Friday, December 12, 2008

David Horowitz on the Birth Certificate: An Anti-Federalist's Response

David Horowitz recently wrote an important Frontpagemag editorial that argued that conservatives should drop the birth certificate issue:

"64 million Americans voted to elect Barack Obama. Do you want to disenfranchise them? Do you think it's possible to disenfranchise 64 million Americans and keep the country? And please don't write me about the Constitution. The first principle of the Constitution is that the people are sovereign. What the people say, goes. If you think about it, I think you will agree that a two-year billion dollar election through all 50 states is as authoritative a verdict on anything as we are likely to get. Barack Obama is our president. Get used to it."

David and I exchanged several e-mails over this point last week. I disagree not so much with the possibility that the birth certificate may be ok (who knows?) but with David's claim that democracy ought to trump constitutional parameters and restrictions.

Majority rule was not contemplated when the nation was founded. The Progressives such as Herbert Croly argued for Rousseauean general will and unlimited democracy. Whether their agenda was this or whether Croly and his partner Walter Weyl were just re-processed Fabian socialists interested in furthering a Europeanized American elite is a matter for debate. But Croly's and the other Progressives' contempt for the founders together with their advocacy of unlimited, socialist-style state power reflected the essence of European statism and remain the essence of American P(p)rogressivism. Weyl's and Croly's Progressivism cannot be called conservatism in the American sense, yet the leadership of the Republican Party has discarded the last remnant of Jacksonian democracy, the "Reagan revolution", and adopted the Progressive platform. Thus, today we have no conservatives in Washington but rather a Progressive Party and a progressive one.

When the current Constitution was framed there were two schools of thought, the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. We remember the Federalists such as Hamilton and Madison, who wrote the Federalist Papers and the Constitution, but we don't have so clear a memory of the anti-Federalists, to include George Clinton, Robert Yates, Sam Adams and Richard Henry Lee. The anti-Federalists were in a number of senses more modern, or perhaps post-modern, than the Federalists.

The Federalists were proto-typical Progressives in the sense that they advocated centralization and a strong federal government. They were advocates of economies of scale that carried forward via the Progressives into the twentieth century. But the Federalists, like Madison, did not reject the basic notion of limited government. Madison argued that a durable Constitution would serve as a more potent limit on tyranny than would Jeffersonian generational revolutions.

The Federalists feared what de Tocqueville called "tyranny of the majority", and the most important theme that runs through the Federalist Papers, such as number 10, is fear of faction, specifically (emphatically) including majority faction. The Federalists did not advocate rule of the majority. They limited popular vote to vote for the House. The Senate was to be elected by state legislatures and the president by the Electoral College. Article II Section I of the Constitution does not provide for popular election of the president:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

Although the Electoral College has received a great deal of criticism among pissant progressives, the recent election seems to me to confute the progressives' claims for unlimited democracy. The absence of a competent media in the United States means that popular opinion is misguided and that democracy necessarily devolves into a contemptible failure here. Conservatives ought to begin to fashion alternatives to the Progressive propaganda into which they have been indoctrinated at Columbia and elsewhere.

As unlikely supporters for ignoring the Constitution as were the Federalists, the anti-Federalists would have been much less likely to support ignoring Article II's natural born citizenship requirements (were they alive today) for they were opposed to a central government period. They would have scorned the idea that popular elections would have any meaning for the very reasons I adduce: the public has no way of evaluating candidates elected on so vast a scale, so large scale democracy must fail. 64 million Americans must be wrong because it is impossible to obtain good information. This is because of constraints on the media's ability to ask relevant questions, its cognitive limits on rationality, not just because it is owned by media conglomerates and biased in the progressive direction.

The anti-Federalists favored small batch production, small units, and local responsiveness. They were post-modern (as well as pre-modern). They favored local democracy in many cases, but not national democracy, an idea that they would have scorned.

There is a true question that no historian has asked as to whether adoption of hyper-decentralization in that early period, as the anti-Federalists favored, would have resulted in a more dynamic, more competitive and more productive American economy than the centralizing approach that Hamilton advocated. Progressivism has claimed that big business makes consumerism possible, but the facts do not seem to support this claim. Production methods of the 21st century are more consistent with the idea of "just in time" decentralization than with large-batch centralization. Perhaps the sub-optimal centralization of the Federalists and the Progressives could have been avoided. A more decentralized America would not have permitted as much lackadaisical big business, waste, railroad-related corruption and big city sleaze of the very kind that resonates today in Chicago.

Jefferson was on the fence. He was often a fellow traveler of the anti-Federalists and objected to centralization, but as president bought Louisiana and acted like a Federalist, establishing the navy and avoiding legislative restrictions on executive privilege and advocating use of state level sedition acts against his opponents.

The anti-Federalists lost the constitutional debate, although they are memorialized in the Bill of Rights, but the election of Jefferson in 1800 was a reassertion of a fossilized anti-Federalism within the Federalist system. Jefferson's election ended the Federalists as a political force, and both of today's political parties descend from Jefferson's Democratic Republicans. But both have rejected the decentralization in which Jefferson believed in principle.

Neither party has been perfect. The Democrats under Andrew Jackson smashed the central bank and emphasized states' rights, albeit for the wrong reasons. The centralizing, aristocratic, elitist element has always been present in American politics via the Whigs and the Republicans. But the decentralizing, anti-elitist element that started with the anti-Federalists and to which Jefferson and Jackson were sympathetic has all but died. This is the tragedy of American politics: our greatest tradition to which conservatism ought to be committed has been replaced by a pale copy of European monarchy, centralization and Fabian socialism via Weyl and Croly. The Republicans have become the Progressive Party and the Democrats the progressive Party. Meanwhile, the American people are scratching their heads.

The great confusion began with Abraham Lincoln, who was a Whig and a centralizer, but who adopted Jacksonian rhetoric that was carried forward by the Mugwumps. The Mugwumps such as Charles Sumner, EL Godkin and David Ames Wells adopted Jacksonian economics and favored the gold standard. But they had two interests that were consistent with their Whig roots and were the basis for the reassertion of centralization that was carried forward via the Progressives. These were a desire to rationalize government via civil service and an interest in establishing professions such as law and medicine.

The Mugwumps' fixation on professionalization and universities led directly to the modern American university's adoption of European standards, which in turn has been the major force for statism in American history. Thus, the modern university is a direct product of American political forces, notably the Republican Mugwumps' fascination with economic and sociological theory led them to send as many as 10,000 Americans to German and European graduate schools in the late nineteenth century. These young graduates came back and established anti-laissez faire centers at Johns Hopkins, Wisconsin and elsewhere via European-trained economists like John R. Commons and Richard T. Ely.

The Republicans thus reasserted themselves as a centralizing force in the late 19th century (the Republican cooptation of Jacksonian Democracy having lasted no more than 35 years, from the 1860s to the 1890s) and then the Progressives became the centralizing elitist force out of the remains of the late nineteenth century Mugwumps and Bourbon Democrats.

The Progressives were smart enough to assert European values in the name of the common man and trust busting, even though the effects of their programs were not so straightforward, and the Democrats then copied the Progressive Republicans in the 1930s, claiming to be for unions and the poor when they were really for Wall Street. The most important step Roosevelt took was abolition of the gold standard and freeing the Fed to create money, the greatest subsidization of business in American history.

Thus, by the 1930s the centralizing force had won, and the decentralizing, anti-elitist force ceased to be a political power except on the fringe. Of course, many and perhaps a majority of Americans still believed in the anti-elitism of Jackson and had decentralizing instincts, but the rhetoric of American politics became riddled with double talk, lies and deception ever since the Progressive era. The wealthy were able to pull off a centralizing coup, securing monetary-creation power for themselves while telling everyone, including idiots like William Greider, that the creation and handing of money to business interests was in the poor's interests. In a sense, through sleight of hand, a fringe elite has been running the nation ever since.

As a result, today we can truly say that America is a one party system, the Republicans who advocate for the Fed on behalf of the wealthy and say they are for free markets and competition, and the Democrats who advocate for the Fed on behalf of the wealthy but say they are for the poor.

So what does all this have to do with the Birth Certificate? The Constitution is in extremis. Ignoring Article II is one more nail in the Constitution's coffin. If you look back to the anti-Federalists, they warned of an over-powerful Supreme Court, fearing it would turn into a force for an aristocratic elite. Likewise, they opposed the central bank for the same reason. They were right. The Federalists believed that the Constitution would prove durable and serve as a restraint on centralized power.

But today even conservatives have forgotten that America is first a nation of liberty, not a democracy. Nor was it intended to be a democratic one, except according to the fringe Progressives who have come to dominate the central government, the very outcome against which the anti-Federalists warned.

More Speculation from the Blagosphere

Diana West (h/t Larwyn) has a very cool blog over at Town Hall.com concerning Blagogate, perhaps to be annointed Obamagate in the near future. It is getting all too easy to mock the pissant propagandists, and she uses the taboo term "MSM" (there is nothing "mainstream" about them and they are not "media") but West makes some brilliant points:

>"The real news out of Chicago this week was that President-elect Barack Obama had nothing to do with it.

"And I mean nothing to do with any of it. There was an almost comical aspect to the spectacle of journalists across the mainstream media (MSM) suddenly, as if on command, assuming pretzel positions in a contortionist's effort not to seem at all curious, for instance, about the discrepancy between David Axelrod's recent declaration that the president-elect had discussed Senate-seat replacements with Blagojevich, and Obama's more recent declaration that he had done no such thing.

"The MSM instantly agreed: Obama had nothing to do with it. Such a message took Obama out of the story even before the story itself was clear."

Why Contrairimairi Was Fired

I just received the following dispatch from Contrairimairi, explaining why she was fired (in case Truthgun was wondering it wasn't because of a conspiracy theory). As a college professor who has advised many fraternities, I must say that those cups are nothing. My students use bigger ones to play beer pong! In any case, I knew there was a reason why I liked Contrairimairi

>For the last company picnic, management decided that, due to liability issues, we could have alcohol, but only one (1) drink per person. I was fired for ordering the cups...

Speculation from the Blagosphere

Bob Robbins has forwarded a post by Joan Swirsky of Rightside News. Swirsky speculates that Blagojevich may buy it just like Lee Harvey Oswald and Alexander "thank goodness for cut and paste" Litvinenko.

No Quarter USA Blog's Larry Johnson, speculates that John Harris, Balgo's chief of staff may sing, David Axelrod may be implicated and that President-elect Obama is already being soiled by drive-by sludge dripping from the Chicago-DC Sludge Aquaduct ("...rather than come out today and admit that he talked to Blagojevich about possible choices -nothing wrong with that- he lied to the press conference and claimed to have had no conversation. Simply not true. David Axelrod admitted they had talked and, if you read the indictment, Blagojevich talks about the conversation.")

Swirsky quotes Johnson:

"'Barack Obama is not sleeping well tonight...Patrick Fitzgerald and the FBI could be sitting on some other tapes/wiretaps that are damaging to Obama...We also do not know what Rezko is saying at this point nor do we know what Blagojevich and Harris will spill...This scandal is not going away."

Swirsky asks: "What, if any, is the connection between Obama, the convicted felon Rezko, and the soon-to-be-convicted Blagojevich?

She notes:

"Rezko helped both Blag and Obama rise in Chicago and Illinois politics.
"Obama himself has credited Rezko with helping to his political career.
"Rezko raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for both Blag and Obama.
"The FBI says between June 2001 and August 2004, Rezko raised over $1.4 million for Blagojevich's political campaigns, according to the Los Angeles Times.
"In all, prosecutors said, Rezko squeezed various companies for some $7 million in kickbacks. Following his conviction on 16 counts of fraud, money laundering, and aiding and abetting bribery, Rezko said federal authorities tried to pressure him "to tell the wrong things" about Obama and Blagojevich. The Sun-Times reported prosecutors pushed Rezko to cooperate in the corruption probe against Blagojevich."

Swirsky wonders about a Clinton coup and whether Rahm Emanuel is a Clinton mole. And, of course, if Blago does a Jimmy Hoffa, there will be alot to speculate about here in the Blagosphere.

Andy Martin Calls It "Obamagate"!

I just received the following e-mail from Andy Martin.

>Obama author Andy Martin believes "Blagogate" may be morphing into "Obamagate," as Obama's evasiveness takes a toll on him

>Obama may not be guilty in Blagogate, but he is acting guilty. His evasiveness is significant. The obvious evasiveness of Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod is highly significant. This is the way Watergate began.

>I first walked into the federal courthouse in Chicago forty years ago. After spending forty years in a building on and off, you learn a lot about the place, and the people who work there. Something stinks in Blagogate, and that odor is now morphing into Obamagate.

>Obama said Thursday he needs a "few days" to compile a list of contacts. A few days? He sure isn't taking the arrest of the governor seriously, or acting expeditiously. His response time reflects a leisurely attitude to getting the facts out. It also reflects deliberate evasiveness. I read Lynn Sweet's comments today from Boston, and David Axelrod apparently refused to provide the date when he last spoke to Blagojevich, http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/1327703,CST-NWS-sweet12.article Why couldn't he give a simple, straight answer?

>Rahm Emanuel was attending a children's concert when Obama was announcing his HEALTH team. HEALTH team. Emanuel took a walk, and stonewalled.

>The cover story that Valerie Jarrett was never interested in the senate seat is hogwash. Can you image how powerful her role could be if she was sitting inside the senate caucus as an Obama intimate? She may not have had a burning desire to be a U. S. Senator, but to say no one was interested in seeing her appointed to Obama's vacant and unused seat is blarney.

>On and on it goes.

>Let me tell you straight up where I am heading. I think Obama has a "Deep throat" in the U. S. Attorney's Office. It could be Fitzgerald, but probably not. Rather, someone close to Fitzgerald is the mole.

>Governor Blagojevich's behavior is certainly loathsome and possibly criminal. But that is no excuse for the lynch mob circling his office. Blago is not going quietly into the night. There will be dog fighting of legendary proportions. And slowly, but inexorably, Obama is being sucked into conflict. Obamagate is rising from the ashes of Blagogate.

>By inauguration day, Obama could be bleeding. He could be politically dead before he even takes the oath of office. Obama, after all, is a man of "confidence," not substance. He has created public "confidence" that he will do something. But what? Public confidence can erode in an instant, as it did for Blagojevich.

>All we have seen to date is edited and thus self-serving government versions of tapes that raise serious doubts among lawyers. I was the first to question the strength of the federal case; others are following me. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-oped1212crimedec12,0,7874931.story

>ContrarianCommentary.com usually leads, and we are on the cutting edge of this story.

>I had a feeling during the Tony Rezko trial that the U. S. Attorney's office was protecting Obama. The criminal case against Barack Obama concerning the Rezko land deal for the purchase of Obama's mansion was a good deal stronger than the criminal case against Governor Blagojevich involving the "sale" of Obama's senate seat. But the prosecutors walked away from a strong Rezko-Obama charge, while they are now trying to pump up a weak Blagojevich crime. Who did it, and why?

>Likewise, Obama was tipped to the Blagojevich situation some time in November. Not every one was in on the tip. Obama kept the information close to his chest. There was also an unseemly haste on Tuesday to absolve the Obama campaign of any wrongdoing. Deep throat, can you hear me?

>Finally, anyone following Blagogate would be a fool to believe that Blago has no evidence to support his defense or to undermine the government's case against him.

>What has happened this week in Chicago, under the auspices of federal prosecutors and Barack Obama, is nothing less than an attempted coup. The FBI released "edited" tapes. Blago was not allowed to present a defense. And a chorus of media goons starting demanding an immediate resignation. This was a de facto coup. And it may have failed. It may have backfired.

>Rather than Blago shaking down Obama, the facts may ultimately show that when Blago stood in Obama's way, however wrongly, Obama used his juice inside the federal government to remove Obama forcibly. I have always felt that Obama has dictatorial inclinations. We may have seen the first installment this week in Chicago.

>Go back and look at the 1969 film "Z" by the director Costa-Gavras. What first appears to be a mistaken killing turns out on closer inspection to be an attempted coup. Or, go see the new movie "Doubt" this weekend. Both films deal with the distortions of reality which can take place when all the facts are not known.

>Obamagate? You heard it here first.

>After forty years in the U. S. Courthouse I can hear the ghosts. You see and learn a lot in 40 years. And what I have seen tells me something is terribly wrong with Blagojevich's arrest. What's wrong with Blagogate is Obamagate.

Mackey on Blagojevich

My good friend and West Shokan neighbor Clayton "Thomas Jefferson" Mackey has offered the following strategy regarding Rod Blagojevich:

>We should contact all the Republican senators and ask them all to pony up some cash in the tune of a half mil (that's what Blagojevich wanted to sell the seat to candidate #5 for) and offer Blagojevich a $500,000 reward for information leading to the arrest AND conviction of Obama for being involved in illegal actions to fill his Senate seat. And I'll bet Blagojevich would go for it as he hates Obama and would love to take him down with him. Although Blagojevich knows way too much and will probably be found in a garage somewhere hung, and the Feds/drive by's will say it was suicide like the DC madam was found and deemed to have killed her self. He is on borrowed time and he needs to act fast!

We the People's Ad Concerning the BO BC

World Net Daily has printed a copy of We the People's ad concerning the Obama birth certificate (h/t Bob Robbins).

An Open Letter to Barack Obama:

Are you a Natural Born

Citizen of the U.S.? Are you legally eligible to hold the Office of President?

December 1, 2008

Mr. Barack Obama
Barack Obama Transition Office
Kluczynski Federal Building
230 So. Dearborn St.
Chicago, Illinois 60604

Dear Mr. Obama:

Representing thousands of responsible American citizens who have also taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, I am duty bound to call on you to remedy an apparent violation of the Constitution.

Compelling evidence supports the claim that you are barred from holding the Office of President by the “natural born citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution. For instance:

• You have posted on the Internet an unsigned, forged and thoroughly discredited, computer-generated birth form created in 2007, a form that lacks vital information found on any original, hand signed Certificate of Live Birth, such as hospital address, signature of attending physician and age of mother.
• Hawaii Dept of Health will not confirm your assertion that you were born
in Hawaii.
• Legal affidavits state you were born in Kenya.
• Your grandmother is recorded on tape saying she attended your birth
in Kenya.
• U.S. Law in effect in 1961 denied U.S. citizenship to any child born
in Kenya if the father was Kenyan and the mother was not yet 19
years of age.
• In 1965, your mother legally relinquished whatever Kenyan or U.S.
citizenship she and you had by marrying an Indonesian and becoming
a naturalized Indonesian citizen.

You have repeatedly refused to provide evidence of your eligibility when challenged to do so in a number of recent lawsuits. Instead, you have been successful in having judges declare that they are powerless to order you to prove your eligibility to assume the Office of President.

Incredibly, the judge in Hawaii actually said it would be an invasion of your privacy for him to order access to your original birth certificate in order to prove your eligibility to hold the Office of President.

Before you can legitimately exercise any of the powers of the President you must meet all the criteria for eligibility established by the Constitution. You are under a moral, legal, and fiduciary duty to proffer such evidence. Should you assume the office as anyone but a bona fide natural born citizen of the United States who has not relinquished that citizenship, you would be inviting a national crisis that would undermine the domestic peace and stability of the Nation. For example:

• You would always be viewed by many Americans as a
poseur - a usurper.
• As a usurper, you would be unable to take the required “Oath or Affirmation” on January 20 without committing the crime of perjury or false swearing, for being ineligible you cannot faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States.
• You would be entitled to no allegiance, obedience or support from the People.
• The Armed Forces would be under no legal obligation to remain obedient to you.
• No civilian 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 appointments of Judges to the Supreme Court would be void.
• Congress would not be able to pass any needed legislation because it would not be able to acquire the signature of a bona fide President.
• Congress would be unable to remove you, a usurper, 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.

In consideration of the escalating constitutional crisis brought on by the total lack of evidence needed to conclusively establish your eligibility, I am compelled to serve you with this First Amendment Petition for a Redress of this violation of the Constitution.

With all due respect, I ask that you immediately direct the appropriate Hawaiian officials to allow access to the vault copy of your birth certificate by our forensic scientists on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, December 5, 6 and 7, 2008.

In addition, I ask that you deliver the following documentary evidence to the National Press Club in Washington DC by 10 am on December 8, 2008, marked for my attention:

• A certified copy of your original, signed “vault” birth certificate.
• Certified copies of your reissued and sealed birth certificates in the
names Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack
Dunham and Barry Dunham.
• A certified copy of your Certification of Citizenship.
• A certified copy of your Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of maturity.
• Certified copies of your admission forms for Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School.
• Certified copies of any legal documents changing your name. Each member of the Electoral College, who is committed to casting a vote on December 15, 2008, has a constitutional duty to make certain you are a natural-born citizen. As of today, there is no evidence in the public record (nor have you provided any) that defeats the claim that you are barred by law from assuming the Office of President because you fail the Constitution’s eligibility requirements.

All state Electors are now on Notice that unless you provide documentary evidence before December 15, that conclusively establishes your eligibility, they cannot cast a vote for you without committing treason to the Constitution.

“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. U.S., 277 U.S. 438

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this urgent matter.

Sincerely,


Robert L. Schulz
Chairman

We The People Foundation
For Constitutional Education, Inc.


www.WeThePeopleFoundation.org

2458 Ridge Road
Queensbury, NY 12804
info@GiveMeLiberty.org

Donofrio Blasts MSNBC's Pete William



NBC's Pete Williams is incompetent, and a moron. But that's nothing new for NBC, Leo.

Of Course Barack Obama Is Eligible for the Presidency

Nancy Razik just sent me this video.

From Freedom to Fascism

Contrairimairi has forwarded the following 11-part Youtube video sequence by Aaron Russo. The one point I disagree with is that toward the end Russo seems to advocate governmental money creation. I don't think that would work. There needs to be a metallic standard. The Federal Reserve Bank is a barbaric relic, and the incompetence of economists to run the monetary system has firmly demonstrated a commodity based standard, gold or silver, is necessary.



The video argues that the 16th amendment was never approved by the necessary number of states. It has some excellent quotes of Woodrow Wilson. There is no law requiring the filing of income tax returns.



During his presidency, opponents of President Bill Clinton were singled out for tax audits. The federal government uses illegal force to require payment of income tax. Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled that the IRS does not need to obey the law. The court system has gotten out of hand, and perhaps it is time to begin to resist the courts directly. Education is paid through property tax. Highways are paid for through gasoline tax. The corporate income tax pays for defense. The income tax is an instrument of totalitarianism and a method of control by which slow witted Congressmen manipulated by economic special interests reallocate wealth to those same economic special interests.



Interest payments on federal debt and government waste account for 100% of the federal income tax. The IRS refuses to respond to requests for documentation as to where it gets the authority to tax. "What if it's our own government we need to be afraid of?"

The Constitution says that direct taxes must be apportioned. All indirect taxes must be uniform throughout the states. The income tax is neither direct nor indirect. The Supreme Court held that the 16th Amendment conferred no new powers of taxation. In 1894 the Supreme Court held the income tax was unconstitutional. In 1913 the Supreme Court said that the 16th amendment conferred no new power of taxation. Therefore, the federal income tax is unconstitutional. There is no legal requirement for the average American to pay the income tax.

The government is involved in judicial blackmail. The IRS is a racketeering organization that imposes an illegal tax. The Internal Revenue Code enslaves the nation that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution freed.




The Internal Revenue Code says "compliance" is "voluntary". The government requires the form 1040, yet the Fifth Amendment says that the government cannot mandate self-incrimination. Yet, the government uses the form 1040 against the filer. The definition of income is gain. Labor is private property. The 16th Amendment did not extend Congress's taxing power. Former IRS commissioners do not show the law that requires payment of the income tax. Congress has failed to obey the law. Sheldon Cohen does not seem responsive. Sheldon Cohen says that Supreme Court decisions and the Constitution do not apply to the IRS. The IRS is a criminal protection racket.

The Constitution prohibits a direct, unapportioned tax on wages. Income taxes are taxes on profits and gains, not labor and wages.



The IRS and its supporters resort to defamation and insults in arguing with tax protestors. Law suits against the thuggish IRS and the criminal government it funds have been successful. Irwin Schiff's trial was a mockery, little more than a kangaroo court. No one should ever convict anyone of non-paymentof taxes. The IRS taxed Joe Louis on the money he donated to the US government.



IRS agents behave like storm troopers, attacking a restaurateur. The restaurateur was never charged, but the IRS wrecked his business based on false allegations. The IRS forced the restaurateur's family into bankruptcy. How did America stop being a free country?

The same people who backed the Federal Reserve system also backed the income tax. Why would the government borrow money when it can print money? The Democrats and Republicans are organized crime.

The Federal Reserve has converted America from a nation of freeholders to a nation of employees who are almost serfs. Americans have become serfs to the debt machine.



The Federal Reserve is illegal. Creating money out of thin air will destroy the money supply. The Federal Reserve is not audited and Congress fails to exercise intelligent oversight. The Federal Reserve is a swindle. The Fed has taken possession of Fort Knox gold (I'm not sure of that). America is becoming a police state. Today, you can't open a business, develop land, go to the doctor or whatever without interference from government thugs. Under President Bush's executive orders, you can be jailed without any court protection.



The government is using the right of eminent domain to steal property. Increasingly, the government ignores property rights in favor of fascistic government confiscation and violence. RFID chips transmit information and can be implanted in people as well as ID cards. There will be a massive data base identifying who buys what.



Software facilitates election fraud. America's domestic policy is run by the Fed and the international policy is run by the IMF. "A world system of financial control in private hands." The war on terrorism is a pretext for international finance's interest in international control.



David Rockefeller thanks the mass media for lying on behalf of the Council on Foreign Relations. Rockefeller advocates rule by an intellectual elite and international bankers. Fascism is the merger of corporate power and the state. The media supports this process.



"Will you choose freedom or slavery?" "Stop living in your fear of government." Call for civil disobedience. Revolutionary, anti-statist actions need to commence. Only vote for candidates who have signed an affidavit to shut down the Federal Reserve system and stop world government."

Democrats let BOBC Deadline Slip

Robert Taylor forwarded this Worldnet Daily article from Dec. 1 indicating that Obama failed to respond to Philip Berg's writ of certiorari petition with the US Supreme Court:

"President-elect Barack Obama and the Democratic National Convention
have let a Dec. 1 deadline slip by without responding to Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg's petition for writ of certiorari demanding Obama produce a legitimate birth certificate to document his eligibility for office. "

Donofrio v. Wells

I received the following from Larwyn on 12/1:

Donofrio v. Wells, Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz: Major Updates on Conference, Cort's Renewed Application
December 1st, 2008 at 7:49 pm

Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, has been able to confirm that his case was referred to the full Court by the full Court. This means that, per the docket, all 9 Justices have agreed to hold a "Rule of Four" Conference this Friday, December 5. And again, this means that if 4 of the 9 Justices respond in the affirmative to Leo's case, we are instantly and potentially in unchartered waters (assuming they either agree to a stay of the Electoral College or agree to hold a hearing).

Leo also updated everyone on Cort Wrotnowski's case (where Cort is Plaintiff), Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz. Apparently, after Cort called the Supreme Court requesting an update of his emergency stay renewal, he spoke with a certain individual who allegedly stated that his particular case (docket) had been referred to an anthrax containment facility! This news has led Leo Donofrio to call all concerned citizens to write the Supreme Court in diplomatic fashion to address this outrageous behavior.

There is also a rumor that the full Court may be seriously considering staying the Electoral College vote until after Barack Obama's eligibility can be confirmed (the following excerpt from Leo):

Today I spoke with Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Director of Public Information at the United States Supreme Court. She informed me that Mr. Donofrio's application was first referred to the full Court by Justice Clarence Thomas on November 19, 2008. After that referral took place the full Court, and not Justice Thomas alone, distributed the application for an emergency stay for Conference of December 5, 2008. [emphasis mine]

We now know that the renewed request to halt the election was not denied and is actively being considered at the Supreme Court.

The following is the full text of Leo's blog entry…


CONFIRMED BY SCOTUS: DONOFRIO V. WELLS WAS DISTRIBUTED FOR CONFERENCE OF DECEMBER 5, 2008 BY THE FULL UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Posted in Uncategorized on December 1, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

[UPDATE] Leo Donofrio and Cort Wrotnowski will be on Plains Radiotonight at 7:00 PM EST

CONFIRMED BY SCOTUS: DONOFRIO V. WELLS WAS DISTRIBUTED FOR CONFERENCE OF DECEMBER 5, 2008 BY THE FULL UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AFTER FIRST HAVING BEEN REFERRED TO THE COURT BY JUSTICE THOMAS

by Bob Vernon, Honest American News - Plains Radio Network

December 1, 2008

On November 19, 2008, the official United States Supreme Court Docket for case number 08A407 - Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey - was updated to show that the "emergency stay application" to halt the national election and Electoral College meeting of 2008… was "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008." At that time, it was not clear whether this was scheduled for conference by Justice Thomas alone or by the full Court.

In multiple interviews with Leo C. Donofrio, this reporter and other members of the Plains Radio Network, were informed by Mr. Donofrio that he suspected the distribution for conference was an action taken by more than Justice Thomas alone. Mr. Donofrio suggested that another docket update stating the emergency application was referred to the full court by Justice Thomas should have appeared on the docket prior to the distribution for conference.

Since the docket did not reflect a prior referral it was widely accepted that the distribution for conference was an act of Justice Thomas alone. Honest American News can now confirm - by direct contact with the Supreme Court's Public Information Office - that the distribution for conference of DONOFRIO V. WELLS was an action taken by the full court.

On November 28, 2008, the docket for case number 08A407 was updated to show, retroactively, that Justice Clarence Thomas did in fact refer Donofrio's emergency stay application to the full court on November 19, 2008. Last night in an interview with…Plains Radio Network, Mr. Donofrio suggested that this new update, nine days later, indicated that the full Court had taken action to distribute the case for conference. Mr. Donofrio cited a SCOTUS public information document issued to reporters entitled:

A REPORTER'S GUIDE TO APPLICATIONS Pending Before The Supreme Court of the United States

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf

In that document, on page 3, it advises:

"The Circuit Justice may act on an application alone or refer it to the full Court for consideration. The fact that an application has been referred to the full Court may not be known publicly until the Court acts on the application and the referral is noted in the Court's order."

Mr. Donofrio pointed out in various interviews that since his case had been made public by the SCOTUS, there was probably a referral by Justice Thomas prior to the actual distribution for conference. Mr. Donofrio was correct.

Today I spoke with Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Director of Public Information at the United States Supreme Court. She informed me that Mr. Donofrio's application was first referred to the full Court by Justice Clarence Thomas on November 19, 2008. After that referral took place the full Court, and not Justice Thomas alone, distributed the application for an emergency stay for Conference of December 5, 2008.

Let me reiterate the main point: DONOFRIO V. WELLS was distributed for conference of December 5, 2008 by the full Court after a prior referral of the application by Justice Thomas.

Mr. Donofrio will be on the Plains Radio Network tonight. SeePlainsradio.com for details.

Bob Vernon
Honest American News
Plains Radio Network
State: Texas

Why Was Sarah Herlihy Worrying About Article II?

Contrairimairi has forwarded a post from Insight Analytical concerning Sarah Herlihy's article that was also discussed in the blog Count us Out. Someone had forwarded Herlihy's article to me and I blogged it on November 29. Herlihy works for the law firm of Kirkland and Ellis out of their Chicago office. The kicker is that Herlihy's article was published in the Kent Law review in 2006 and, notes Count us Out Blogger Creative Ogre:

"While digging my way through the Internet last night, I came across the following paper, written by SARAH P. HERLIHY. It’s title: AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE caught my eye, and had to read it…

"I had to ask myself, what would drive any American to want to change a clause in a document that is the very foundation of our government? So, I kept digging, and found that SARAH P. HERLIHY is employed by Kirkland & Ellis LLP

"Noting that this law firm is based in Chicago, the light bulb was shining a little brighter . Upon looking at the firm, and the partners, I found that Bruce I. Ettelson, P.C., is Member of finance committees of U.S. Senators Barack Obama and Richard Durbin.

"In addition, Jack S. Levin, P.C., another partner who, in December 2002 was presented the ” Illinois Venture Capital As sociation’s lifetime achievement award for service to the private equity/venture capital community” presented by Sen. Barack Obama

"So it sure looks like Obama’s people have looked into the matter of “Natural born” as far back as early 2006. What is even more disturbing is that it would appear that they are following the thought of "If the facts do not support the theory, Destroy the facts!”

Here is the introduction to the paper… It looks like a road map for Obama’s defense lawyers…And a precursor to a Socialist world."

Wiley Drake's Anecdote

I just received this from Nancy Razik. Please judge for yourself. No stranger than Meletus calling himself "Diogenes".

The First Time I Heard of Barack~ Wiley Drake

During the period of roughly February 1992 to mid 1994, I was making frequent trips to Moscow, Russia, in the process of starting a software development joint-venture company with some people from the Russian scientific community. One of the men in charge on the Russian side was named V. M.; he had a wife named T.M.

V. was a level-headed scientist while his wife was rather deeply committed to the losing Communist cause - a cause she obviously was not abandoning.

One evening, during a trip early in 1992, the American half of our venture were invited to V. & T.'s Moscow flat as we were about to return to the States. The party went well and we had the normal dinner discussions.

As the evening wore on, T. developed a decidedly rough anti-American edge - one her husband tried to quietly rein in.

The bottom line of the tirade she started against the United States went something like this:

"You Americans always like to think that you have the perfect government and your people are always so perfect. Well then, why haven't you had a woman president by now? You had a chance to vote for a woman vice-president and you didn't do it."

The general response went something along the lines that you don't vote for someone just because of their sex. Besides, you don't vote for vice-president, but the president and vice-president as a ticket.

"Well, I think you are going to be surprised when you get a black president very soon."

The consensus we expressed was that we didn't think there was anything innately barring that. The right person at the right time and sure, America would try to vote for the right person, be he or she black or not.

"What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?"

The out-of-the-blue remark was met by our stares. She continued, "Well, you will; and he will be a Communist."

It was then that the husband unsuccessfully tried to change the subject; but she was on a roll and would have nothing of it. One of us asked, "It sounds like you know something we don't know."

"Yes, it is true. This is not some idle talk. He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents. He is what you call "Ivy League". You don't believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa...And he's going to be your President."

She became more and more smug as she presented her stream of detailed knowledge and predictions so matter-of-factly - as though all were foregone conclusions. "It's all been thought out. His father is not an American black so he won't have that social slave stigma. He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist. He's gone to the finest schools. He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America."

We sat there not knowing what to say. She was obviously very happy that the Communists were doing this and that it would somehow be a thumbing of their collective noses at America: they would give us a black president and he'd be a Communist to boot. She made it quite obvious that she thought that this was going to breathe new life into world Communism. From this and other conversations with her, she always asserted that Communism was far from dead.

She was full of little details about him that she was eager to relate. I thought that maybe she was trying to show off that this truly was a real person and not just hot air.

She rattled off a complete litany. He was from Hawaii. He went to school in California. He lived in Chicago. He was soon to be elected to the legislature. "Have no doubt: he is one of us, a Soviet."

At one point, she related some sort of San Francisco connection, but I didn't understand what the point was and don't recall much about that. I was just left with the notion that she considered the city to be some sort of a center for their activity here.

Since I had dabbled in languages, I knew a smattering of Arabic. I made a comment: "If I remember correctly, 'Barack' comes from the Arabic word for 'Blessing.' That seems to be an odd name for an American." She replied quickly, "Yes. It is 'African'", she insisted, "and he will be a blessing for world Communism. We will regain our strength and become the number one power in the world."

She continued with something to the effect that America was at the same time the great hope and the great obstacle for Communism. America would have to be converted to Communism and Barack was going to pave the way.

So, what does this conversation from 1992 prove?

Well, it's definitely anecdotal. It doesn't prove that Obama has had Soviet Communist training nor that he was groomed to be the first black American president, but it does show one thing that I think is very important. It shows that Soviet Russian Communists knew of Barack from a very early date. It also shows that they truly believed among themselves that he was raised and groomed Communist to pave the way for their future. This report on Barack came personally to me from one of them long before America knew he existed.

Although I had never before heard of him, at the time of this conversation Obama was 30+ years old and was obviously tested enough that he was their anticipated rising star.

Andy Martin Tells of Sewage on the Chicago-DC Aquaduct

I just received this e-mail from Andy Martin:

(CHICAGO)(December 12, 2008) "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" Election Day/matinee star Barry Obama is coming to the silver screen in a new role starring as "Captain Barack Hussein Renaud," the Prefect of Police in Chicago who is "appalled" by the discovery of corruption in his home city. "I am shocked, shocked, to learn that there's corruption going on in Chicago," is one of Obama's signature lines in the remake of the World war II love story "Casablanca."

Just as Claude Raines, starring as Inspector Renaud, feigns "shock" at the discovery of gambling in the original film, while carrying off his winnings, Barry Obama will feign that he is "appalled" by the corruption in the casino that has been his base of political power for over a decade, while carrying off his winnings for being part of Chicago's corrupt political culture.

Obama who claims he could not pay his credit card bills eight years ago, has become rich enough to refuse his U. S. Senate salary, all as a result of his participation in the corrupt politics of his "home" town.

In a stirring scene with breathtaking beauty, "We'll always have Hawai'i," Obama tearfully abandons the corruption of Honolulu for the venality of Chicago as outrigger canoes carry "Barry O" to a waiting pirate galleon en route to OccidentalCollege. Unbeknownst to Obama, Andy Martin is an undercover corruption fighter on the ship "Chicago's Fortune."

The Chicago Tribune protested when Senator John McCain broadcast ads highlighting corruption in Chicago." says Andy Martin. "If McCain had not been such an incompetent idiot, he would be heading to the White House today. McCain had the issues; he was too ham-handed to use them.

"Barack Obama has claimed he is 'appalled' at the corruption in Chicago. He cites three 'selfless' public servants; two are long dead and the third, Dick Durbin, is a crook who uses his wife as a 'bag man' lobbyist.

"If Dick Durbin is Obama's prime example of living integrity, we better "fasten our seat belts" as we include a scene in Chicagoblanca loosely based on "All About Eve."

Who is this man Barry Obama, soon to be Barack Hussein Obama, kidding? If he didn't know there is corruption in Chicago, and that Blagojevich was a crook, he is too incompetent to serve as one of Blagojevich's toll collectors on the Illinois Tollway, let alone as president of the United States.

Does George Bush know about Obama's lack of intelligence? Bush has refused to allow Obama to move into Blair House early. Maybe GWB should reconsider. Obama is a stranger to Washington, having barely visited the place. 'Bama might miss the inaugural parade if it doesn't march past him at Blair House.

"I invite any sentient being to 'Google' Obama + 'Illinois corruption' and see how many times Obama has denounced corruption or the Daley Machine. On the contrary, BHO has regularly endorsed the politics of sleaze, from African-American neighborhoods plundered by Obama's sponsor Tony Rezko right down to the kleptocracy of Richard Daley's City Hall. Obama has been an integral part of corrupt politics in Illinois. Period. He should be 'appalled' at himself, not Blagojevich.
"My book, 'Obama: The Man Behind The Mask,' is a 'Chicago story' retelling the history of Obama's long-time links to organized political corruption in Chicago. Obama has coexisted comfortably in the 'iron triangle' of Chicago politics," Martin says. www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-10-dec10,0,7674669.column
Andy Martin will also play a starring role in "Chicagoblanca" as a cynical cafe owner and political reformer who ends up in Chicago but refuses to run off with the girl he loved in Honolulu. Instead, Andy runs off with Barry Soetero Obama, to Indonesia, where they set up a "Café Chicago" and make a killing selling booze to Muslims.

Sewage Just Starting to Flow on the Chicago-DC Aquaduct

Robert Taylor just sent me this link to Rush Limbaugh's site (also, h/t Clayton). Rush once again demonstrates why talk radio is necessary to counteract the pissant partisans on the networks and New York newsletters.

>FITZGERALD: I should make clear the complaint makes no allegations about the president-elect whatsoever, his conduct. This part of the scheme lost steam when the person that the governor thought was the president-elect's choice of senator took herself out of the running. But after the deal never happened, this is the governor's reaction, quote: "They're not willing to give me anything but appreciation. Bleep them."

RUSH: All right, now, the FBI affidavit says that Blago had been told by an advisor, quote, "president-elect" -- that's Obama; we only have one president-elect, right? I cannot be confusing anything. Quote, "the president-elect" -- this is an advisor talking to Blago. "The president-elect can get Blagojevich's wife on paid corporate boards in exchange for naming the president-elect's pick to the Senate." But that wasn't good enough for Blago. He wanted something for himself. And he didn't want to have to wait two years for his term to expire, I guess, before his wife could be appointed to these boards. And that's when he came out with the MF-er on the tape. So Obama has somebody in mind for this seat. We just don't know who it is, and Blagojevich was not happy about it. Here's one more bite from Fitzgerald.

FITZGERALD: We have Senate seat that seemed to be as recently as days ago auctioned off to the -- you know, to the highest bidder for campaign contributions, and Governor Blagojevich own words on the tape of the bug that's set forth in the complaint talked about selling this like a sports agent. So we stepped in for a number of reasons. Basically, as I said before, we're in the middle of a corruption crime spree, and we wanted to stop it.

RUSH: "We are in the middle of a corruption crime spree, and we wanted to stop it." They made their move before the Senate seat could be sold. And have you also noticed, ladies and gentlemen, the parade of daily Obama press conferences seemed to have stopped.

Mitchell Langbert's Blog Files For More Federal Welfare

OK, so many I'm not eligible for TARP, but Jim Crum has forwarded me this corporate welfare form. Maybe I can do as good a dance with an accordian and a monkey as Rick Waggoner did, and Congress will loot a few billion bucks from America's poor to subsidize me too.

Jim Crum Refutes "Diogenes"

I just received this e-mail from Chicagoan Jim Crum:

>Kindly forward to your friend "Diogenes".

It states quite well what so many, and I mean very many, of us here in IL have been shouting from day one. There are no virgin births in Chicago politics and Mr. Obama and his advisors are all the well funded products of the corrupt culture. Removing G-Rod will change very little, trust us on this one.

Madigan
Lipinski
Mell
Daley

Our citizens here could go on and on, and on...

I will add nothing else as what is stated below has a perfect economy of language.

JJC.

>"So, do the rest of you now have some idea of the depth of corruption in Chicago and Illinois, and why some of us were so concerned about electing a president who emerges from this cesspool?" --columnist Dennis Byrne

Stanley Ann Dunham's Social Security Number Still Active

I just received this from Nancy Razik:

>Dr. Orly obtained Obama's mother's Social Security #.
3 addresses in Hawaii and one in New York.
The # is alive, well and actively being used today.
Kelly Anne Dunham and Anna Sotoero are using this #.
Question: Fraud (stolen #'s) or is she really dead? or is a relative using the number? MAYBE THE ILLEGAL ALIEN AUNT IS USING IT?!?!?!

No hospital in Hawaii has records of Stanley being treated for her cancer. Where was she treated? Washington State?

Only Memorial services for both the grandmother and mom - both cremated - why?
Zero formal funerals. - why? Cremation destroys DNA evidence.

Good News:

Zero of the 55 delegates have been officially certified to be electors in the state of CA. Basis of the 2nd case in CA. To seize the delegates from casting their electoral vote. Not to mention the dead delegate.

African-America ABC reporter told Dr. Orly, "Go back home to Russia."

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stations/HeadingRight/ASKShow/2008/12/11/The-Andrea-Shea-King-Show

Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Constitutional Lawyer Orly Taitz on the Andrea Shea King Show Listen to Dr. Orly Taitz on the Andrea Shea King Show.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stations/HeadingRight/ASKShow/2008/12/11/The-Andrea-Shea-King-Show

During the interview, Orly Taitz, the southern California constitutional law attorney gives updates on two separate petitions being brought before the California Superior courts re: Obama's eligibility for presidency on behalf of former presidential candidate Alan Keyes (Keyes v. Bowen) and Lightfoot v. Bowen.

Dr. Taitz also covers research from her work, for example, no one seems to be able to name the hospital where Obama was born. Also to date, no one knows where his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham was treated for cancer. None of the hospitals in Hawaii have a record of her ever being there, much less treated for her terminal disease.

Adding another twist - investigations shows no record of a funeral for Stanley Ann Dunham -- no funeral home, no death certificate, no coroner's or medical exam report, no burial place. We're told there was a memorial service. Where? When? No record exists of that either. Obama's sister reportedly said that Stanley Ann Dunham was cremated and her ashes were spread over the Pacific. Where was the cremation done? When?

The research involving Dr. Taitz work shows that a search of Stanley Ann Dunham's social security number, allowable once a person is deceased according to Taitz, revealed that her SS # is still active, leading investigators to three addresses in Hawaii and one in New York. Who is using Stanley Ann Dunham's social security number? Could it be a case of identity theft?

Records of Obama's grandmother Madelyn Dunham's death are not to be found either. Curiously, also missing is any record of Stanley Ann and Barack Obama Sr.'s marriage, which supposedly took place on the island of Maui.

Listen to this and more on the Andrea Shea King Show.

http://drorly.blogspot.com/

Inquiring Minds Need to Know

Contrairimairi just sent this video.

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Grading Time

Dear Friends: Thank you for your kind e-mails. I have been grading over 100 term papers for my classes. As well I bought a car 10 days ago, plus my father-in-law visited us last week, so I haven't had time to blog! I'll get caught up soon!

Sunday, December 7, 2008

Bob Robbins's Letter to the US Supreme Court

Bob Robbins just forwarded the following e-mail that was sent to the US Supreme Court

>Revised, December 7th, 2008

To the Most Honorable
Chief Justice John G. Roberts
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20543

Dear Chief Justice Roberts:

Although this letter is addressed to you, your Honor, it is in reality an open letter to all of the Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. And, my hope Sir is that you will make its content available to your esteemed colleagues on the Bench.

Ever since the founding of our great nation, from the signing of the Declaration of Independence, through tenuous and uncertain times at Valley Forge, Washington’s crossing of the Delaware, and thereafter to the final battle of Yorktown, our nation’s future and Liberty hung tenuously by a slender thread. Since those perilous times, we have faced together many other challenges to the existence of our freedom. We endured the war of 1812, the Civil War, two world wars, and most recently the attack on the two World Trade Centers in New York City.

That slender thread was and has always been, the courage and wisdom of the men in the breach of history, whose moral and mental compass turned their wills and their souls unerringly to the cause of liberty, and to the preservation of our nation and its Constitution.

Comes now into the breach in the year 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States. Our founding fathers knew that our nation could be lost by direct assault, or by subterfuge. And it was the latter case to which they addressed the Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution to direct all citizens to the diligence of electing only a “natural born” citizen of this country to be President.

This matter was of such import that they being men themselves born in another nation, excluded only themselves and men alive at the signing of the Constitution, leaving forever thereafter, that only men born of this nation according to the law, and men who preserved their citizenship status only to this nation would ever become President.

Whether the current and most recent candidate elected to that office would ever misdirect our nation or do harm is not the consideration. Whether he indeed meets the qualification of “natural born” citizenship, and has maintained only that citizenship in the United States, is the crucial issue that must be resolved.

If he could have readily clarified this matter and ended this contention, it would seem to honorable and respectful citizens that he should have already done so, as the matter has been brewing for several months. But alas, critical and numerous documents that might shed light on his qualification in this regard have been purposefully and carefully “Sealed” to prevent revelation to public knowledge.

The 300 million citizens of these United States deserve to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they have elected a man who indeed meets the Constitutional qualification requirements to become their President or otherwise as the case may be. This President needs that same stamp of approval of those same forefathers who signed the Constitution in order to serve honorably in this most high office.

Several separate cases have now come before the Supreme Court, and another just was denied in the Superior Court of California and has undoubtedly began its journey to your court. Unless this matter is resolved to the letter of the law and the Constitution, there can be no civil rest among the vastly growing number of those who have and those who will yet become aware that a growing shadow of doubt falls upon the qualification of our highest elected official.

Two clear courses, and two consequences lie before us. And the Supreme Court holds the charge and the key to resolution of this most crucial issue. The issue is historical, and critical because a most dangerous precedent can be set, by allowing a President to serve who does not meet the Constitutional requirement set forth by our founders.

Thereafter, any non-citizen could challenge that provision of “natural born” citizen in Article 1, Section 2, citing the already served term of office of one who did not quite meet that requirement.

It is apparent that other entities whose purview should have checked the qualification of the candidates for Constitutional criteria, have failed in their duty. And the matter has been allowed to continue unresolved to the point that multiple lawsuits have been filed, and more are likely to arise. Those entities that failed to verify citizenship of candidates for President must be properly brought to task and the error in their duty pointed out.

Either the matter is taken up and clearly resolved, and the Constitution is preserved, or We the People may look back in history upon a gaping hole burned in our Constitution in the year 2008 by the simple lack of due diligence.

Such a travesty it would be to our collective and everlasting shame, and would place our nation in new degrees of jeopardy.

So now, We the People turn to our highest court for Justice, and for resolution of truly a Constitutional crisis of historical significance. We trust your Honorable Court will not fail to recognize the importance of this matter and will stand with that long line of patriots and defenders of liberty to preserve and secure our nation’s future.

To this end I remain …

Very Respectfully and Sincerely Your Humble Servant,

Name withheld