended to the private sector as well. Newspaper archives from the McCarthy era, at that time frequently “regional” in nature, were not only missing from the newspaper morgues, they were also expunged from area library archives as well.
Regardless of one’s beliefs on the eligibility issue, the successful censoring of information vital to the history and security of the United States should convince even the most hardened skeptics that we have “enemies within.”
So, who is Barry Soetoro?
What does the scrubbing of McCarthy-era records and documents have to do with Barack Hussein Obama, a/k/a Barry Soetoro? Much, it appears.
The same tactics used by Communist enemies of our nation to revise history by removing or changing it have been uncovered by our investigation and now by the official commissioned law enforcement body spearheaded by Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Given the numerous findings by multiple investigative journalists, including Andrew Breirbart, of direct ties between the current occupant of the Oval Office to active communists and socialists and their ideologies, it would be perilous to our nation to continue to ignore the “legend” of Barack Hussein Obama. We must demand accountability from our current elected officials, and coverage by our “conservative” talk show hosts. We must not wait for the 2012 elections to demand the official vetting of Barry Soetoro, or is it Barack Hussein Obama?
Is it possible that we really don’t know, with absolute certainty, even the legal name of the sitting U.S. president? Sadly, yes. If you contend otherwise, you have not been paying attention to the biggest scam ever perpetrated on a slumbering populace.
The proverbial devil is in the details - or the conspicuous absence of them.