Printable View
Did anyone happen to catch the segment last night on O'Reilly where he talked about Barack Obama Sr? Notice how O'Reilly skimmed over the part that talked about how BO Sr. was a Kenyan citizen????? How blatantly obvious was it that Fox News was told to stand down on this topic?? Why didn't O'Reilly even SUGGEST that the fact of BO's father's citizenship would render him ineligible for POTUS?????
http://www.congressweb.com/cweb2/index. ... GroupID/60
At the above address, you can email to Mr. Obama, your U.S. Senators and Representative, and
your State Governor, Senator, and Representative, the following message, as is, without charge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Patriot News
In Minor v. Happersett (1875), U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison Remerick Waite wrote for the court, "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."
In The Law of Nations (1758), Emmerich de Vattel codifed the common understanding of international law current in 1758. "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
So, "natives" are "natural-born citizens," that is, citizens born in the country of citizen parents.
"Native-born" means born in one's own country, regardless of the citizenship of one's parents. Even a person who is not a native, not a natural-born citizen, or not even a citizen at all, is native-born if he resides in the country of his birth. "Native-born" is a common phrase in the English language, not a legal term of art like "natural born Citizen." "Native-born" does not have the legal implications of nbC and is not so rigorously defined as nbC.
Therefore, I maintain that Barack Obama II can't be a native of the U.S. because Barrack Snr. was not a U.S. citizen. Although some maintain that "Barack II can't be native-born to the U.S. because Barrack Sr. was a native to Kenya," I maintain that:
even though Barack II can't be a native of the U.S. (because of Barrack Snr.'s Kenyan citizenship),
Barack II could theoretically be U.S. native-born (although he isn't, because he was born in Kenya).
I hope we can agree on that clarification of terms. Making the fine distinction between "native-born" and "a native or natural born Citizen" requires precise parsing to avoid confusion.
Play It Again, Sam - Why Obama Can't Be Impeached
http://www.rense.com/1.mpicons/devvy.jpg
By Devvy
7-15-11
many links on this post
Rage continues to build across this country over the obvious forged birth certificate Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Obama, released April 27, 2011, as do calls for his impeachment. However, Obama cannot be impeached.
Let me quote Dr. Edwin Vieira, who wrote about this back in December 2008 before Obama was "sworn" into office:
If Obama is not "a natural born Citizen" or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for "the Office of President" (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be "elected" by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the members of the House purport to "elect" Obama, he will be nothing but a usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because a usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.
If Obama dares to take the Presidential "Oath or Affirmation" of office, knowing that he is not "a natural born Citizen," he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for "the Office of President," he cannot "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States," or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the "Oath or Affirmation" will be a violation thereof! So, even if the chief justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the "Oath or Affirmation," Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.
Third, his purported "Oath or Affirmation" being perjured from the beginning, Obama's every subsequent act in the usurped "Office of President" will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242.
If Obama does become an usurper posturing as "the President," Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be "removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" (see Article II, Section 4).
For those who think Dr. Vieira Jr., Ph.D., J.D., is just some run-of-the-mill attorney, let me give you a very condensed bio: He holds four degrees from Harvard. For more than 30 years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States, he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson and Communications Workers of America v. Beck. His two volume tome, "Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution," is the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective.
Despite all the noise out there by Obama's supporters, it is crystal clear the putative president was born with dual citizenship and is forever ineligible to be president.
Obama seized the office of president through fraud. As a usurper, he's never held office. That's what the word usurp means: to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right. Since he legally has never occupied the White House as president, he cannot be impeached.
Now, when I have pointed this out countless times to groups demanding impeachment, I get this response: I don't care Â* we just have to get him out.
Those are people who proudly proclaim they only want to see the U.S. Constitution upheld. Those are people who state unequivocally that the usurper was never eligible to run because he's not a natural born citizen under the U.S. Constitution.
You can't have it both ways. In essence, what those folks are saying is we can do the same thing as Obama and his coconspirators: circumvent the Constitution.
But, the usurper has committed crimes while in office! Indeed, he has and continues to do so. Knowing he was not eligible to run, the putative president solicited campaign donations to the tune of about $700 million dollars. He can still be indicted for wire fraud.
Those who demand his impeachment are asking to set one of the worst legal precedents in our history: Any constitutionally ineligible thug can come along and buy his way into the White House. We'll just impeach him later!
To impeach would also accomplish this: Every piece of legislation he's signed into law would remain on the books. Let me quote Dr. Vieira one more time:
"Perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy "the Office of President." The Constitution provides that "[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the UnitedStates" (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to a usurper posturing as "the President of the United States," but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no "Bill" will or can, "before it become a Law, be presented to [him]." If no "Bill" is so presented, no "Bill" will or can become a "Law." And any purported "Law" that the usurper "approve[s]" and "sign[s]," or that Congress passes over the usurper's "Objections," will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully "enters office" as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as "President."
Besides removing a usurper from office,thatshould be our second-highest consideration and why the outlaw Congress hasn't moved against him. All 535 of them allowed this to happen, and now it's gone so far; they don't have the courage to take on the mess they've made.
The usurper can be indicted once out of office, but how to get him out? Please take the time to read my column on that process.Will he ever be indicted for his crimes? With enough public pressure, it can happen because his handlers would simply throw him under the bus as a liability.
There will be a massive push to keep the putative president off the ballot in dozens of states. It will come from candidates who understand the process discussed in my column above. Mark my words, what's coming will be a nightmare for the DNC and Obama's handlers. Time is running out for them to find another viable candidate; something will have to give.
One way or the other, Obama's crimes are going to catch up with him, but please stop working toward setting the wrong legal precedent. It's beyond frustrating, I know, but either we live our words in supporting the U.S. Constitution or we take the wrong road opening the door for another ineligible candidate with enough money and corrupt individuals behind him to seize the office of president.
----
http://www.devvy.com. You may also sign up for her free email alerts.
http://www.rense.com/general94/play_dev.htm
Hey, who knew?Quote:
Originally Posted by Devvy Kidd
______________________________________________
Republicans are no doubt pleased with the Gallup poll released on Thursday.
http://www.hannity.com/cimages/var/e...ll-7-14-11.gif
But many of us would be far more pleased if Mr. Obama were ousted immediately from the office he is fraudulently usurping.
Barack Obama is, according to the Constitution, an illegal President and has committed multiple felonies both in and out of office
Obama’s ineligibility: Prepare to defend America – Congress is inviting rebellion
15 Comments
- Lawrence Sellin Saturday, July 16, 2011
many links on this post; go to the link if you wish to view them
http://www.canadafreepress.com/image...llin071611.jpg
I do not know how I can state it any clearer.
The American people are victims of the greatest fraud and the deepest and widest conspiracy in the history of the United States. This fraud and conspiracy stretches throughout our government and the main stream media.
It is now widely known that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Barack Obama is, according to the Constitution, an illegal President and has committed multiple felonies both in and out of office.
Members of Congress are deliberately hiding the truth from the American people. By doing so, every member of Congress is also committing a felony; known as “Misprision of felony.â€
There is a pretty interesting article on the Claremont Institute website. It's long, and I'll post just a small part of it.
The Chosen One
http://www.claremont.org/publications/c ... detail.asp
"Only [the popes] have states, and they do not defend them; subjects, and they do not govern them; and the states are not taken from them though undefended, and the subjects though not governed, do not concern themselves about it.... But since they are upheld by superior cause, to which the human mind does not reach, I will leave off speaking of them; since because they are exalted and maintained by God, discussing them would be the doing of a presumptuous and daring man. Nonetheless, if someone were to inquire of me...."
—Niccolò Machiavelli
The Prince
Presumptuous and daring, flouting politically correct prohibitions against looking too closely at his time's Establishment, Niccolò Machiavelli went on to detail who did what to whom to establish the papacy's temporal power. Cesare Borgia's cruel triangulation between Rome's Orsini and Colonnesi factions, not miracles, had made the papal states into a major power.
In our time, asking how a young man of scarce achievement got into position to win the Democratic Party's nomination for president courts the contemporary synonyms for "impious": "birther," "conspiracy theorist," and, of course, "racist." Granted, to inquire into what formed a president is not as important as to understand what he does. Nevertheless, because fully to know where anyone is going requires grasping whence he comes, let us open ourselves to wonder how, minus miracles, a 10-year-old boy without obvious talent who had lived in Indonesia since age six ends up with an eight-year scholarship to Hawaii's most exclusive school; a scholarship to Occidental College; a transfer into Columbia University; acceptance into Harvard Law School, and editorship of its law review; and how he goes from job to prestigious job without apparently mastering any of the previous ones. No wonder some of Barack Obama's supporters treat him as if he were anointed by an extraterrestrial power.
No less an object of awe and curiosity is the seamlessness of Obama's mentality. Without marbling or inconsistency, it is serviceable as a definition of contemporary American leftism, and leads one to wonder what earthly environment could have produced such a pure specimen.
Intellectually, Obama has always been a consumer, having left no record of formulating new ideas or of penetrating old ones. Politically, he is a follower and figurehead: having grown up in the ever branching stream of socialist voluntary organizations, he surfed its leftward eddies, never forming or leading a faction. He was handed a safe seat in the Illinois state senate, a nearly safe one in the U.S. Senate, and was surprised when Harry Reid informed him that influential Democrats wanted to run him for president. The Democratic campaign of 2008 pushed against an open door. As president, he rides his party's center of gravity.
In short, Barack Obama himself is not that remarkable. He can give a rousing political speech, of course, but that is usually not sufficient to get oneself elected president. So, since he seems to have been reading from a teleprompter all his life, and since words certifiably his own are both few and opaque, it is most fruitful as well as relevant for us to focus on whom and what he has been following.
Read on at: http://www.claremont.org/publications/c ... detail.asp
.
I received an email response from Sen. Tim Johnson (S.D.) and it made me so angery. I should copy and post it so everyone else can be disgusted too. The letter points out how ignorant OUR Govt. really is, and it trys to make me seem Stupid. I'm sorry, when I am looking directly at the evidence against Obama, and read this... I'm Insulted! :x
Bump!
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriotofPast
The Cowardly Lions, Congresscritters and Courtmice alike, FEIGN ignorance, as we discussed before. I challenge anyone to find ONE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE inside the Beltway who does not know by now that something is amiss in Mr. Obama's bona fides.
As a young adult, Barry Soetoro a.k.a. Barack Obama II sought street creds by running with the bad boys: Mus|ims of color, radical separatists, violent political activists, and bomb-throwing anarchists of both the Leon Trotsky - Saul Alinsky - Bill Ayers tradition and the Mao Zedong - Ché Guevara - Franz Fanon persuasion.
But he never assembled credible credentials to support his purported American heritage: neither proof of a U.S. birthplace, nor record of two U.S. citizen parents, nor even evidence of current U.S. citizenship. Then there is the cauterization of his personal passport records at the State Dept.; his 13 or more Social Security numbers, none of which is legitimate; his fraudulent registration with Selective Service, using a fraudulent Social Security number; his missing school records from Noelani Elementary School [Kindergarten], Punahoe prep school, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School; and so on, etc., etc. . . .
All that he has proven and put forward is his brazen arrogance and unmitigated gall to assume the Office of President, knowing full well that he did not qualify. Some really high-octane etherized racing gas somebody's huffing, that.