Allowing foreign governments to sue a state is another instance of giving aid and comfort the enemy. Make this an issue in this election. Ask the candidates, "If elected will you support the impeachment of Barack Obama for treason?" ---rng
By SCOTT WONG 10/6/10 9:57 AM EDT
Updated: 10/6/10 7:21 PM EDT
In a new twist in the fight over Arizona’s immigration law, Republican Gov. Jan Brewer on Tuesday asked a federal court to disallow foreign governments from joining the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit to overturn the law.
The move comes in response to a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling issued Monday, allowing nearly a dozen Latin American countries — Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Chile — to submit friend-of-the-court briefs in Justice’s challenge to SB 1070, which Brewer signed into law in April and is considered one of the nation’s toughest immigration-enforcement measures.
“As do many citizens, I find it incredibly offensive that these foreign governments are using our court system to meddle in a domestic legal dispute and to oppose the rule of law,” the Republican governor said in a statement shortly after the state’s motion was filed Tuesday evening.
“What’s even more offensive is that this effort has been supported by the U.S. Department of Justice. American sovereignty begins in the U.S. Constitution and at the border,” she added. “I am confident the 9th Circuit will do the right thing and recognize foreign interference in U.S. legal proceedings and allow the State of Arizona to respond to their brief.”
Brewer and her supporters have said the state law is necessary because the federal government has failed to protect the border and enforce immigration laws. But the Justice Department — with strong backing from President Barack Obama — sued to block the Arizona law on constitutional grounds.
Responding to the suit, a federal judge in July put some of the most contested parts of the law on hold, including a provision that requires police officers to check the immigration status of individuals they stop for other offenses if there is “reasonable suspicion” they are in the country illegally.
Brewer, who has vowed to take the case to the Supreme Court, appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit Court, which will begin hearing arguments in San Francisco on Nov. 1, one day before the midterm elections.
The Arizona law is a top political issue nationally. Cities from San Francisco and Seattle to Baltimore have joined a friend of the court brief opposing the Arizona law, while 11 states — including Texas, Florida and Nebraska — filed an amicus brief backing the law.
In July, more than 80 Republican members of Congress signed their names to an amicus brief filed by the conservative Immigration Reform Caucus. They included Sens. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, David Vitter of Louisiana and John Barrasso of Wyoming, and Reps. Lamar Smith of Texas, Steve King of Iowa and Trent Franks of Arizona.
Read more:
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Obamacare Is Unconstitutional
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The president has essentially two things to do while in office. As jobs go, this is a pretty easy job. One, execute the duties of president, and two, preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. The second duty, is a bit more cerebral and abstract, dealing with a document, the supreme law of the land. One thinks President Obama, an educator of constitutional law, would have a not too difficult time dealing with the second duty. But he signed into law an obviously unconstitutional piece of legislation. Obama has failed miserably in completing his second duty as president. It looks like preserving, protecting, and defending the constitution is a much more arduous task than originally thought. ----------lee
Now that the legislation is becoming practical law we learn the risk of delaying discussions about the constitutionality of the law.---rng
Now that the legislation is becoming practical law we learn the risk of delaying discussions about the constitutionality of the law.---rng
by Gene Healy
This article appeared in the DC Examiner on November 24, 2009.
As Harry Reid's health care bill moves to the Senate floor, the debate over Obamacare finally begins in earnest. Shouldn't the Constitution be part of that debate? By what authority, after all, could Congress force all Americans to buy health insurance?
In a recent press release, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., argues that constitutional objections to the individual mandate are "nonsensical," because "the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited." We eagerly await your orders, ma'am!
Pelosi is wrong, but that doesn't mean the court can be counted on to strike down Obamacare. Legislators have an independent obligation to consider the constitutionality of the laws they're debating — and the individual mandate is flagrantly unconstitutional.
Legislators have an independent obligation to consider the constitutionality of the laws they're debating.
In answer to the question "by what authority?" Reid's bill offers the Commerce Clause — the go-to provision for friends of federal power. That clause gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce ... among the several states."
It was a modest measure designed to regularize cross-border commerce and prevent interstate trade wars — so modest, in fact, that Madison described it in the Federalist as a clause that "few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained."
The Founders would have worried more had they known that the Commerce Clause would eventually become a bottomless fount of federal power. In 1942's Wickard v. Filburn, the court held that the Commerce Power was broad enough to penalize a farmer growing wheat for his own consumption on his own farm.
That farmer, Roscoe Filburn, ran afoul of a New Deal scheme to prop up agricultural prices. The fact that he wasn't engaged in interstate commerce — or commerce of any kind — was quite beside the point. If "many others similarly situated" engaged in the same behavior, it would substantially affect interstate commerce, and frustrate Congress' designs.
In its "Findings" section, Reid's bill hits all the jurisprudential buzzwords: The individual mandate "substantially affects interstate commerce," and regulates "activity that is commercial and economic in nature." Activity like standing around without health insurance? Apparently so.
Yet, as the Congressional Budget Office noted in a 1994 evaluation of Clintoncare, an individual mandate would be "unprecedented. ... The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."
Even the Supreme Court ought to recognize the "you exist, therefore you're regulated" rationale as a bridge too far. But court-watchers have learned never to underestimate the justices' creativity in inventing new rationalizations for constitutionalizing the unconstitutional.
If the court eventually has to rule on the mandate, don't be surprised if the rationalization goes something like this: "Encouraging" people to buy a product is really nothing new. Wickard shows that Congress can use the Commerce Power to force people to carry out transactions they'd rather avoid.
Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of The Cult of the Presidency.
to continue reading
to continue reading
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Obama's 2011 Budget Curbs Border Security Programs
We have news of the Obama administration cutting back on border security. Folks, I don't think this guy is serious about the borders or border security. Is Obama waiting for the drug and human smugglers to build a 8-lane highway through to Phoenix to get motivated to do something to defend our borders. At this point, I've given up trying to figure out what he is thinking and now I watch what he does. And what he is doing currently regarding the borders is---amazing. ----lee
The primary function of government is to secure the borders of the country. Obama's blatant refusal to do so clearly rises to the standard of treason, high crimes and misdemeanors necessary for impeachment. In the face of the overwhelming evidence against him it would be a fatal blow to Constitutional government not to impeach, convict and remove from office. The first order of business after the elections must be to impeach Obama.---rng
The primary function of government is to secure the borders of the country. Obama's blatant refusal to do so clearly rises to the standard of treason, high crimes and misdemeanors necessary for impeachment. In the face of the overwhelming evidence against him it would be a fatal blow to Constitutional government not to impeach, convict and remove from office. The first order of business after the elections must be to impeach Obama.---rng
By Mimi Hall, USA TODAY
The Obama administration is proposing to scale back some border security programs set up after the 9/11 attacks and ramp up aviation security following the attempted Christmas bombing, in what some conservative lawmakers say is a dangerous priority shift.
Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., the top Republican on the House panel overseeing the Department of Homeland Security's budget, says the border security funding in President Obama's budget for fiscal year 2011 is "woefully inadequate" and "as dangerous as it is indefensible."
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says her department's $56.3 billion budget for next year, up 2% over this year, enhances security "across the board." Department spokesman Bobby Whithorne says the budget "continues to support smart, effective programs to strengthen border and interior security" while making "significant investments in aviation security."
Related
Border Fence Plagued by Glitches, Long DelaysObama: 2011 Budget Enough to Lift EconomyWATCH: $200M for 9/11 Terror TrialsIf Congress approves Obama's proposals:
•The Border Patrol, which doubled to 20,000 agents during the Bush administration, would lose 180 agents through attrition. Border staffing would stay the same.
•A "virtual" fence of pole cameras and sensors aimed at stopping illegal immigrants, drug smugglers and terrorists on the U.S.-Mexican border, faces a $225 million cut from $800 million last year. That would delay implementation while a review of the fence, plagued by technical problems, is done.
•Five of the Coast Guard's 13 elite Maritime Security and Safety Teams (MSST), created since 2001 to protect waterfront cities, would be eliminated. Obama is proposing cuts in New York City, San Francisco, Anchorage and King's Bay, Ga.
•The existing 643 miles of concrete-and-steel border fence would be maintained but no new barriers would be built.
In the wake of the failed attempt to blow up an airplane bound for Detroit on Dec. 25, Obama's budget for next year calls for $371 million for 500 more body scanners, 275 more canine teams and an unspecified number of new air marshals.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Obama’s War Against the U.S. Military
from humanevents.com
by Buzz Patterson
09/10/2010
This is the fourth installment of a five-part series on how Barack Obama is America’s number one threat to national security.
“There are ways in which a ruler can bring misfortune upon his army by attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom, being ignorant of the conditions which obtain in an army.”—Sun Tzu, The Art of War
When presidential candidate Barack Obama proudly announced in the fall of 2007 that, if elected, he was going to “fundamentally change the United States of America” it was a warning shot across the bow of the U.S. military, its culture, and the men and women who bravely serve every day.
More to the point, while our armed forces take fire from enemies in the sands and mountains of the Middle East, they are also taking fire from a much more lethal source: their commander-in-chief. Yes, America’s military is at war with radical Islamists around the world and, more problematic, with their President at home.
Barack Obama’s war with the U.S. military is one with several fronts: social engineering of the military culture at the expense of readiness and capability; dictating the rules of engagement (ROE) that hinder our troops’ ability to fight an enemy that doesn’t wear traditional military uniforms and hides behind women’s burqas while operating from schools and mosques; and, slashing the necessary funding for force modernization and sustainability. And finally, morale—successful military operations always come down to morale.
Former President and World War II hero Dwight D. Eisenhower once said “Morale is the greatest single factor in successful wars.” It’s also a concept that Barack Obama seems incapable of grasping.
It is hauntingly familiar to those of us who served in uniform during the 1990s, and, I would imagine, also familiar for those who served in the armed forces during the 1970s under the feeble leadership of President Jimmy Carter as well. My personal experience comes from having served for the pro-military, principled leadership of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush during the 1980s and the experience of serving on the front lines, and then at the side during the 1990s, of a man with no character or principles, Bill Clinton.
Only three days into his infant presidency, in 1993, Clinton announced that he was going to lift the 50-year ban on homosexuals in the military. The original policy had been developed out of necessity during World War II and was reaffirmed by Congress in 1982 when it declared that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service because it undermines discipline, good order and morale.”
Bill Clinton’s first order in office was directing then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin to stop enforcing the ban on recruiting homosexuals and to halt prosecutions of homosexuals already in the services. He did so without consulting the military leadership in the Pentagon only to run headlong into the protestations of then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in Staff Gen. Colin Powell.
The result was the Department of Defense’s policy we now know to be “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The policy, however, is often confused with the law passed by Congress in 1993 which expressly forbids open homosexuality in the ranks. The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is actually the implementing D.O.D. regulation. The law itself, Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C., otherwise known as The Military Personnel Eligibility Act of 1993, was passed by Congress in 1993 with veto-proof majorities and the federal courts have upheld the law as constitutional several times since.
Among the findings and provisions in the law, Congress dictated, and the courts have upheld, that “there is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces,” “success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion,” “military life is fundamentally different from civilian life,” “military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society,” and, “the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often Spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.” Ultimately, open homosexuality, they concluded, would present an “unacceptable risk” to good order, discipline, morale and unit cohesion.
Just as Clinton attempted to socially engineer the military to fit his ideological palate and placate the gay and lesbian voting bloc in 1993, Barack Obama is attempting to do precisely the same thing 17 years later with his announced intent to lift the ban and make good on his quid pro quo with the LGBT Left (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered).
“I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve,” Obama said in his 2010 State of the Union address. Just a week later, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testified, “We have received our orders from the commander in chief, and we are moving out accordingly.”
Outraged by the Obama Administrations attempt to reengineer the military culture into one in which the openly gay, bisexual and even transgendered could serve, 1,167 retired flag and general officers personally signed a statement calling for the current law to be retained.
Among the critical findings they voiced: 1) the findings in the 1993 law remain valid, 2) the proposed legislation would require acceptance of professed (not just discreet) sexual minorities, with retroactive affect, 3) the LGBT law would affect all military branches and communities, to include Army and Marine infantry, Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALS, surface ships and submarines, on a constant (24/7) basis, and, 4) unit commanders would be burdened with personnel turmoil, accusations of bias, and potential career penalties that will weaken trust and team cohesion. In the end, there is no value added by overturning the ban. Quite to the contrary, recent polls of U.S. military personnel indicate that 10% of those in uniform will leave the service or “vote with their feet,” if such a law is changed. Another 15% say that they will seriously consider doing so.
In time of war, can we accept that sort of devastating impact? Social engineering should not be the priority of Barack Obama, or any President for that matter; fighting and doing what it takes to win wars should be.
www.humanevents.com
by Buzz Patterson
09/10/2010
This is the fourth installment of a five-part series on how Barack Obama is America’s number one threat to national security.
“There are ways in which a ruler can bring misfortune upon his army by attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom, being ignorant of the conditions which obtain in an army.”—Sun Tzu, The Art of War
When presidential candidate Barack Obama proudly announced in the fall of 2007 that, if elected, he was going to “fundamentally change the United States of America” it was a warning shot across the bow of the U.S. military, its culture, and the men and women who bravely serve every day.
More to the point, while our armed forces take fire from enemies in the sands and mountains of the Middle East, they are also taking fire from a much more lethal source: their commander-in-chief. Yes, America’s military is at war with radical Islamists around the world and, more problematic, with their President at home.
Barack Obama’s war with the U.S. military is one with several fronts: social engineering of the military culture at the expense of readiness and capability; dictating the rules of engagement (ROE) that hinder our troops’ ability to fight an enemy that doesn’t wear traditional military uniforms and hides behind women’s burqas while operating from schools and mosques; and, slashing the necessary funding for force modernization and sustainability. And finally, morale—successful military operations always come down to morale.
Former President and World War II hero Dwight D. Eisenhower once said “Morale is the greatest single factor in successful wars.” It’s also a concept that Barack Obama seems incapable of grasping.
It is hauntingly familiar to those of us who served in uniform during the 1990s, and, I would imagine, also familiar for those who served in the armed forces during the 1970s under the feeble leadership of President Jimmy Carter as well. My personal experience comes from having served for the pro-military, principled leadership of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush during the 1980s and the experience of serving on the front lines, and then at the side during the 1990s, of a man with no character or principles, Bill Clinton.
Only three days into his infant presidency, in 1993, Clinton announced that he was going to lift the 50-year ban on homosexuals in the military. The original policy had been developed out of necessity during World War II and was reaffirmed by Congress in 1982 when it declared that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service because it undermines discipline, good order and morale.”
Bill Clinton’s first order in office was directing then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin to stop enforcing the ban on recruiting homosexuals and to halt prosecutions of homosexuals already in the services. He did so without consulting the military leadership in the Pentagon only to run headlong into the protestations of then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in Staff Gen. Colin Powell.
The result was the Department of Defense’s policy we now know to be “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The policy, however, is often confused with the law passed by Congress in 1993 which expressly forbids open homosexuality in the ranks. The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is actually the implementing D.O.D. regulation. The law itself, Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C., otherwise known as The Military Personnel Eligibility Act of 1993, was passed by Congress in 1993 with veto-proof majorities and the federal courts have upheld the law as constitutional several times since.
Among the findings and provisions in the law, Congress dictated, and the courts have upheld, that “there is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces,” “success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion,” “military life is fundamentally different from civilian life,” “military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society,” and, “the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often Spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.” Ultimately, open homosexuality, they concluded, would present an “unacceptable risk” to good order, discipline, morale and unit cohesion.
Just as Clinton attempted to socially engineer the military to fit his ideological palate and placate the gay and lesbian voting bloc in 1993, Barack Obama is attempting to do precisely the same thing 17 years later with his announced intent to lift the ban and make good on his quid pro quo with the LGBT Left (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered).
“I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve,” Obama said in his 2010 State of the Union address. Just a week later, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testified, “We have received our orders from the commander in chief, and we are moving out accordingly.”
Outraged by the Obama Administrations attempt to reengineer the military culture into one in which the openly gay, bisexual and even transgendered could serve, 1,167 retired flag and general officers personally signed a statement calling for the current law to be retained.
Among the critical findings they voiced: 1) the findings in the 1993 law remain valid, 2) the proposed legislation would require acceptance of professed (not just discreet) sexual minorities, with retroactive affect, 3) the LGBT law would affect all military branches and communities, to include Army and Marine infantry, Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALS, surface ships and submarines, on a constant (24/7) basis, and, 4) unit commanders would be burdened with personnel turmoil, accusations of bias, and potential career penalties that will weaken trust and team cohesion. In the end, there is no value added by overturning the ban. Quite to the contrary, recent polls of U.S. military personnel indicate that 10% of those in uniform will leave the service or “vote with their feet,” if such a law is changed. Another 15% say that they will seriously consider doing so.
In time of war, can we accept that sort of devastating impact? Social engineering should not be the priority of Barack Obama, or any President for that matter; fighting and doing what it takes to win wars should be.
www.humanevents.com
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Senators say DHS allows backdoor amnesty
Wow, they really really, want this badly don't they? It's bad enough politicians are trying to ram this amnesty down our throats, now they want to sneak it through by bureaucratic fiat. Add Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to the list of officials to be impeached. Every day the list seems to get larger with this administration. ----lee
By Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times
Updated: 3:49 p.m. on Tuesday, September 21, 2010
A series of new internal rules has effectively created a possible backdoor amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, Senate Republicans charged on Tuesday in a letter demanding that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano explain the new policies.
Ms. Napolitano has said her department is trying to focus resources on illegal immigrants with long criminal records, but the letter, signed by all seven Republicans on the committee that oversees immigration, said it appears the administration instead is trying to carve out categories of illegal immigrants that won't be deported at all.
Indeed, the latest statistics show deportations are, in fact, down slightly compared with the similar period last year. The administration has dramatically stepped up removals of convicted criminal immigrants, deporting 51,981 more than last year, an increase of 42 percent. But deportation of other immigrants is down even more, dropping by 53,934 through August.
"It is increasingly clear that this administration is following the spirit of these proposals by dramatically narrowing its efforts to remove whole classes of illegal immigrants," the senators said.
President Obama has faced pressure from immigrant-rights groups who have called for him to halt all deportations and instead work on a bill to legalize most illegal immigrants.
Sen. John Cornyn, Texas RepublicanMr. Obama has called for Congress to act on legislation but has rejected the idea of halting all deportations, saying in his major immigration speech earlier this year that that "would be both unwise and unfair."
"It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally," he said.
But the administration has refocused its efforts to concentrate on immigrants with criminal records, arguing that's a better use of limited resources. And they point to the dramatic increase in deportations of immigrants with criminal records as evidence they've succeeded.
Matt Chandler, a spokesman for Ms. Napolitano, said the department will respond directly to the senators, but he said officials have ruled out using their administrative powers to grant parole or defer deportations for broad swaths of immigrants.
Mr. Chandler also said the figures showing increased removals of criminal immigrants indicate the department is serious about enforcement.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/21/senators-say-dhs-allows-backdoor-amnest
Arizona Governor can force Obama to prove he’s eligible
A new campaign should begin demanding Obama turnover his OTHER citizenship papers. Forgot about finding his US citizenship papers, especially since he won't turn them over anyway. I believe there is a better chance of him turning over his OTHER citizenship papers. Happy hunting. -----lee
Posted by admin on July 14, 2010
Abigail Adams, The Post and E-mail
Dear Editor: The following email was sent to psenseman@az.gov, Governor Brewer’s press secretary:
July 11, 2010
The Boston Tea Party was a protest against taxation without representation. But is our representation today by the U.S. Congress any better than the colonists’ representation by the British Parliament in 1773?
Dear Mr. Senseman,
As you know, there are many unanswered questions about Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional qualifications to act as President of the United States. Governor Brewer, or any sitting governor, for that matter, has unique standing to challenge Obama on this issue and resolve the constitutional crisis he has perpetrated on the nation by his refusal to prove that he is a “natural born Citizen” by filing a Writ of Quo Warranto.
The American people are looking to Governor Brewer to defend her state as she is doing, but also to challenge a man who has most likely assumed the office of President through dissembling and deceit, wire fraud, election fraud, and document fraud.
There is a tremendous amount of circumstantial and other evidence which points to a foreign birth for Obama, and by his own admission, he was born a dual citizen. He has also carefully described himself as “a native citizen of the United States of America” but not a “natural born Citizen.”
Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution states:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
It is impossible for Obama to be a “natural born Citizen” if he was born with dual citizenship, and “native born” is not the same as “natural born.” Since he has never shown his original birth certificate, we also do not know his actual age.
Congress refused to check on Obama’s qualifications for office, despite thousands of requests to do so by concerned constituents before the certification of electoral votes in January 2009.
It makes no sense to mount an expensive legal defense when Governor Brewer could simply ask Obama “By what authority” his Department of Justice is suing her state and naming her as a defendant.
to read original article and comments...
to read original article and comments...
Arizona Governor can force Obama to prove he’s eligible
A new campaign should begin demanding Obama turnover his OTHER citizenship papers. Forgot about finding his US citizenship papers, especially since he won't turn them over anyway. I believe there is a better chance of him turning over his OTHER citizenship papers. Happy hunting. -----lee
Posted by admin on July 14, 2010
Abigail Adams, The Post and E-mail
Dear Editor: The following email was sent to psenseman@az.gov, Governor Brewer’s press secretary:
July 11, 2010
The Boston Tea Party was a protest against taxation without representation. But is our representation today by the U.S. Congress any better than the colonists’ representation by the British Parliament in 1773?
Dear Mr. Senseman,
As you know, there are many unanswered questions about Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional qualifications to act as President of the United States. Governor Brewer, or any sitting governor, for that matter, has unique standing to challenge Obama on this issue and resolve the constitutional crisis he has perpetrated on the nation by his refusal to prove that he is a “natural born Citizen” by filing a Writ of Quo Warranto.
The American people are looking to Governor Brewer to defend her state as she is doing, but also to challenge a man who has most likely assumed the office of President through dissembling and deceit, wire fraud, election fraud, and document fraud.
There is a tremendous amount of circumstantial and other evidence which points to a foreign birth for Obama, and by his own admission, he was born a dual citizen. He has also carefully described himself as “a native citizen of the United States of America” but not a “natural born Citizen.”
Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution states:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
It is impossible for Obama to be a “natural born Citizen” if he was born with dual citizenship, and “native born” is not the same as “natural born.” Since he has never shown his original birth certificate, we also do not know his actual age.
Congress refused to check on Obama’s qualifications for office, despite thousands of requests to do so by concerned constituents before the certification of electoral votes in January 2009.
It makes no sense to mount an expensive legal defense when Governor Brewer could simply ask Obama “By what authority” his Department of Justice is suing her state and naming her as a defendant.
to read original aricle and comments...
to read original aricle and comments...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)