OBAMA’S CITIZENSHIP AND THE PRESIDENCY: Academia shrugs: ‘Scholars conveniently abandoning Constitution, their own writings!’

[Jake Martinez]

Right ON!!

Posted on American Thinker-By Cindy Simpson-On January 6, 2012:

“By avoiding the contentious question of Obama’s “natural born” eligibility, America’s academic establishment has also stifled discussion on the inextricably related issue of citizenship law in our country, in the greater context of immigration reform.

The first instance of academia’s cloak-throwing was noted in an American Thinker article which described the revision made by Professor Larry Solum to his scholarly paper that addressed Senator McCain’s eligibility, “Originalism and the Natural Born Citizenship Clause.”  The original version was published in 2008.  Without saying it explicitly in his footnote of explanation, Solum’s revision implied, subtly, that he also supported the eligibility of Obama, with his one citizen parent instead of two—yet Solum did not include citations or references that defended his rationale for the change, nor has he published papers since that discussed this aspect of the issue.

Solum’s unsupported rewriting was mentioned again in the more recent article, “The Great American Memory Hole.”  That column also described the strange and related story of “JustiaGate”—the “mangling” of text and citations, for approximately a three-year period beginning mid-2008, on Justia’s database for 25 Supreme Court decisions that directly cited the particular case of Minor v Happersett.  It so happens that Minor contains a succinct definition of “natural born” citizenship (essentially, born in the country to citizen “parents,” plural) that attorney Leo Donofrio contends represents binding precedent.  In addition to the anomalies noted at Justia, Donofrio discovered a complete block of relevant text missing from Ex Parte Lockwood at Cornell—a case that Donofrio argues further proves his assertion that Minor’s statements on citizenship are binding precedent vs. dicta.

Cornell’s Professor William Jacobson countered that Justia is not utilized by “practicing lawyers,” but it is revealing to note that both Jacobson’s Legal Insurrection blog and the WSJ Law Blog, for example, recently and frequently link to Justia’s Supreme decisions, and that Google searches often list Justia as a top hit—reinforcing the reality that Justia’s Supreme Court database does indeed maintain a significant voice in the court of public opinion. 

Shortly after Donofrio’s findings and further claims regarding the precedent set by Minor, Professor Jonathan Turley published a post by contributor David Drumm entitled “Holdings, Dicta, and Stare Decisis.”  The last sentence of Drumm’s post refers to the Wikipedia article on Minor as further support for his assertion that the “natural born” comments are dicta; however, that particular Wikipedia entry was revised only a couple of months ago (soon after Donofrio’s assertions) to include the very paragraph that Drumm cites.  Comments on Drumm’s post now number over 1,300, bearing witness to an ugly war that continues to rage among anonymous commenters.  The revision history for the Wikipedia entry reveals similar battle scars.

“In the Spirit of Truth,” Donofrio has, via his “Natural Born Citizen” blog, invited other attorneys to directly challenge his assertions:

The definition of natural born citizen in Minor v. Happersett is binding precedent;  Ex Parte Lockwood acknowledged Minor as precedent for the definition of federal citizenship; and the statements in Minor fit the description of precedent established by the Court in Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States.

Will any accept the offer, or, along with other legal academics, will attorneys continue the “bizarre birther intellectual dance” described by Jacobson that sidesteps reasonable questions of law and spins around only the infamous birth certificate?

In his original paper, Solum’s description of “natural born citizen” closely followed Justice Waite’s wording in Minor, yet Solum indicated that the meaning of the term simply derived from “general agreement.”  (Solum attributed his later revision to “a matter of inclusion.”)  I have been unable to locate other articles addressing the eligibility of either candidate that examined the Minor definition.  That is astonishing, for whether the statements in Minor were dicta or precedent, they were still directly relevant; yet many insisted that the term “natural born” had never been defined by the Court. 

In early 2008, at the request of the McCain campaign, Professor Laurence Tribe and former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson presented a memo to Congress stating their opinion that McCain was a natural born citizen, though born in the Canal Zone, “by virtue of his birth ... to US citizen parents.”  The memo became the basis for Senate Resolution 511, co-sponsored by both Obama and Clinton, clearing the path for McCain’s eligibility.

Professor Gabriel Chin responded to the Tribe/Olson opinion in a lengthy analysis titled “Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship.”  Chin quoted the Minor natural born definition in a footnote but without further elaboration.  In his conclusion, Chin noted that the statutes that precluded the eligibility of McCain, whom he described as “not only not a race-baiter but disapprov[ing] of race discrimination,” were the result of “antique technicalities of the legal regulation of race.”  Although Chin did not mention it, the fact that those who raise the issue of Obama’s eligibility are called racist seems even more ironic.

In 2011, describing “birthers” as focused only on Obama’s place of birth, Chin asserted that “neither the Supreme Court nor Congress has weighed in on the question” of natural born citizenship—neglecting to recall his own reference to Minor and specific citation of its definition in his 2008 paper.

Professor Peter Spiro, in his 2008 scholarly article supporting his favorable opinion of McCain’s eligibility, concluded with this general remark: “The prospect of a dual-citizen president proves the obsolescence of requiring our chief executives to be natural born citizens.”  Spiro’s statement appears to suggest that dual citizens are not natural born, yet he did not acknowledge the dual citizenship claimed by Obama on his campaign website and further confirmed by the State Department.  Factcheck also affirmed Obama’s dual citizenship, but dismissed it as irrelevant based on the opinion of an anonymous blogger.

After Obama released his long-form birth certificate in 2011, Spiro published another article, “Birthers’ Next Line of Retreat: Obama was a Dual Citizen!” in which he denigrated “birthers” as “conspiracists,” called the dual citizenship question a new “bizarre sideshow,” and referred readers to the “excellent explanation from factcheck.org.”

In the 2008 article on McCain, Spiro asserted: “Constitutional questions do not require constitutional decisions. If non-judicial actors—including Congress, editorialists, leading members of the bar, and the People themselves—manage to generate a constitutional consensus, there isn’t much that the courts can do about it.” 

However, Spiro and other academics have failed to similarly address Obama’s eligibility, much less with a level of scholarship or seriousness (if Chin’s and Spiro’s 2011 articles quoted above are any indication) that would appear to justify such a “consensus.”

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) circulated three memoranda on presidential qualifications, the first dated April 3, 2009, the second, March 18, 2010.  The first report addressed the eligibility of both McCain and Obama; the second focused primarily on Obama’s birth certificate and whether citizens had “standing” in the eligibility suits, yet both reports failed to mention Minor.

Following the activity in the blogosphere over whether Minor’s definition was binding precedent and the new state ballot challenges, CRS issued a third report, titled “Qualifications for President and the ‘Natural Born’ Citizenship Eligibility Requirement.”  Without stating the reasons behind the report’s preparation or its requestor, the author, “Legislative Attorney” Jack Maskell, asserts that based on “the nearly unanimous consensus of legal and constitutional scholars,” not only are both McCain and Obama natural born citizens, so is anyone born on U.S. soil (irrespective of the citizenship or domicile status of either parent), and even some who were foreign-born, as long as they had at least one citizen parent who fulfilled previous residency requirements.

According to Dr. Jerome Corsi, “rather than advance the eligibility debate with a truly scholarly analysis, Maskell produced ... a footnoted polemic aimed at appearing scholarly to prop up Obama’s eligibility defense.”  And unsurprisingly, this third report dismisses the definition in Minor as mere dicta.

The two-step process followed by the court in Minor (to first answer whether Mrs. Minor was a citizen and secondly whether that status gave her the right to vote) was discussed in another article, “Citizenship Jeopardy.”  The “presumed” citizenship of Hamdi and Obama’s recent drone target, al-Awlaki, was analyzed—“presumed” being the adjective used by Justice Scalia in his dissent in Hamdi v Rumsfeld, a 2005 case that argued that Hamdi, as a U.S. citizen by virtue of the “birthright citizenship” practice (born in the U.S. to non-U.S. citizens), was entitled to habeas corpus.

The controversy over “birthright citizenship” centers on the citizenship and domicile status of the parents and is thus unavoidably related to the definition of “natural born” citizenship as it pertains to Obama.  The political tension surrounding immigration reform and charges of racism levied against the “birthers,” combined with the tragic yet effective distraction of the birth certificate, have further contributed to this contentious issue.

The hot button of immigration reform was addressed in another article that mentioned the 2005 congressional hearing, “Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty,” in which all participants seemed to agree (some reluctantly) that the 14^th Amendment (as well as the really very narrow ruling in Wong Kim Ark) did not guarantee or mandate the grant of citizenship to the children, born in the U.S., of aliens.

Although opinions differ over the application of the amendment as it relates to the temporary or permanent, legal or illegal status of the aliens’ presence—if the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase is not redundant (to “born in the country”) and in fact alludes to the concept of allegiance—the legality of the non-citizen parent’s border-crossing seems far less pertinent than the intent to domicile.  In addition, while many claim that the parents’ status is irrelevant to the rights of the child, derivative citizenship laws appear to support the opposite view.

A few years after the hearing (and coincidentally, when Obama came on the scene), discussion of citizenship was labeled “birther” talk, with conservative pundits like Mark Steyn referring to “rinky-dink technicalities” and attorneys such as Mark Levin (who led the call for Clinton’s impeachment based on the technicality of lying under oath) loudly refusing to even courteously acknowledge what seem to be very valid, interesting, and timely questions:

Does mere birth in the US, regardless of circumstances, guarantee citizenship?

If foreign-born naturalized citizens are required to renounce past foreign citizenship, should a status of dual citizenship at birth (the result of the birthright citizenship practice as well as the 1922 Cable Act which no longer required that women lost their U.S. citizenship upon marriage to an alien) necessitate a renunciation of the foreign citizenship by the child at majority?

Does the dual citizenship of a large and growing proportion of our population have implications for our national security?

And if naturalized citizens are not qualified for the presidency, should dual citizenship at birth likewise preclude eligibility?

According to Dr. John Eastman, it was not until around 50 years ago that “popular perception” grew into the “idea that mere birth on American soil alone ensured citizen status.”  Eastman asserts: “We just gradually started assuming that birth was enough.”

Has such “gradual” thinking replaced the Constitution?  Will the convoluted reasoning enshrined in Wong Kim Ark and the “unabashedly result-oriented approach” in Plyler v Doe continue to shape the character of our nation’s citizenship and sovereignty?

In this nation of immigrants, assimilation was once a cornerstone of our desire to build a cohesive national character.  Today, assimilation has been replaced by multiculturalism, “press 2 for Spanish,” and voting materials printed in foreign languages.  The children of “birth tourists” are granted U.S. citizenship.  And the oath sworn by naturalized citizens requiring rejection of past foreign citizenship is no longer enforced.

Concern over whether popular elections should trump valid questions of constitutional law (with related lawsuits dismissed for lack of “standing” or “particularized injury”) combined with the apparent absence of a formal mechanism to ensure the legitimacy of candidates creates a slippery slope further heightened by the symbolic nature of the question:

Does the current commander-in-chief, sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution, actually have the right to hold that office?  Do the “folks” he serves have a right to ask that question and have it respectfully answered?

Professor Chin wrote: “The rule of law would be mortally wounded if courts, Congress or the executive could legitimately ignore provisions of law they deemed obsolete ... It would be a grim moment in history if the very oath to ‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution’ that made a person President was also a falsehood that defied the document.”  Chin was referring to a McCain presidency, but should not the same sentiment apply to any president, including Obama?

Constitutional experts who were once vocal opponents of birthright citizenship have failed to opine on the very related eligibility issue.  Does their silence imply that they now believe that a birth certificate is the only requirement for citizenship?  In an article discussing Marco Rubio’s eligibility, Solum was quoted as saying that the birthers’ “arguments aren’t crazy,” but declined to elaborate.

Will academia break that silence by addressing the question of Obama’s eligibility with at least the same attention and level of scholarship given to McCain’s?  And will academia assist our nation in reforming immigration policies that comprehensively address and resolve the issues created by the birthright citizenship practice and growing proportion of dual citizens?

According to a new study posted on Professor Turley’s blog, teaching law ranks second among professions “that pay the most for the least amount of work.”  Perhaps law professors can find time in their busy schedules to educate the rest of us on these issues, in a scholarly, and not political, fashion.”

Source:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/academia_shrugs_obamas_citiz...

Note:  The following article and/or blog post informs us that the issue of Obama’s eligibility remains unresolved although challenges have now been filed in at least four states, with challenges pending in several others, along with revealing that Mitt Romney may be in the same boat as President Obama when it comes to the eligibility issue because, although he was born in Detroit, Michigan, his father, George Romney, was born in Mexico of American-born parents who retained their American citizenship.  At birth, George Romney was a dual-citizen, holding both Mexican and American citizenship at birth, Mexican citizenship as he was born in Mexico and American citizenship as his parents were American.

In order for Mitt Romney to be natural born, George Romney would have had to terminate his Mexican citizenship before Mitt Romney was born.  There has been no proof forthcoming that this happened.  When George Romney ran for president in 1968, and the question of his eligibility arose, his attorneys claimed he was natural born.  That was not and is not true under the definition of Vattel’s Law of Nations used by the Founding Fathers when the United States Constitution was written, and confirmed by Minor v Happersett, 1875.

If Mitt Romney becomes the 2012 Republican candidate for the presidency, the same situation that prevailed in the 2008 presidential election, will also prevail in the 2012 presidential election; the American people will have a choice between two candidates – neither of which have been proven eligible to the office of president.

If our nation is to survive, we cannot allow what happened in 2008 – with the eligibility of both the Democrat and Republican candidates to the office of the president going unresolved, to happen again.

Barack Hussein Obama must be removed from the ballot of the 50 states, and Mitt Romney must be forced to prove his eligibility.  This is not a left/right issue; this is not a Democrat/Republican issue; this is a matter of protecting and defending our United States Constitution.-You Decide:

A Matter of Eligibility!-Posted on American for Constitutional Government Reform-By Lynn M Stuter-On January 7, 2012:

http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/05-826/

Note: The following articles and/or blog posts and videos relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

I. Undisputed PROOF that Obama is ineligible for the Presidency!

OORAH!!

Posted on Obama Ballot Challenge-By GeorgeM-On January 7, 2012:

“From researcher Tracy: I’ve researched it for 3 years and I HAVE THE PROOF and nearly all of my sources are the Library of Congress and all links are intact, so the sources are EASILY checked and being government documents from the Library of Congress, they are easily undisputable, as well.

Here is the undisputed PROOF that Obama is ineligible for the Presidency:

Representative John Bingham 1862 (Cong. Globe, 37^th, 2^nd Sess., pg 1639:
?All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.?

http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gif

In 1866 while introducing bill H.R. 127 (14^th Amendment) Jacob M. Howard (Author of the Citizenship clause) states:
“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.”


http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/l...

MEANING that they changed NOTHING with the 14^th Amendment, only that they were declaring what was already the law. The LAW he was referring to, was the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which states:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_c...

Everyone seems to forget the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, which is why the Law/Amendment went astray. If you look at the congressional records, while they were debating the 14^th Amendment, you will find the truth and you will see that the 14^th Amendment has been 100% perverted!

What exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Luckily we have Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means.”

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/l...

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:
“I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”


http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/l...

Supreme Court Case Minor V. Happersett:
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=8...

Representative John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the 14^th Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”
MIDDLE COLUMN 3^RD PARAGRAPH:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/l...

In the 1814 Supreme Court Case, The Venus, Chief Justice Marshall cites Vattel in saying:
“The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says”:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html

Still Not 100% Sure? Here’s more!

Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution says:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”

When the Declaration of Independence was adopted, the people of America broke free from British rule and were made US Citizens.

When writing the Constitution, they wanted to be sure they did everything possible to keep America perpetually secure and everlasting, by letting no one, except a Natural Born Citizen (born to two citizen parents) to be eligible for the Presidency. There is an OBVIOUS distinction in the Constitution between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen, which proves there is a difference or it would have just said citizen, for all the positions, instead of saying that the President and VP must be Natural Born, but all others need only be citizens.

The original text of Article 2, section 1, is not what it is today. Here is a timeline of the changes:

June 18^th, 1787 – Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as:
 “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).

July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) – John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” [the word born is underlined in Jay’s letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]

http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%2...

September 2^nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”

http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&document...

That was the original link, which if you search it, you will see it’s all over the web but you will also see that it has since been scrubbed. But I found another link, where you can read the letter:

http://books.google.com/books?id=z0oWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA76&lpg=P...

September 4^th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay’s letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) – The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts.

• Only a natural born citizen can legally be President of the USA.  ”Obama” is not one. See: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Source:

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/natural-born-citizenship-and-histor...

II. ELIGIBILITY APPEAL SEEKS LEVEL ELECTION PLAYING FIELD: ‘Current standard ‘denies redress’ when unqualified candidate on ballot!’-Posted on WND.com-By Bob Unruh-On January 6, 2012:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/eligibility-appeal-seeks-level-election-...

III. Video: ALERT! As Sheriff Arpaio's Investigation of Obama's Citizenship nears completion - D.O.J. SUES!-Posted on YouTube.com-By ppsimmons-On January 6, 2012:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vk-WbjE...

IV. Video: Fox News: Georgia Ballot Access Challenge Against Obama Gets Hearing!-Posted on YouTube.com-By BirtherReportDotCom-On January 6, 2012:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2KhFn...

Note:  Americans are waking up!

Thanks to WND’s un-wavering commitment and fortitude many Americans across the country are starting to wake up to the fact that President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of President, as substantiated by his newly released long-form Certificate of Live Birth, which shows that his father was in fact born in Kenya in 1936. At the time, Kenya was a British colony. Therefore Obama Senior was a British subject by birth (due to the fact that he was born within British-controlled territory). When President Obama was born in 1961, he acquired British nationality by descent, because his father was a British subject by birth. When Kenya gained its independence from Great Britain in 1963, President Obama became a citizen of the newly-formed nation.

Sources:

http://www.wnd.com/2011/12/375625/#f2cd597738

http://constitutionalreset.ning.com/video/atty-dr-herb-titus-obama-...

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/natural-born-citizenship-and-histor...

Additionally, Several new organizations, to include active websites, were established to educate and mobilize the American public on the significance of “natural born Citizen” and the 2012 Election, along with an initiative to assist ordinary registered voting citizens wishing to challenge President Obama’s constitutional eligibility and name placement on their state’s 2012 primary presidential ballot. The team that established and maintains this website is currently compiling election laws from all 50 states and in the near future will be providing forms, along with sample letters that registered voters can use to file a complaint. Also included is pertinent information regarding those lawsuits and/or complaints that have been filed by state, to include my own.

Sources:

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/superpac-founder-explains-mission-o...

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/obama-ballot-challenge-founder-inte...

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/retired-marine-captain-files-obama-...

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/request-that-president-obama-be-rem...

Word of Caution:  Although its great that many Americans are now beginning to wake up and are actively taking some action to have President Obama taken off the 2012 Presidential Election Ballots we need to keep in mind that those individuals with unlimited sources and/or resources, to include the deep pockets of anti-American George Soros, our own local and national elected officials and others, with the help of the MSM, who have spent years planning and successively perpetrating what I now believe could be the greatest fraud in American history are not going to go down without a fight and thus, as a result, I also believe that now more than ever we need to stick together as Americans (it's no longer Democrat or Republican) at this crucial time when our country and/or Republic needs us more than ever to see this thru. A Republic for which so many Americans have and continue to give their all to uphold and defend.

So the question is: Are you going to be part of the problem by continuing to keep your head in the sand hoping this issue goes away by itself or are you going to be part of the solution by stepping up to the plate and doing what ever it takes to uphold and defend our Republic before its too late?-You Decide.

Note:  My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

The Greatest Fraud Perpetrated in American History!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/the-greatest-fraud-perpetrated-in-american-history/

Could the President’s newly released COLB be a forgery?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/could-the-president’s-newl...

Was there a conspiracy to put Obama in the White House?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/was-there-a-conspiracy-to-...

Is it important to understand the Marxist assault on the foundations of our system?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/is-it-important-to-underst...

Note:  If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial.  Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake