Based on discussions with Dr. Edwin Vieira, Contrairimairi has suggested that those concerned with media failures surrounding Barack Obama and his unwillingness to disclose vital information (birth certificate, educational and medical history) ought to pursue the question with the Electoral College. I just received the following e-mail from Andy Martin, who builds on Dr. Vieira's and Contrairimairi's original idea:
ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com
"Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct"
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
INTERNET POWERHOUSE ANDY MARTIN TRIGGERS ANOTHER ANTI-OBAMA FIRESTORM WITH "MAGIC MOMENT ON THE INTERNET"
MARTIN ASKS INTERNET AUDIENCE TO CONTACT MCCAIN ELECTORS FOR A UNIFIED CHALLENGE TO OBAMA IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
"THE ORIGINAL INTENT" OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS WAS THAT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WOULD HAVE INDEPENDENT SIGNIFICANCE," SAYS MARTIN; THEY SHOULD NOT BE RUBBER-STAMPING SOMEONE WHO REFUSES TO RELEASE HIS ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE
WILL CONSERVATIVES RESPOND? OR MEEKLY SURRENDER?
(CHICAGO)(November 7, 2008) Thursday night/Friday morning Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin demonstrated the power of the Internet when he unleashed new demands for information from Barack Obama. Martin was a guest on a talk show hosted by Lan Lamphere. The show can be heard in archive form.http://www.talkstreamlive.com/listen.aspx?showid=3481
"It was a moment that has to be heard be understood," says the Internet's most influential political voice, Andy Martin. "I was asked to do a brief guest shot on Lan's show. But something 'magic' happened. In a 'Network'-style moment, Lan asked his audience to shower us with e-mails; it started pouring. What was supposed to last a few minutes lasted almost four and a half hours of live radio. It wouldn't stop. The audience kept growing until they finally started collapsing from exhaustion at 1:20 A.M. CST.
"Out of this extraordinary spontaneous combustion I produced the constitutional strategy that McCain electors should 'jam up' the electoral college with parliamentary procedures and demands for production of Barack Obama's original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate (certificate of live birth). The response of the audience was electric.
"Friday morning we are going to start organizing a 'Goal Line Stand' in the Electoral College to force Barack Obama to produce his original 1961 birth certificate for review by the American people," Martin said. "Republicans, conservatives and independents have a new rallying point. Don't let Obama pass through the Electoral College until he has produced his original
birth certificate and ended the mystery shrouding his origins."
Hawai'i officials on October 31st confirmed Martin's claim that that they do hold Obama's original 1961 document in their vault.
No one outside two Department of Health officials has seen the original document.
Martin has a court hearing Tuesday, November 18th in the Circuit Court for Honolulu, Hawai'i at 10:30 A.M. to force release of Obama's original birth files.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Hudson Valley Republican Liberty Caucus to Meet on 11-18
I just received this from Carl Svensson:
I've updated this Meetup. For more details, see the full listing:
http://rlc.meetup.com/120/calendar/9103419/
When: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 7:00 PM
Where: College Diner
500 Main St
New Paltz, NY 12561
845-255-5040
If the changes affect your plans to attend, please take a moment to update your RSVP. (You can RSVP "No" or "Maybe" as well as "Yes".)
You can always get in touch with me through the "Contact Organizer" link on Meetup: http://rlc.meetup.com/120/suggestion/
I've updated this Meetup. For more details, see the full listing:
http://rlc.meetup.com/120/calendar/9103419/
When: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 7:00 PM
Where: College Diner
500 Main St
New Paltz, NY 12561
845-255-5040
If the changes affect your plans to attend, please take a moment to update your RSVP. (You can RSVP "No" or "Maybe" as well as "Yes".)
You can always get in touch with me through the "Contact Organizer" link on Meetup: http://rlc.meetup.com/120/suggestion/
We The People Writes to Barack Obama--Questions Persist
Bob Robbins has forwarded this link to "We the People". They have posted the following letter to Barack Obama:
An Open Letter to Barack Obama:
Are you a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.?
Are you legally qualified to hold the Office of President?
Dear Mr. Obama:
On October 24, 2008, a federal judge granted your request to dismiss a lawsuit by Citizen Philip Berg, who challenged your qualifications under the “Natural Born Citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution to legally hold the office of President of the United States of America.
Mr. Berg presented factual evidence to the Court in support of his claim that you are either a citizen of your father’s native Kenya by birth, or that you became a citizen of Indonesia, relinquishing your prior citizenship when you moved there with your mother in 1967.
In your response to the lawsuit, you neither denied Mr. Berg’s claims nor submitted any evidence which would refute his assertions. Instead, you argued that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to determine the question of your legal eligibility because Mr. Berg lacked “standing.”
Astonishingly, the judge agreed, simply saying, “[Mr. Berg] would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory.”
Unfortunately, your response to the legal claim was clearly evasive and strikingly out of character, suggesting you may, in fact, lack a critical Constitutional qualification necessary to assume the Office of President: i.e., that you are not a “natural born” citizen of the United States or one who has relinquished his American citizenship.
Before you can exercise any of the powers of the United States, you must prove that you have fully satisfied each and every eligibility requirement that the Constitution mandates for any individual’s exercise of those powers.
Regardless of the tactics chosen in defending yourself against the Berg lawsuit, significant questions regarding your legal capacity to hold this nation’s highest office have been put forth publicly, and you have failed to directly refute them with documentary evidence that is routinely available to any bona fide, natural born U.S. Citizen.
As one who has ventured into the fray of public service of his own volition, seeking to possess the vast powers of the Office of President, it is not unreasonable to demand that you produce evidence of your citizenship to answer the questions and allay the concerns of the People. Indeed, as the one seeking the office, you are under a moral, legal, and fiduciary duty to proffer such evidence to establish your qualifications as explicitly mandated by Article II of the Constitution.
Should you proceed to assume the office of the President of the United States as anything but a bona fide natural born citizen of the United States that has not relinquished that citizenship, you would be inviting a national disaster, placing our Republic at great risk from untold consequences. For example:
· Neither the Electoral College on December 15, nor the House of Representatives on January 6 would be able to elect you, except as a poseur - a usurper;
· As a usurper, you would be unable to take the required “Oath or Affirmation” of office on January 20 without committing the crime of perjury or false swearing, for being ineligible for the Office of the President you cannot faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States;
· Your every act in the usurped Office of the President would be a criminal offense as an act under color of law that would subject the People to the deprivation of their constitutional rights, and entitling you to no obedience whatsoever from the People;
· as a usurper acting in the guise of the President you could not function as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and of the militia of the several states, as such forces would be under no legal obligation to remain obedient to you;
· No one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch would be required to obey any of your proclamations, executive orders or directives, as such orders would be legally VOID;
· Your appointment of Ambassadors and Judges to the Supreme Court would be VOID ab initio (i.e., from the beginning), no matter what subsequent actions the Senate might take as well as rendering any such acts by such appointed officials void as well;
· Congress would not be able to pass any new laws because they would not be able to acquire the signature of a bona fide President, rendering all such legislation legally VOID;
· As a usurper, Congress would be unable to remove you from the Office of the President on Impeachment, inviting certain political chaos including a potential for armed conflicts within the General Government or among the States and the People to effect the removal of such a usurper.
As an attorney and sitting U.S. Senator, I’m sure you agree that our Constitution is the cornerstone of our system of governance. It is the very foundation of our system of Law and Order – indeed, it is the supreme law of the land. I’m sure you also agree that its precise language was no accident and cannot be ignored if Individual, unalienable, natural Rights, Freedoms and Liberties are to be protected and preserved.
As our next potential President, you have a high-order obligation to the Constitution (and to those who have fought and died for our Freedom) that extends far beyond that of securing a majority of the votes of the Electoral College. No matter your promises of change and prosperity, your heartfelt intent or the widespread support you have garnered in seeking the highest Office of the Land, the integrity of the Republic and Rule of Law cannot, -- must not -- be put at risk, by allowing a constitutionally unqualified person to sit, as a usurper, in the Office of the President.
No matter the level of practical difficulty, embarrassment or disruption of the nation’s business, we must -- above all -- honor and protect the Constitution and the divine, unalienable, Individual Rights it guarantees, including the Right to a President who is a natural born citizen of the United States of America that has not relinquished his American citizenship. Our nation has endured similar disruptions in the past, and will weather this crisis as well. Indeed, it is both yours and the People’s mutual respect for, and commitment to, the Constitution and Rule of Law that insures the perpetuation of Liberty.
As a long time defender of my state and federal Constitutions, and in consideration of the lack of sufficient evidence needed to establish your credentials as President, I am compelled to lodge this Petition for Redress of Grievances and public challenge to you.
Make no mistake: This issue IS a Constitutional crisis. Although it will not be easy for you, your family or our Republic, you have it within your ability to halt this escalating crisis by either producing the certified documents establishing beyond question your qualifications to hold the Office of President, or by immediately withdrawing yourself from the Electoral College process.
With due respect, I hereby request that you deliver the following documents to Mr. Berg and myself at the National Press Club in Washington, DC at noon on Monday, November 17, 2008:
(a) a certified copy of your “vault” (original long version) birth certificate;
(b) certified copies of all reissued and sealed birth certificates in the names
Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham
and Barry Dunham;
(c) a certified copy of your Certification of Citizenship;
(d) a certified copy of your Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of maturity;
(e) certified copies of your admission forms for Occidental College, Columbia
University and Harvard Law School; and
(f) certified copies of any court orders or legal documents changing your name
from Barry Soetoro.
In the alternative, in defense of the Constitution, and in honor of the Republic and that for which it stands, please announce before such time your withdrawal from the 2008 Presidential election process.
“In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 469-471.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Schulz,
Founder and Chairman, We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc.
An Open Letter to Barack Obama:
Are you a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.?
Are you legally qualified to hold the Office of President?
Dear Mr. Obama:
On October 24, 2008, a federal judge granted your request to dismiss a lawsuit by Citizen Philip Berg, who challenged your qualifications under the “Natural Born Citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution to legally hold the office of President of the United States of America.
Mr. Berg presented factual evidence to the Court in support of his claim that you are either a citizen of your father’s native Kenya by birth, or that you became a citizen of Indonesia, relinquishing your prior citizenship when you moved there with your mother in 1967.
In your response to the lawsuit, you neither denied Mr. Berg’s claims nor submitted any evidence which would refute his assertions. Instead, you argued that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to determine the question of your legal eligibility because Mr. Berg lacked “standing.”
Astonishingly, the judge agreed, simply saying, “[Mr. Berg] would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory.”
Unfortunately, your response to the legal claim was clearly evasive and strikingly out of character, suggesting you may, in fact, lack a critical Constitutional qualification necessary to assume the Office of President: i.e., that you are not a “natural born” citizen of the United States or one who has relinquished his American citizenship.
Before you can exercise any of the powers of the United States, you must prove that you have fully satisfied each and every eligibility requirement that the Constitution mandates for any individual’s exercise of those powers.
Regardless of the tactics chosen in defending yourself against the Berg lawsuit, significant questions regarding your legal capacity to hold this nation’s highest office have been put forth publicly, and you have failed to directly refute them with documentary evidence that is routinely available to any bona fide, natural born U.S. Citizen.
As one who has ventured into the fray of public service of his own volition, seeking to possess the vast powers of the Office of President, it is not unreasonable to demand that you produce evidence of your citizenship to answer the questions and allay the concerns of the People. Indeed, as the one seeking the office, you are under a moral, legal, and fiduciary duty to proffer such evidence to establish your qualifications as explicitly mandated by Article II of the Constitution.
Should you proceed to assume the office of the President of the United States as anything but a bona fide natural born citizen of the United States that has not relinquished that citizenship, you would be inviting a national disaster, placing our Republic at great risk from untold consequences. For example:
· Neither the Electoral College on December 15, nor the House of Representatives on January 6 would be able to elect you, except as a poseur - a usurper;
· As a usurper, you would be unable to take the required “Oath or Affirmation” of office on January 20 without committing the crime of perjury or false swearing, for being ineligible for the Office of the President you cannot faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States;
· Your every act in the usurped Office of the President would be a criminal offense as an act under color of law that would subject the People to the deprivation of their constitutional rights, and entitling you to no obedience whatsoever from the People;
· as a usurper acting in the guise of the President you could not function as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and of the militia of the several states, as such forces would be under no legal obligation to remain obedient to you;
· No one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch would be required to obey any of your proclamations, executive orders or directives, as such orders would be legally VOID;
· Your appointment of Ambassadors and Judges to the Supreme Court would be VOID ab initio (i.e., from the beginning), no matter what subsequent actions the Senate might take as well as rendering any such acts by such appointed officials void as well;
· Congress would not be able to pass any new laws because they would not be able to acquire the signature of a bona fide President, rendering all such legislation legally VOID;
· As a usurper, Congress would be unable to remove you from the Office of the President on Impeachment, inviting certain political chaos including a potential for armed conflicts within the General Government or among the States and the People to effect the removal of such a usurper.
As an attorney and sitting U.S. Senator, I’m sure you agree that our Constitution is the cornerstone of our system of governance. It is the very foundation of our system of Law and Order – indeed, it is the supreme law of the land. I’m sure you also agree that its precise language was no accident and cannot be ignored if Individual, unalienable, natural Rights, Freedoms and Liberties are to be protected and preserved.
As our next potential President, you have a high-order obligation to the Constitution (and to those who have fought and died for our Freedom) that extends far beyond that of securing a majority of the votes of the Electoral College. No matter your promises of change and prosperity, your heartfelt intent or the widespread support you have garnered in seeking the highest Office of the Land, the integrity of the Republic and Rule of Law cannot, -- must not -- be put at risk, by allowing a constitutionally unqualified person to sit, as a usurper, in the Office of the President.
No matter the level of practical difficulty, embarrassment or disruption of the nation’s business, we must -- above all -- honor and protect the Constitution and the divine, unalienable, Individual Rights it guarantees, including the Right to a President who is a natural born citizen of the United States of America that has not relinquished his American citizenship. Our nation has endured similar disruptions in the past, and will weather this crisis as well. Indeed, it is both yours and the People’s mutual respect for, and commitment to, the Constitution and Rule of Law that insures the perpetuation of Liberty.
As a long time defender of my state and federal Constitutions, and in consideration of the lack of sufficient evidence needed to establish your credentials as President, I am compelled to lodge this Petition for Redress of Grievances and public challenge to you.
Make no mistake: This issue IS a Constitutional crisis. Although it will not be easy for you, your family or our Republic, you have it within your ability to halt this escalating crisis by either producing the certified documents establishing beyond question your qualifications to hold the Office of President, or by immediately withdrawing yourself from the Electoral College process.
With due respect, I hereby request that you deliver the following documents to Mr. Berg and myself at the National Press Club in Washington, DC at noon on Monday, November 17, 2008:
(a) a certified copy of your “vault” (original long version) birth certificate;
(b) certified copies of all reissued and sealed birth certificates in the names
Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham
and Barry Dunham;
(c) a certified copy of your Certification of Citizenship;
(d) a certified copy of your Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of maturity;
(e) certified copies of your admission forms for Occidental College, Columbia
University and Harvard Law School; and
(f) certified copies of any court orders or legal documents changing your name
from Barry Soetoro.
In the alternative, in defense of the Constitution, and in honor of the Republic and that for which it stands, please announce before such time your withdrawal from the 2008 Presidential election process.
“In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 469-471.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Schulz,
Founder and Chairman, We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc.
Senator McCain Goes 'Round and Around
Laura Meckler of the Wall Street Journal Online (paid access) argues that John McCain followed a traditional Republican course of emphasizing tax cuts. She argues that if only McCain had "transcended the Republican brand" then McCain's fortunes would have improved, but in "the areas where Sen. McCain had staked out his independence, he and his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, agreed".
I disagree.
There was little conservative about the McCain campaign, nor more generally about post Y2K Republicans, at least in the Jacksonian sense.
There are two economic and political strands of Republicanism: the Progressive and the small government. The small government Republicans are the ones who descend from Andrew Jackson and the late nineteenth century hard money advocates. The Progressives descend from Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln and the socialist Theodore Roosevelt. Progressive Republicans have mostly dominated 20th century national Republican politics. Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge were not small government men, nor was Ronald Reagan, really, although he borrowed the small government rhetoric. As for the Democrats, the Jackson Democrats had become a small minority by 1932. In the late nineteenth century they had become the Bourbon Democrats led by Grover Cleveland. After William Jennings Bryan identified the Democrats with inflation, the Republicans became the Jacksonian, laissez-faire party.
About 25% of the American electorate favors less government. If the Republicans capture this vote they can win. Small government people are in both parties, but they are mostly in the Republican Party. These voters stayed away from Senator McCain.
By 2005, the Bush administration had jettisoned any pretense of small government rhetoric in favor of special interest pandering. This has included the recent, disgraceful Wall Street bailout. The bailouts are Progressivism at a socialist level not seen since Theodore Roosevelt ran under the Progressive banner in 1912.
Big government Progressives dominate the Republican Party because they reflect corporate interests and have the most resources. They speak the language of efficiency and low taxes, but ultimately they are interested in policies that benefit themselves, which means subsidies, coddling and special breaks. Although they have the most resources, they don't have that many votes outside New York. They are comfortable with government bloat because budget deficits facilitate borrowing, which in turn facilitates monetary expansion. Monetary expansion boosts the stock market, and the music goes 'round and 'round. Indeed, I did not hear any evidence that John McCain would have been but another President Bloat, in the same tradition as Roosevelt, Hoover, Harding, Nixon and Bush. I leave out Taft, Coolidge and Reagan, although they should probably be included in the "Progressive" category as well, although they put a lid on it. Bush didn't know how to put a lid on it, and McCain didn't know it was an issue.
Thus, the Republican Party is inherently in conflict. If the Party can resolve the conflict it can win. This includes the specious resolution at which Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich succeeded. However, in the end, it is difficult to reconcile two fundamental antagonists: people who believe in fairness, laissez faire, limited government and low taxes; and people who believe in subsidies to big business at the expense of high taxes, and inflation in the name of growth.
By 2005 the Republicans had jettisoned their small government wing. The aim seems to have been to strike an alliance between big government Progressives and social conservatives. But enough social conservatives were disloyal to the Progressives because they were disgusted at the income inequality that Federal Reserve bank policy generates (most did not know this was the reason), the pandering to special interests, and Republican corruption.
The Republicans have failed the true conservative base, the remnant of the Jacksonian and late nineteenth century advocates of limited government, hard money and fiscal discipline. If Barack Obama reduces government and sheds his radical affiliations, the Progressive-social conservative alliance will never work again in my lifetime.
PS--this version isn't as good musically, but it is funny:
I disagree.
There was little conservative about the McCain campaign, nor more generally about post Y2K Republicans, at least in the Jacksonian sense.
There are two economic and political strands of Republicanism: the Progressive and the small government. The small government Republicans are the ones who descend from Andrew Jackson and the late nineteenth century hard money advocates. The Progressives descend from Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln and the socialist Theodore Roosevelt. Progressive Republicans have mostly dominated 20th century national Republican politics. Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge were not small government men, nor was Ronald Reagan, really, although he borrowed the small government rhetoric. As for the Democrats, the Jackson Democrats had become a small minority by 1932. In the late nineteenth century they had become the Bourbon Democrats led by Grover Cleveland. After William Jennings Bryan identified the Democrats with inflation, the Republicans became the Jacksonian, laissez-faire party.
About 25% of the American electorate favors less government. If the Republicans capture this vote they can win. Small government people are in both parties, but they are mostly in the Republican Party. These voters stayed away from Senator McCain.
By 2005, the Bush administration had jettisoned any pretense of small government rhetoric in favor of special interest pandering. This has included the recent, disgraceful Wall Street bailout. The bailouts are Progressivism at a socialist level not seen since Theodore Roosevelt ran under the Progressive banner in 1912.
Big government Progressives dominate the Republican Party because they reflect corporate interests and have the most resources. They speak the language of efficiency and low taxes, but ultimately they are interested in policies that benefit themselves, which means subsidies, coddling and special breaks. Although they have the most resources, they don't have that many votes outside New York. They are comfortable with government bloat because budget deficits facilitate borrowing, which in turn facilitates monetary expansion. Monetary expansion boosts the stock market, and the music goes 'round and 'round. Indeed, I did not hear any evidence that John McCain would have been but another President Bloat, in the same tradition as Roosevelt, Hoover, Harding, Nixon and Bush. I leave out Taft, Coolidge and Reagan, although they should probably be included in the "Progressive" category as well, although they put a lid on it. Bush didn't know how to put a lid on it, and McCain didn't know it was an issue.
Thus, the Republican Party is inherently in conflict. If the Party can resolve the conflict it can win. This includes the specious resolution at which Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich succeeded. However, in the end, it is difficult to reconcile two fundamental antagonists: people who believe in fairness, laissez faire, limited government and low taxes; and people who believe in subsidies to big business at the expense of high taxes, and inflation in the name of growth.
By 2005 the Republicans had jettisoned their small government wing. The aim seems to have been to strike an alliance between big government Progressives and social conservatives. But enough social conservatives were disloyal to the Progressives because they were disgusted at the income inequality that Federal Reserve bank policy generates (most did not know this was the reason), the pandering to special interests, and Republican corruption.
The Republicans have failed the true conservative base, the remnant of the Jacksonian and late nineteenth century advocates of limited government, hard money and fiscal discipline. If Barack Obama reduces government and sheds his radical affiliations, the Progressive-social conservative alliance will never work again in my lifetime.
PS--this version isn't as good musically, but it is funny:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
