Constitution | Empowered Patriots

TANCREDO: The case for impeachment. Obama has violated his oath of office over immigration

Eleven years ago, like every citizen elected to serve in Congress or any person appointed to any federal position, I swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic."

I’ve always thought it significant that the Founders included domestic enemies in that oath of office. They thought liberty was as much at risk from threats within our borders as from outside, and French political thinker and historian Alexis de Tocqueville agreed with that warning.

In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the greatest threat to our nation was clear - and foreign. While Islamic terrorism still represents the greatest external threat to America and American lives, the avowed program of the Obama regime has changed the picture in a fundamental way.

For the first time in American history, we have a man in the White House who consciously and brazenly disregards his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. That’s why I say the greatest threat to our Constitution, our safety and our liberties, is internal. Our president is an enemy of our Constitution, and, as such, he is a danger to our safety, our security and our personal freedoms.

July 23, 2010 | Patriot | Comments 0

Mr Obama … YES, “We noticed.”

President Obama:

I read of your administration redefining September 11 as a National Service Day. Sir, it’s time we had a talk………

During your campaign, Americans watched as you made mockery of our tradition of standing and crossing your heart when the Pledge of Allegiance was spoken. You, out of four people on the stage, were the only one not honoring our tradition.

YES, "We noticed."

During one of your many speeches, Americans heard you say that you intended to visit all 57 states. We all know that Islam, not

America has 57 states.

YES, "We noticed."

November 14, 2009 | Patriot | Comments 0

WCJ: Obama Not an American

Barack Hussein Obama obviously has something to hide. He obviously knows how to keep a secret when it comes to releasing his Birth Certificate; the one document that could bolster the argument that he is, in fact, eligible under Article 2, Section 1, of the United States Constitution to hold the office of President of the United States.

And yet, Barack Hussein Obama has no problem sharing information that SHOULD remain secret to the entire world and to our enemies .

Case in point! The Obama Administration just released secret memos and photographs that detail the interrogations of terrorists that were being held in American custody.

Obama authorized the release of these photographs and memos in spite of the undeniable fact that releasing these memos and photographs places the lives of our intelligence operatives and their families in imminent danger .

Obama authorized the release of these photographs and memos in spite of the undeniable fact that r eleasing these memos severely compromises our national security, and endangers each and every one of us .

It’s becoming more and more clear, with each passing day, that the issue surrounding Obama’s refusal to release his Birth Certificate and prove his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States goes much deeper than initially thought.

The fact that Obama has something to hide when it comes to his Birth Certificate (and some of his college records for that matter) is now more than apparent.

And Obama, through his own obstruction in this matter, has established that contention as valid. It can no longer be reasonably questioned.

But what is now becoming apparent is that Obama’s refusal to release his Birth Certificate hints at an arrogance and disdain of the American people that is unprecedented… an arrogance and disdain that places all of us, our children, our grandchildren and our way of life in extreme jeopardy .

Obama: What I Do Is None Of Your Business.

Consider the following incident. It clearly speaks to Obama’s character and the character of those in his Administration.

Team Obama recently dispatched a Boeing-747 and an F-16 fighter jet to buzz New York City. The residents of New York City were not informed, and, with the tragedy of 9-11 still fresh in their minds, understandably went into a panic.

Not to worry, said the Obama Administration, it wasn’t an attack or even a drill. It was just a photo-op. We needed updated photographs of Air Force One flying by the Statue of Liberty.

But when asked to release the photographs, the Obama Administration stonewalled.

Why? Were those really cool photographs, that sent the people of New York into a panic and cost the American taxpayer hundreds of million of dollars to shoot, a secret?

Do you see a connection here?

When it comes to sharing legitimate secrets with America’s enemies and endangering the lives of Americans, Obama is an open book .

But, when it comes to releasing information about himself or those close to him… even information that is not of a highly personal nature, that the American people SHOULD know (Hey folks, don’t panic, the planes flying perilously close to the New York Skyline are ours, or, here’s my Birth Certificate which proves I am eligible to hold the office of President of the United States) Obama takes an it’s-none-of-your-business attitude .

Who knows, perhaps this combination of courtesy for those that hate the United States and disdain for average Americans explains why Obama has gone to extraordinary lengths to keep his Birth Certificate under lock-and-key.

Perhaps this combination of courtesy for those that hate the United States and disdain for average Americans explains why teams of lawyers have been tasked to thwart the efforts of Americans who simply seek to compel Obama to produce his Birth Certificate.

Perhaps this combination of courtesy for those that hate the United States and disdain for average Americans explains why Team Obama has gone to extraordinary lengths to confound, confuse, distort and spin the issue surrounding his citizenship and eligibility, under the Constitution, to hold the office of President of the United States.

But one thing is becoming painfully obvious, Barack Hussein Obama is not an American, at least not in the truest sense of the word; he does not respect or admire or love the United States as you or I love and respect and admire the United States.

The Birth Certificate Controversy And The Obstruction… Just The Facts.

It’s been stated before but, as there is so much erroneous information published on this issue (from both sides of the ideological aisle) , it’s beneficial to state the facts whenever possible.

Barack Obama Senior (Obama’s Father) was a subject of the British Commonwealth (Kenya was not an independent nation when Obama was born. It was under the control of the British Crown) .

As an aside, since many have asked… yes, even under the best case scenario, Obama was born with dual citizenship and there are legal arguments as to whether his status as a dual citizen would also disqualify him under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.

However, we don’t address those arguments at this point so as not to confound matters. Essentially, one cannot even progress to that question until Obama proves that he was born in Hawaii.

His mother, while an American citizen, was not of sufficient age, under the laws of the United States, to bestow citizenship onto any of her offspring that were not born on American soil.

Amazingly, the liberal media initially treated the matter of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution with a degree of seriousness. In fact, the liberal media probably started the ball rolling by aggressively questioning Senator McCain’s eligibility .

McCain’s father was stationed in Panama at the time of McCain’s birth. McCain was NOT born on American soil.

Is McCain eligible to be President of the United States? … The media aggressively pursued that question .

And McCain’s campaign promptly answered the question and put it to rest. Although McCain was NOT born on U.S. soil, McCain’s parents were both natural born citizens of the United States and of sufficient age to pass that status onto McCain… case closed.

The McCain incident was all but forgotten. Then Obama’s paternal grandmother reportedly made a statement that Obama was born in what is now Kenya and that she witnessed the birth .

Admittedly, at the time, the statement was unverified and even if Obama’s grandmother had, in fact, made the statement, it could be dismissed as a little white-lie told by a proud grandmother.

The story might have died were it not for the actions of Team Obama . In a rush to respond to the situation, Team Obama published a Hawaii CERTIFICATION of Live Birth on Obama’s Fight the Smears (or as we call it, Obama’s Fight the Truth) website… an action that raised more questions than it answered .

The Certification of Live Birth, while an official document is NOT an ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE (a CERTIFICATE of Live Birth) .

Why not produce an actual birth certificate? That was - and still is - the legitimate question that keeps this all too important controversy alive .

Except when it came to the media; what was initially a valid question, when it came to McCain, was apparently no longer of any importance.

When it came to McCain, they pursued the issue with diligence. When it came to Obama, to even ask the question was a conspiracy theory.

But, as shall become apparent, the ONLY conspiracy going on here is the conspiracy on the part of Team Obama, to keep his Birth Certificate vaulted .

The Real Obstruction Begins.

Again, the Certification of Live Birth is a legal document, but it is TOTALLY INADEQUATE when it comes to proving an individual was born in Hawaii .

The State of Hawaii DOES NOT EVEN ACCEPT the Certification of Live Birth as valid proof that an individual was born in Hawaii .

The Hawaii Department of Homelands, which administers programs to encourage property ownership for native Hawaiians states the following on its website.

"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found ONLY on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL." [Emphasis Mine].

The bottom line is that the Certification of Live Birth can be erroneous. It has been reported that it was not uncommon for foreigners residing in Hawaii to bring their infant children to the Clerk of the Court, swear they were born in Hawaii and have actual Certificates of Live Birth issued to their children.

It has even been reported that foreigners residing in Hawaii, in some cases, produced birth certificates from foreign countries and the State of Hawaii still issued Hawaiian Certificates of Live Birth to the infants in question.

Could either of those two things have happened in Obama’s case?

The question remains unanswered because Team Obama started moving heaven and earth to keep Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth (the ACTUAL Birth Certificate which lists information such as the hospital, attending physician etc. that would verify Obama’s physical place of birth) under wraps .

The only person who may have seen it is the head of Hawaii’s Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino. Fukino issued the following statement to the media.

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

When pressed for details… who was the physician… what hospital is listed… does the certificate say "unknown" … does it indicate Obama was delivered by a Mid-Wife … does it actually acknowledge he was born outside the United States… Fukino went silent.

And the hospital where Obama was born appears to be a hard question to answer because Obama won’t even answer it.

Obama’s own sister was once willing to answer the question but seems confused. She named two different hospitals on two different occasions and then, she too, went silent.

And the question remains unanswered.

What Is Obama Hiding?

Obama could easily answer the question by releasing his actual Birth Certificate. But not only has Obama refused to do so, teams of attorneys are thwarting efforts to compel Obama to produce it .

Obama is actively obstructing efforts to un-vault his actual Birth Certificate and this active obstruction, in and of itself, should arouse a tremendous amount of suspicion. Without a doubt, there is something on his actual Birth Certificate that he does not want known .

And for those maintaining some hope that the courts will resolve this issue… don’t hold your breath.

Court actions have been unsuccessful. Team Obama actually has the audacity to claim that the courts have settled the issue but THAT’S NOT A FACTUAL ASSERTION . In all cases, the courts have dismissed these suits WITHOUT ever considering the claims or even the MERITS of the actual claims.

In most cases, the courts have simply ruled that the petitioners "lacked standing" to bring the suits. In layman’s terms, the courts have basically stated, we’re not even going to look at this because you have NO RIGHT to even ask Mr. Obama to produce a Birth Certificate .

Generally, rulings on "standing" are valid. Simply put, you don’t have the right to un-vault your next-door neighbor’s Birth Certificate simply out of curiosity.

But in this particular case, there is a nagging issue of the Constitution that simply won’t go away. In our humble opinion, approximate 300 million people have standing to compel Barack Hussein Obama to un-vault his ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE .

So what’s happening with the courts? Simply put, they’re punting the ball. No judge wants to be the person who opens this Pandora’s Box.

But the American public thinks otherwise. While some in the political and media establishment are trying to convince everyone that this matter is some kind of conspiracy theory, a recent AOL poll (while non-scientific) indicates that 52 percent of the respondents believe this matter has validity .

It’s YOUR country. It’s YOUR Constitution. No one is going to honor or preserve it but YOU ! You have to stand up for your rights and you can do that by keeping up the pressure.

The liberal media wants this story to go away. The liberal media wants YOU to go away.

Don’t let that happen. Don’t give them the satisfaction. Demand they cover this story.

The Constitution Is NOT Just A Piece Of Paper.

Article 2, Section 1 of the 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…"

Now… Obama supporters have written us hate-filled letters and told us that Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, as it pertains to Obama, is nothing more than a "legal technicality."

Can you believe that?

Others have gone so far as to take the "living-breathing argument" to its unfortunate and dangerous conclusion and told us that Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution is outmoded, outdated and no longer relevant.

Sadly, even some conservatives have advanced that erroneous argument.

Erroneous because Obama’s own actions PROVE exactly WHY our Founding Fathers ratified Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution and why Article 2, Section 1 is STILL relevant today.

In under 100 days, Barack Hussein Obama:

Supplicated himself by bowing before the King of Saudi Arabia. But Obama did not simply supplicate himself. As the elected leader of the United States, he obsequiously and subserviently supplicated you… supplicated me… supplicated the entire United States before a man who is arguable, as the protector of Mecca and Medina, the most important man in the Muslim world .

Contrast Obama’s subservient bow to the actions of then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in October of 2001. Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, came to the United States after the 9-11 attacks and, during a high-profile ceremony, gave Giuliani a $10 million disaster relief check.

After the ceremony, the Prince released a statement to the media saying the policies of the United States partially led to, and by implication, were a justification for, the 9-11 attack. Giuliani, gave the check back !

Obama, on the other hand, traveled to Europe and profusely apologized for America’s arrogance. He’s snuggled up to Hugo Chavez and the Castro regime in Cuba and is even reaching out to Iran’s Mahmoud "the-Holocaust-never-happened" Ahmadinejad.

Radio talk-show host, Tom Roeser comments on yet another incident:

"When Nicaragua’s president Daniel C. Ortega spent 55 minutes ripping the U. S. as a fascist, anti-humane power he smilingly said, ‘I’m grateful President Ortega didn’t blame me for things that happened when I was three months old’-referring to the climactic test with USSR-sponsored Cuba, supposedly a shining hour of the Kennedy years. Shove off JFK: your travail has nothing to do with me. You see, I was only a baby! To our enemies he says hate the U. S. but love me!"

Mark Rhodes, writing for the Internet news blog, Illinois Review , offered additional insights on Roeser’s point:

"Does Barack Obama… view himself as a citizen of the world who only happens to be the custodian of the American executive branch? This is a question that Tom Roeser hints at and it is an entirely legitimate one that in an unguarded and honest moment, President Obama himself might have a tough time answering. … Roeser’s point is that Obama can happily shake hands with enemies of America because he does not see their rants against our country as anything he needs take personally since he is detached from the history of the nation and is not emotionally bound up in its identity as most Americans are."

Taking into account Obama’s past associations with the Reverend Jeremiah "God D___ America" Wright and Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan; it’s almost as if hating America is a major prerequisite for those who wish to make it into Obama’s cozy little circle .

Our Founding Fathers ratified Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution for just such a reason. It should be obvious that the President of the United States should have sole allegiance to the United States .

When it comes to Barack Hussein Obama, many rational people will always have doubts when it comes to issues of his loyalty and allegiance.

Hiding his Birth Certificate from the American public will only compound those doubts . That issue must be resolved.

And While We’re On The Subject Of Allegiance And Loyalty, A Few More Points… .

It should come as no shock that Obama is reaching out to Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Obama, after all, expressed a willingness to meet Ahmadinejad without preconditions during the campaign.

Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad appears to have some preconditions of his own.

According to MSNBC; "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Iran would welcome talks with the U.S. - but only if there was mutual respect. Iranian officials have said that means the U.S. needs to stop accusing Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons and supporting terrorism… ."

Of course, there’s just two small problem with Ahmadinejad’s demands. Iran IS seeking to secretly build nuclear weapons and IT DOES support terrorism.

And on another front, Obama’s still moving forward with plans to close Guantanamo Bay.

Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder told the media that at least 30 of these terrorists had already been cleared for release. Allusions were initially made that these 30 terrorists could actually be released on U.S. soil and that most of the remaining terrorists could be tried on U.S. soil (Essentially meaning that after retaining slick ACLU lawyers, who would make a mockery of our legal system, many of these remaining terrorists would also be released onto U.S. soil) .

Holder quickly contained the situation and issued a "clarification" on Thursday, saying that no terrorists will be released in the United States. However, as things stand now, we have no place to put these terrorists… no other country will take them. So WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO GO!

Frankly, coming from an Administration that distributed a secret report to law enforcement officials contending that patriotic Americans are the real terrorists, such statements are far from reassuring.

Senator Kit Bond of Missouri said: "While President Obama has no plan for what to do with these killers, he has pledged to close the terrorist detention facility in January, to fulfill a campaign promise. This is a dangerous case of putting symbolism over security."

And things are even worse on the domestic front.

Under the guise of "bailing-out" the auto industry, Obama essentially took control of General Motors and Chrysler. Not being a selfish man, he then turned around and effectively gave away pieces of the former to Big Labor and Fiat (a foreign automobile manufacturer).

But Obama’s not done yet. In a time of severe economic hardship, Obama has proposed to triple the national debt and he is laying the groundwork for an effective nationalization of the health-care industry .

As for the banks, they’re ripe for takeover as well. Economist Stuart Varney, in an editorial published by The Wall Street Journal , alerted us to the Obama Administration’s reluctance to accept money from banks that are attempting to repay TARP bailout money:

"My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell ‘em what to do. Control. Direct. Command."

Varney goes on a talks about what is happening to a large well-known bank that was FORCED to accept TARP money and is NOT being allowed to pay the money back to the American taxpayer:

"The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He’s been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with ‘adverse’ consequences if its chairman persists. That’s politics talking, not economics."

Are Obama’s actions, the actions of a man that loves the United States?

Many patriotic Americans will say no; but, at the very least, we should compel the man occupying the office of President of the United States to prove that he is eligible, under the highest law in the land, to occupy that office .

Use the button below to send your personalized faxes to Barack Hussein Obama and the editors of USA Today, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Daily News, the Chicago Tribune, the New York Post, and Long Island Newsday - the top ten newspapers in the United States with a combined circulation of approximately 10 million. Also send my personalized faxes to the producers at ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX News, MSNBC and CNN.

Tell them that Barack Hussein Obama has NOT produced an actual birth certificate and therefore has not verified that he is Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. Tell them to purse this very real story. Tell them to stop distorting and start reporting.

If the above does not work, please use this hyperlink .

Floyd Brown
Western Center for Journalism

May 15, 2009 | Patriot | Comments 0

Congressman says: Prove eligibility

Virginia representative signs onto plan to demand evidence

Now there are two.

A Virginia congressman, very quietly, has signed onto a measure in Congress that would require presidential candidates to verify their eligibility to hold the highest elected office in the United States.

WND earlier reported when freshman Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., filed H.R. 1503, an amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

According to the Library of Congress’ bill-tracking website, H.R. 1503 would "require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of president to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."

The plan has been referred to the House committee on House administration, where it has remained.

Now, Virginia Republican Bob Goodlatte has signed on as a co-sponsor, putting a notice on his website that it’s one of the efforts in which he’s joining.

"Another man with a spine – there are at least two up there on the Hill," wrote a WND reader who has followed the Posey plan.

Get the new Whistleblower magazine, called "YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE? Why dozens of lawsuits and millions of Americans want Barack Obama to prove he’s constitutionally qualified to be president."

George Cecala, a spokesman for Posey office, told WND that constituents had been calling, questioning whether Barack Obama – who has publicized a Certificate of Live Birth, but not his official birth certificate – has demonstrated that he meets the Constitution’s requirement to be a natural-born citizen.

"Those are legitimate constitutional concerns," Cecala said. "Folks have brought the issue up, and the court really hasn’t clarified. And I think American citizens have a right to have answers from their government."

Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 365,000 others and sign up now!

"When 7-year-olds play soccer in Brevard County, to be in Little League they have to prove their residency," Cecala said. "To be president there are three requirements: one is citizenship, two is the age of 35, and three, you have to have been a resident for 14 years. We’re simply saying when you file your statement of candidacy with the FEC, you should also file documentation that you fulfill the three requirements to be president.

"Opponents of President Bush used the 2000 election results and the court decisions to question the legitimacy of President Bush to serve as president," explained Rep. Posey in an official statement. "Opponents of President Obama are raising the birth certificate issue as a means of questioning his eligibility to serve as president. Neither of these situations is healthy for our republic. This bill, by simply requiring such documentation for future candidates for president will remove this issue as a reason for questioning the legitimacy of a candidate elected as president."

Goodlatte appeared to have issued no such formal announcement as he signed onto the plan.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, 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."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Complicating the situation is Obama’s decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.

Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are "garbage," here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama’s eligibility:

* New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn’t properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.

* Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.

* Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

* Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut’s secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

* Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public’s support.

* Chicago lawyer Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama’s vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

* Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama’s eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama’s citizenship. His case was denied.

* In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

* Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.

* In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama’s citizenship. The case was denied.

* In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama’s birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia’s secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

* California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters. She also has brought forward several other cases and has conducted several public campaigns to generate awareness of the issue.

* In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.

* In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.

* In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.

* In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.

* In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

May 14, 2009 | Patriot | Comments 0

States to Feds: Stay in D.C.!

$11 trillion ‘micromanaging’ price sparks explosion in sovereignty movement

A movement to reclaim for states all rights not specifically designated to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution is exploding across the nation, with 35 states already acting or at least considering such proposals – and one state lawmaker estimating the nation as a whole could save $11 trillion in coming years if it would succeed.

WND reported not long ago when the number of states with lawmakers considering such sovereignty efforts reached 20.

Now, according to the Tenth Amendment Center, such provisions have been launched in at least 35 states. They all address the Tenth Amendment that says: "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

South Carolina’s S. 424 is an example. It is titled: "To affirm South Carolina’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution over all powers not enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution."

Essentially it’s a reminder that the United States is made up of individual states; it’s not a federal authority broken up into political subdivisions.

Get "Taking America Back," Joseph Farah’s manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal

In South Carolina, the proposals remains pending in the state Senate, where Sen. Lee Bright said he still hopes that it will be adopted this year.

The proposal there notes specifically that the "federal government was created by the states … to be an agent of the states," and the states currently "are treated as agents of the federal government," many times in violation of the Constitution.

The resolution states:

Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring: That the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, by this resolution, claims for the State of South Carolina sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution.

Be it further resolved that all federal governmental agencies, quasi-governmental agencies, and their agents and employees operating within the geographic boundaries of the State of South Carolina, and all federal governmental agencies and their agents and employees, whose actions have effect on the inhabitants or lands or waters of the State of South Carolina, shall operate within the confines of the original intent of the Constitution of the United States and abide by the provisions of the Constitution of South Carolina, the South Carolina statutes, or the common law as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

Bright told WND the movement is spreading from state to state as fast as lawmakers discover it.

Michael Boldin, a spokesman for the Tenth Amendment Center, said his organization has created a posting for all such proposals to be tracked.

Among the states where such proposals at least have been considered are Louisiana, Colorado, Wisconsin, Illinois, West Virginia, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Nevada, Oregon, Alabama, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Idaho, New Mexico, South Dakota, Virginia, Kentucky, Alaska, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Minnesota, South Carolina, Georgia, Kansas, Texas, New Hampshire, Missouri, Iowa, Montana, Michigan, Arizona, Washington and Oklahoma.

In North Dakota, it passed the House and Senate both in April, with the House a short time later adopting changes made by the Senate.

In South Dakota, it was approved by both houses of the Legislature, and under that state’s rules does not need the governor’s signature.

Just last week, Rep. M.J. "Manny" Steele, a Republican, in South Dakota wrote that he believes up to $11 trillion is being wasted in the coming years by Washington’s efforts "to duplicate and micromanage our states’ affairs."

He said states should manage their own affairs, and not be dependant on a federal cash cow to make ends meet. Likewise with industries, he said, citing federal cash dumps on the banking, insurance and automobile industries.

After all, he agreed, with enough federal money allocated to the industry, Americans all still could be listening to 8-track tapes in their cars, but would that really be the best outcome?

Steele told WND his dollar estimate was based on what President Obama himself has allocated in the coming years to spend on stimulus packages, industry bailouts and the like.

"If we would just let the market take care of these things," he said.

His letter noted that Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma and South Carolina legislatures joined South Dakota’s in passing some statement on the Tenth Amendment this year. The results vary based on state procedures, however. In Oklahoma, the governor vetoed the plan and it was launched on its second trip through the legislature.

"Over the course of decades, there have been increasing federal mandates and acts designed to effectively step in and legislate the affairs of our various states from Washington D.C.," Steele said. "Federal usurpation into state affairs severely limits the ability of state governments to operate according to their citizens’ wishes."

May 13, 2009 | Patriot | Comments 0

Texas Gov. Rick Perry Says Texas Can Secede If It Wants

Josh Friedeman, the Millennial Perspective

As the reports begin to come in from the many TEA Parties that took place across the nation this Wednesday, there are already some very interesting stories that are beginning to arise. The most interesting one that I have heard so far is that of Governor Rick Perry of Texas suggesting that the people of Texas might eventually become so fed up they would want to secede from the U.S.

According to The Dallas Morning News :

Texas Gov. Rick Perry fired up an anti-tax "tea party" Wednesday with his stance against the federal government and for states’ rights as some in his U.S. flag-waving audience shouted, "Secede!"

An animated Perry told the crowd at Austin City Hall — one of three tea parties he was attending across the state — that officials in Washington have abandoned the country’s founding principles of limited government. He said the federal government is strangling Americans with taxation, spending and debt.

Perry repeated his running theme that Texas’ economy is in relatively good shape compared with other states and with the "federal budget mess." Many in the crowd held signs deriding President Barack Obama and the $786 billion federal economic stimulus package.

Perry called his supporters patriots. Later, answering news reporters’ questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union , though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that.

And according to Politico , Gov. Perry also said:

“I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union,” the governor said. “I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state.”

Thank you Governor! If this is the way a large group of citizens in this nation begin to think - and act - then I believe that the United States of America could once again regain the freedom and independence that originally made us the greatest nation in the history of the world.

And I am beginning to wonder, is Gov. Rick Perry going to be one of the next notable leaders of the Republican party?

April 19, 2009 | Patriot | Comments 0

Eligibility attorney asks Supremes to cooperate with FBI

A lawyer investigating the eligibility of Barack Obama to be president under the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that the office be occupied only by a "natural born" citizen is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to cooperate with an FBI investigation into alleged cyber crimes connected to her work.

In a letter addressed yesterday to Chief Justice John Roberts, the associate justices, the Secret Service and others, California lawyer Orly Taitz, who is working on a number of eligibility cases through the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, wrote, "I hope that the Supreme Court will show proper cooperation in investigation of such crimes by the FBI and other agencies and I request a letter of cooperation to that extent."

Taitz is just one of many attorneys across the country whose clients are raising questions about Obama’s eligibility.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, 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."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama’s persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 345,000 others and sign up now!

Taitz is one of several lawyers who have brought emergency motions to the U.S. Supreme Court over the cases, only to have them dropped without a hearing.

While her effort was pending at the court, its references suddenly were scrubbed from the public website just two days before a conference among justices on the case was to be heard.

She filed a complaint with the FBI, which promised a review, but the investigative agency noted that in that situation, technically the Supreme Court was the "victim" of having its website hacked, and officials there would need to cooperate for the effort to move forward.

That circumstance generated Taitz’ letter requesting cooperation.

"This is particularly important in light of the fact that there is a common denominator in a number of cyber crimes committed," Taitz wrote. She cited a hacking into her PayPal account where donations to her foundation allegedly could have been diverted, sabotage on her website and the creation of an "imposter site" for one of the plaintiffs in one of her cases.

"All of these cyber crimes, together with all the other crimes that are handled separately, have one common denominator – a concerted effort to put Obama in the White House and keep him there by virtue of fraud and concealment of all of his records," she wrote.

The president also has been named in an indictment turned in by a peoples’ grand jury in Georgia, and one other man has sought a criminal complaint against the president.

Taitz also told WND she has forwarded to U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor in Washington, D.C., a request for the U.S. to relate Quo Warranto "on Barack Hussein Obama, II to test his title to president."

Named as plaintiffs in the action are nine military or legislative leaders, including Allen C. James, currently on active duty in the U.S. Army in Iraq. Others include several retired military leaders as well as elected state representatives.

"Relators request that as U.S. Attorney, you institute a Quo Warranto proceeding against Obama under DC Code § 16-3502, and demand that Obama show clear title, proving, with clear and convincing evidence, that he had qualified as president elect," Taitz told Taylor.

"By each relator’s constitutional oath of office, and interest above other citizens and taxpayers, relators submit that they have standing," Taitz wrote.

"In arguendo of Respondent Obama’s burden of proof, motions are submitted requesting mandamus on Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle for evidence, and on Sec. State Hillary Rodham Clinton for evidence and to request evidence from Britain and the Republics of Kenya, Indonesia and Pakistan," Taitz said.

"Quo Warranto" essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, said the demand is a legitimate course of action.

"She basically is asking, ‘By what authority’ is Obama president," he told WND. "In other words, ‘I want you to tell me by what authority. I don’t really think you should hold the office.’

Eidsmoe said it’s clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents, "he does not want the public to know."

What else could be the reason for his hiring law firms across the nation to fight any request for information as basic as his Occidental College records from the early 1980s, he asked.

As Jerome Corsi, WND senior staff writer, explained, "The main reason doubts persist regarding Obama’s birth certificate is this question: If an original Hawaii-doctor-generated and Hawaii-hospital-released Obama birth certificate exists, why wouldn’t the senator and his campaign simply order the document released and end the controversy?

"That Obama has not ordered Hawaii officials to release the document," Corsi writes, "leaves doubts as to whether an authentic Hawaii birth certificate exists for Obama."

Obama officials repeatedly have declined comment, relenting only one time to call such allegations "garbage."

WND reported earlier on a proposal by U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., and the criticism he’s taking for suggesting that the issue be avoided in the future by having presidential candidates supply their birth certificate.

Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama’s eligibility: