Concerned Citizens Encouraged to Contact US Attorney Over Eligibility
Following up on his recent condemnation of Georgia’s common law grand jury pronouncement, Leo Donofrio, attorney and Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, posted the following admonition for those concerned citizens who believe that the federal government has not properly addressed the President’s alleged ineligibility:
Three US Postal Receipts for Letters to US Attorney Taylor?
People are writing to me and claiming that US Attorney Taylor will never touch the eligibility issue to bring a quo warranto challenging Obama’s title to the office of President. Many are also saying that we the people have exhausted all legal options and that we must look outside the Constitution for justice.
I say there is no justice outside of the Constitution and that if you sink to that level of thought the true enemies of the Constitution will have defeated you and it forevermore.
But the people have not even come close to doing everything in their power to see that the Constitution is protected. The Constitutionally proper way to challenge POTUS eligibility is via the DC Code quo warranto statute.
I DO NOT SEE A CONCERTED EFFORT BY “WE THE PEOPLE” TORESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT US ATTORNEY TAYLOR BEGIN AN INQUIRY IN QUO WARRANTO AS TO OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY.
If the option fails then you only have yourselves to blame if you haven’t organized a million letters and a million citizen march to the door of the US Attorney’s office.
I have not seen a response from US Attorney Taylor but that doesn’t mean he’s shut the door on bringing a quo warranto inquiry. I certainly I have not seen a negative response from US Attorney Taylor.He has said nothing publicy either way, so why is everybody giving up on the possibility that our Constitution may be working as we speak?
Did you think US Attorney Taylor would simply make a shotgun decision on something this important? Don’t you think a complete in depth study of quo warranto, the DC Code, and all possible case law would be necessary for the man to properly come to a decision? That takes some time.
Furthermore, how many of you actually wrote to the man? I told you that the prosecutor would need your protection - the protection of an intense public outcry - in order for him do something this controversial. Have you given the prosecutor your protection? Have you written to him?
Three people have written to me and mentioned they have received their green return receipt requested cards proving that their letters were accepted by the US Attorney’s Office. Three people. I’d be willing to bet that the total number of letters sent to US Attorney Taylor is less than 500 and probably much less than that.
I’ve written extensively on quo warranto and I’ve made the case that the statute is the only possible means by which the POTUS eligibility issue will ever be resolved. But the people don’t seem to really care enough to contact the US Attorney… so why should the US Attorney believe that this nation will support a decision to challenge Obama?
Based upon the lack of public outcry and the vehement language of hatred used by so many people who comment on the Obama eligibility issue, if I were the US Attorney I’d probably conclude that these advocates are simply partisan instigators concerned with their own political views and not concerned with an objective concern for the Constitution and the nation at large.
If you don’t have the numbers, you won’t get the result you’re looking for. It’s that simple. Those who are advocating methods and tactics which violate the Constitution have not done everything in their power to use the Constitutional and legal methods available. You are just as much an enemy of the Constitution as any other thug.
If every person who was troubled by Obama’s eligibility wrote a letter to US Attorney Taylor and got on the same page, perhaps there might be enough of a public outcry for the US Attorney to move on this issue. But the forces are split up and divided. Much of this has been intentional and many have been duped.
You flock to sensational muckrakers spewing emotional diatribes and irrelevant judicial maniacal madness… and you will get what you sow in the end.
There is an apparent divide forming among those with differing opinions on exactly how to go about persuading the government to pay attention to petitions.
Blogger Arlen Williams at InvestigatingObama will be investigating this issue further this coming Monday evening on “The Awakening” on BlogTalkRadio.
-Phil
brygenon says:
April 5, 2009 at 4:37 am
Who were those Senators and Congressmen, and what, specifically, did they say in those “foolish letters”?
*******************************************************************
Brygenon—-By your statement here it would be a waste of my time to enlighten you as to my actions….. it appears you have already pre-judged me and my letters!!
Sue,
I don’t think anyone is saying they’re actually going to do this. I think what people are doing is venting their frustrations over the current climate of DC.
-Phil
brygenon,
“treated it as nonsense:” Except, I suppose, for Rep. Posey, who’s actually docketed a bill concerning presidential eligibility.
-Phil
“We will all go down in a blaze of glory to defend this country from the Usurper in Chief’s New World Order”
“I pray it doesn’t resort to bloodshed but I’ve been praying this same prayer since December 2008….some who are less spiritual may not have the same patience as me!!”
Yes, I think we should revolt. Totally weaken America. Then, the real enemy can walk in and take over. Makes sense to me. Destroy America when you could instead just vote the guy out in 4 years. Yes, revolting and riots make perfect sense. America would be the perfect target for the real enemy which by the way, is not Obama. Go on, revolt. Take up your arms and kill innocent people. Shoot first and ask questions later.
Yes Leo, in a true and honest world that followed the rule of law unwaveringly, What you advocate would be the way to get this issue resolved. But as we have seen over these last few months, your solution requires those with the ultimate responsibility and authority to uphold the constitution, need to be honest and honorable, and act non partisan while doing their job. It requires them to protect the actual document,not a group, not a man, not a party,not an agenda, and not at the point of a gun or under threat from the populous, but because they swore an oath, and the questions are there,true or false,and whether or not the attorney general agrees with it or not.
Non of these things should matter. It needs to be investigated… and resolved, because the document,perceived or not, by even a small number of citizens, is threatened and in need of protecting. That alone, should be needs enough to call to her all the people sworn to protect her until the threat is nullified.
When is it ever up to those entrusted with protecting and defending the constitution to decide if the threat to it is real or not? With or without deliberation and finding of fact by those entrusted to uphold it? All anyone that swore to protect it should be doing is just that…protecting it, and keep doing so till those entrusted by us in upholding it decide the threat to it is true or false.
If they all intend to do nothing to protect, defend, and uphold the document, then your solution will not work no matter how righteous the gesture is to follow the constitution and letter of the law in getting the issue resolved.
Quo Warranto does indeed seem like the way to get this resolved in a just world, but if that be the case, then it should already be in the process of being acted upon. Nowhere is one million letters written to anyone a number that would or should be needed to bring this action, and in fact would be contrary to what the rule of law is all about. If that really be the case then, in reality,what you are advocating is that only when forced to do so at the peril of violent action from a million angry citizens writing letters does Mr. Holder or Attorney Taylor or anyone, sworn to do so, have to act to defend the constitution? What difference is that really, than a citizen’s grand jury making indictments and asking for citizens to back those indictments up and force these people to act to follow our laws? Any constitutional solution should have already been adjudicated on, from just one person filing the motion(as you and so many other have)arguing that the constitution has not been followed.Every man and woman that swore to uphold the document should have taken up the alarm, and rushed to protect the constitution with vigor at the first sign of a problem.(but that did not happened).
Not one judge has decided a case on the merits,Looked at any evidence and made a decision. Not one has resolved what “Natural born citizen” is,or if qualifications were or were not met, looked at evidence, and decided that none of these questions are actionable and warranted……….NOT ONE!
And yet,this threat to our constitution is still present, perceived or real,and it should not make a difference to all those that swore oaths to protect it either way.
When you suggest that it will take a million people to write to get a solution acted upon, our constitution and rule of law is no longer working already. Mob rule is now the law the land, and has already taken over.
And what of that wonderful document? It could be already nothing more than just an animal skin with some fanciful ink splashed on it.
Bob wrote, initially quoting ramjet767,
Bob is understating the issue. This bit is one of the gems. I so hope Apuzzo argues it.
Members of the U.S. Congress, both Democratic and Republican — the people who actually have the power to remove the President — heard this complaint and treated it as nonsense. How strong a defense is that? Doesn’t matter. Here we’re considering it coming from the plaintiff.
Jacqlyn Smith
Who were those Senators and Congressmen, and what, specifically, did they say in those “foolish letters”?
I did re-read your comment, Phil, and I still can’t figure out what you were trying to say.
You wrote:
Obviously the electors all met on the appointed day and voted; and obviously Congress met on the appointed day, tallied the votes, and certified them. So the 2 conditions laid out in the first part of your sentence are met.
That leaves me still wondering what you mean by “burden of proof for pleading” being “diminished” — it seems to me that those facts narrow the issues, but create a greater burden in terms of pleading — since it would require allegations sufficient to invalidate the electoral college vote and congressional determination.
But if you don’t care to clarify, that’s ok with me too – because as I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t think quo warranto can properly be brought against the President in any case — so at best its a thought experiment.
Practical Kat,
You’re taking things way too defensively. Suffering from “analysis paralysis” is typically 50 – 75% of the problem that most people — including myself, of course — run into when trying to figure something out. Fortunately, you took the time to ask.
Now, you’re being defensive when, in fact, all I did was ask you to re-read my comment. I’m not going to repost everything I say, so I ask that you simply do that.
This wasn’t meant as a personal slight against you. While I realize that you don’t agree with my position, I would have thought that you would have at least respected the fact that we’re simply having a discussion here.
-Phil
Well, it takes a few minutes to write the letters, and it is a little frustrating to stand in line at the Post Office, but one does feel just a little more ‘American’ when the little green cards show back up in the box. I have sent Holder and Taylor each three certified, return receipt letters. Have three cards back from Holder, two from Taylor so far. Also emailed them two letters each, and faxed each of them two letters.
If you haven’t written, write. There are letters out there to copy if you aren’t much for writing. You know the websites, look around, you’ll find them. It really is better to put your passion in your own words. The heart is often as good or better at projecting one’s thoughts than is the mind.
Have to go now, I feel a letter coming on. RobLamb.
Practical Kat,
You’re suffering from analysis paralysis. Go read my comment again and don’t put so much emphasis on “if it is true,” as if I’m attempting to say that what Congress did wasn’t legitimate.
-Phil
Sue,
Now you know exactly how I feel, at times, when people accuse me of all sorts of falsehoods based on my stance of “I don’t know” regarding the President’s eligibility.
Nevertheless, it is what it is.
-Phil
I wholeheartedly agree with Leo. We must orchestrate a coordinated letter writting campaign to US Attorney Holder and our elected officials.
Click here to see the John Birch Society’s lastest Congress letter writing initiative. http://www.jbs.org/index.php/action/letters-from-congress
If you received letters from your Congressional Representatives or any agency or government official, please post those letters on this site. Make your letters and Responses PUBLIC and share your stories on
http://www.wethepeopleusa.ning.com
Phil wrote:
I don’t understand the use of the phrase “if it is true” in the above statement?
Do you have any reason to doubt that the electoral college met and voted for Obama? Or that the vote was certified in a joint session of Congress?
ramjet767 says:
April 3, 2009 at 11:31 pm
To Jacqlin Smith:
May I suggest, and would you be so kind to send xerox copies of your letters to Congress, copies the certified letter delivery receipts, the follow-up emails you sent, and the copies of the three month late responses you finally got to Atty Mario Apuzzo. He is collecting such items as evidence for the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al case. Your documents will become part of his growing pile of examples of how Congressman and Senators totally ignored the pleas of the people about Obama’s citizenship question. One of the charges in that case is unequal protection under the law. The Congress investigated McCain’s NBC citizenship status when people contacted Congress but did not investigate Obama’s NBC citiznship status when people contacted Congress about Obama. Atty Apuzzo’s postal and email address is in his blog at:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
RJ
===================================================================
I already did that months ago through the restoretherepublic.com
Your documents will become part of his growing pile of examples of how Congressman and Senators totally ignored the pleas of the people about Obama’s citizenship question.
Which is Congress’ prerogative.
The Congress investigated McCain’s NBC citizenship status when people contacted Congress but did not investigate Obama’s NBC citiznship status when people contacted Congress about Obama.
Which is Congress’ prerogative.
One of the charges in that case is unequal protection under the law.
Separating wheat from chaff is part of any official’s job, and unless it is done in a manner prohibited by law (by race, for example), there’s no equal protection violation.
Williamson v. Lee Optical, Inc., 348 U.S. 483 (1955) is the seminal case on this issue.
Phil
“My comment might really throw you for a loop (as well as many others), but as I’ve always said, I’m about following the Constitution and getting to the truth, no matter who that offends.”
Well, I guess that is two of us who are going to be politically incorrect. I don’t see why the truth scares so many. This country is about “WE THE PEOPLE”, the people can’t make judgements when information is hidden/subverted from “WE THE PEOPLE”. Obama, the Obots, NYT, and LA TIMES all fail here, because they support subversion of the truth to “WE THE PEOPLE”.
to ramjet
how about emails??
i have dozens of emails to our non representative representatives
to SOSs
and to
Electoral college electorates.
Will emails suffice for this, or cert letters only? I have responses too. One calls it BS.
IF so, give me the address. ty
email preferred
The reason is that the definition of whether a person is a Natural Born Citizen if one of their parents was not an American citizen at the time of the person’s birth is subject to valid debate on both sides
>>>yep just like “marriage” definition is subject to debate. It’s pretty obvious that it is coming from the same mindset that gives you ‘gay” marriage (i.e counterfeit marriage), global cooling (1979), global warming (2001), opps…opps….opps….climate change. And Pelosi and Biden’s complete distortion on RCC position on abortion. Those that want to debate really don’t want to do their homework, or they purposely ignore history. They want to “change” the meanings, change real history by repeating lies, and not have useful debate.
It’s pretty obvious what their agenda is. Last year during Congress hearing on McCain’s eligibilty ( a smoke screen by OBAMA to hide his own ) both a Democrat (Leahy, the “senator” from Vermont) and Homeland Security Director repeated on recorded Congressional testimony that NBC requires both parents to be US citizens. So their is no doubt that the far left, LEAHY and his ilk, know the traditional definition.
So dont’ tell me they want intelligent debate on the matter. There is enough historical documents from Jay and Vattel and others that provide NBC definition. A thorough a complete reading of the Constituion also provides it. Note Art. 2 of the Constitution doesn’t say US citizen, it doesn’t say native borne , it doesn’t say naturalized citizen. It is pretty clear in what it doesn’t say, to give meaning to what it does say. Back up from the ammendments provide additional proof.
“That is the key Leo keeps on reiterating. Obama and his crew want us to have LAWLESSNESS because that is how confusion and cahos reigns.”
Huh? Please, cite your source on the above statement. I have not seen one Obama supporter advocate lawlessness.
I feel like Jesus response to the Devil’s temptations with IT IS WRITTEN is coming to avail. People need to know and exhaust all options before seeking violence.”
Here is another example of something that has absolutely nothing to do with the eligibility issue. All sorts of wild and crazy allegations have been attached to this issue. Why?
We have to do the research on the fake Obama photos and forged Obama documents (All of them!) and present them in a convincing manner to We the People and the media. In effect we have to prove Obama is ineligible for US President.
Obama Birth Announcement Forged
http://home.att.net/~south.tower/ForgedObama1.htm
It doesn’t matter what people do as long as they get out the word if just to tell their friends. Looks pretty much like Obama is another CIA President controlled by the Bushes. Oh, what is Bush II doing these days with his government ‘in absentia’? Bush blackmails Obama with the lack of eligibility.
Leo ran to the Supreme Court with TWO cases based on the claim Obama was born in Kenya. Now he says Obama was born in Hawaii. So he is learning like the rest of us. His lack of a successful track record is glaring. His funky cases being dumped at the Supreme Court are used as END OF DISCUSSION on the eligibility issue by even Congressman. Still I don’t dismiss him.
Andy Martin has presented the Hawaii research that Obama was born to US Citizen Frank Marshall Davis but apparently an unknown white woman was the mother. In an out-of-wedlock birth the mother determines the nationality and citizenship in spite of a US Citizen father. Being born in Hawaii before statehood in 1959 is another possibility. If the vault birth certificate has no father’s name with the mystery mother’s name signed, Obama won’t be able to prove Davis was the father either. The mother’s nationality would be on the BC.
Well, quo warranto has never been used against a US President — and I don’t think it can be (I disagree with Donofrio on this point) — but I think you are correct in that quo warranto is usually used where some other person is asserting a claim to the office in question.
The example would be the case of US ex rel Crawford v. Addison, 73 US 291 (1867)- http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/73/73.US.291.html
There was a disputed election for mayor of Georgetown. Crawford was determined the winner by the election officials, but the city council declared Addison the winner, and swore him in as mayor. Crawford then brought quo warranto to oust Addison. (Crawford was successful, but just barely — the jury at first found the election had been a tie, but the judge refused to accept the verdict and upon further deliberation, Addison was ousted)
The POTUS bowed in submission before the protector of the Holy sites. Burn Saudi flags publicly as a non-violent protest at every opportunity. If American flag burnings are protected by free speech why would burning a foreign flag violate free speech?
Visibly attract attention when filing for American officials to take action against a person you want investigated. Highlight the photo of Hussein bowing before a foreign potentate. If you can not get a flock of American military to join in legal suits after publicizing that photo ordinary Americans do not support your cause.
The only heroes stopping the mostly Saudi terrorists on 9/11 were ordinary Americans.
The only heroes for change are us, the people. Be theatrical.
To Jacqlin Smith:
May I suggest, and would you be so kind to send xerox copies of your letters to Congress, copies the certified letter delivery receipts, the follow-up emails you sent, and the copies of the three month late responses you finally got to Atty Mario Apuzzo. He is collecting such items as evidence for the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al case. Your documents will become part of his growing pile of examples of how Congressman and Senators totally ignored the pleas of the people about Obama’s citizenship question. One of the charges in that case is unequal protection under the law. The Congress investigated McCain’s NBC citizenship status when people contacted Congress but did not investigate Obama’s NBC citiznship status when people contacted Congress about Obama. Atty Apuzzo’s postal and email address is in his blog at:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
RJ
Phil,
You said:
“And this is the point on issues such as eligibility. Consistently and persistently asking questions is the name of the game. In fact, as my blog quite obviously demonstrates, you will cause a stir by asking the right questions.”
In reply to my question:
“Where does it say in the Constitution that we have to beg to be heard?”
I asked this question in response to Leo’s statements above and the idea that “We the People” are being ignored.
We have been speaking for several months asking questions, joining groups, phone calls, faxes, letters, surveys and several legal cases have gone to the courts falling on deaf ears. Letters have been sent to to public officials from local to the highest positions in Government with signatures of natural born supporters.
Dr Orly Taitz has been very active with many cases and letters.
The agrivation is comming from the public being ignored.
Political beleif is only an excuse to ignore asking that the proof be shown Obama meets the requirements to be POTUS. I had to show my original BC to get my drivers license transfered recently.
Leo wants us to beg, he has already given his excuse if his plan doesn’t work. It’s our fault for not given 1,000,000 letters and a 1,000,000 citizens march to the door of US Attorney’s house if his Quo Warranto fails. See below.
The following Quoted from Leo above:
I DO NOT SEE A CONCERTED EFFORT BY “WE THE PEOPLE” TORESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT US ATTORNEY TAYLOR BEGIN AN INQUIRY IN QUO WARRANTO AS TO OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY.
If the option fails then you only have yourselves to blame if you haven’t organized a million letters and a million citizen march to the door of the US Attorney’s office.
Based upon the lack of public outcry and the vehement language of hatred used by so many people who comment on the Obama eligibility issue, if I were the US Attorney I’d probably conclude that these advocates are simply partisan instigators concerned with their own political views and not concerned with an objective concern for the Constitution and the nation at large.
If you don’t have the numbers, you won’t get the result you’re looking for. It’s that simple.
Practical Kat,
My comment might really throw you for a loop (as well as many others), but as I’ve always said (and contrary to what you, per se, have often claimed of me), I’m about following the Constitution and getting to the truth, no matter who that offends.
Having said that, might I suggest that if it is true that the Electoral College vote duly elected Mr. Obama to the presidency, and that the Joint Session of Congress duly certified those votes, the burden of proof for pleading a successful quo warranto ruling could be severely diminished. My understanding is that quo warranto has historically been used in those instances where someone other than the President has a legitimate claim to the title over the currently-sitting President.
Now, I’m not saying that the statute can only ever be exclusively used for this kind of situation. And I don’t know enough about the statute or jurisdictional issues of the DC Court to say much more than that. However, I still think that it’s worth a shot.
-Phil
Well, to all you obamaots. There is always REVOLUTION. You got your Tea Bags Ready…
We will all go down in a blaze of glory to defend this country from the Usurper in Chief’s New World Order.
jbjd wrote:
True, and a very important point to make. A “usurper” as the terms is used legally would refer to someone who occupies an office through procedurally improper means.
I am assuming this number comes from counting “votes” in primaries such as Michigan, where Obama was not on the ballot – and by discounting the delegates won in caucus states. The Democratic primary was conducted under a set of clear rules as how delegates would be awarded, and Obama won more delegates (and slightly more popular votes overall) playing by those rules.
It seems to me that a lot of people seem to want to change the rules after the results are in — whether it is Hillary supporters discovering that they don’t like the caucus system, or Obama-opponents deciding after the election that the definition of “natural born Citizen” needs to be changed — or Norm Coleman’s lawyers arguing to count the same rejected absentee ballots they objected to only weeks before, once the numbers have shifted against them.
That’s not how laws or elections work or should work. Sometimes you win, sometimes you (or your candidate) lose. If the rules are to be changed – whether it is in how delegates are awarded, or the electoral vote system, or how we define candidate eligibility – that has to be done in advance of the election, not after the results are in. That is the essence of a government of laws.
As to the Obama/Hillary thing — it is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton has shown more grace, maturity and intelligence than many of her former supporters. She campaigned tirelessly for Obama, and she has become an integral and highly influential part of the Obama administration in her role as Secretary of State. She lost the nomination because she and her campaign staff made a number of tactical errors along the way that put them behind — but political campaigns are all about tactics. She is not the first person in history to lose because of errors made stemming from over-confidence — and that is exactly what happened to her. In a sense she got blindsided, but only because she was blind to what was coming at her in plain view to everyone else.
To AmericaMustKnow…
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson
Teresa,
Please cite your source for this.
-Phil
Seeking_Justice,
My opinion is that while the 1st Amendment guarantees the right to speak, it does not guarantee the right to be heard. Of course, that begs the question, “heard, by whom?”
Similarly, I’ve seen nowhere where the government is absolutely obligated to answer for every question that is presented to it; the government cannot, however, per the 1st Amendment, keep anyone from actually asking questions of it.
And this is the point on issues such as eligibility. Consistently and persistently asking questions is the name of the game. In fact, as my blog quite obviously demonstrates, you will cause a stir by asking the right questions.
-Phil
Just for the record, I emailed Mr. Taylor on 3/14, 3/17, and 3/21, asking him to initiate a Quo Warranto proceeding to determine Obama’s eligibility.
What Leo is Honesestly conveying seems to be the measured solution!
Does anyone have a consise outline of a form letter which could be adapted to send to Taylor?
For everyone going to a “tea party”; perhaps yourself with 5 + persons (get the copies ready and simply ask 5 + patriots to sign and mail it for them) : sending a letter to Taylor, this will probaly be more effective than the tea party” , by its self!
As soon as Leo proposed sending letters to Taylor and Holder, I mailed mine off. I got my green cards back this week. I agree that we need to be respectful. But more than anything we need lots and lots of letters.
Leo keeps trying to substitute passion for competence, to the detriment of people who, not knowing better, assume they are the same thing. They’re not. BO is not a usurper as that word is used in law; in other words, he did not steal his position as POTUS (although he certainly stole the D nomination from HRC, who won more popular votes, as well as more pledged delegates from votes cast for both candidates). Keep in mind, unlike the 2 U.S. Senators in the cases Leo keeps citing, no one voted for BO. People only expressed their preference for the candidate by voting for the electors for that candidate. These electors chose him. Leo can contort the law to force whatever conclusion he wants but, absent a ruling by someone authorized to make such a ruling, such as a court of law; he cannot say BO is Constitutionally unqualified for the job. Even assuming the EC ignored whether BO is a NBC, they chose him for POTUS. The only way to force him out of office if he chooses to remain, is through impeachment.
Good job Leo and Phil for informing folks.
I feel like Jesus response to the Devil’s temptations with IT IS WRITTEN is coming to avail. People need to know and exhaust all options before seeking violence.
If you do not do that, then the destroyers of the Constitution, Truth and Justice(Obama, New World Order, and crew) will win.
Both John Quincy Adams, 6th President and founding fathers of the Constitution stated “But the indissoluble link of union between the people of the several States of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the RIGHT, but in the HEART. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it !) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other, when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bonds of political association – will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies ; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part in friendship with each other than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect Union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center.”
and Samuel Adams, one of the founding fathers of the Constitution, stated “The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.
This is our version of the Civil Rights Movement. People don’t realize that the Civil Rights Movement actually existed from 1896 (passing of Plessy v. Ferguson, Separate but Equal doctrine) until 1965 (Voting Rights Act). Everyone thinks the civil rights movement only occurred in the 1950’s – 1960’s. That is not true and historically inaccurate.
The same thing goes for the Women’s Movement. These movements, just like the American Revolution, have always been efforts that galvanized the people. Many had different views of how to make it work, but TRUE SUCCESS CAME IN THE FORM OF MOBILIZATION and NON-VIOLENT EFFORTS UNDER THE LAW.
That is the key Leo keeps on reiterating. Obama and his crew want us to have LAWLESSNESS because that is how confusion and cahos reigns.
We must ALWAYS KEEP THE BIBLICAL PRINCIPLE OF (it is written) and let the law guide us in ways and areas to bring out the end result that we all want. To have the Government Respect its citizens and work within the Constitution (and to uphold it in every single facet).
That marks a true civilized society and one that can ensure that we hold true to the founding fathers.
Maybe everyone needs to have Paine some COMMON SENSE. Because it is lacking.
We have to think like a pawn on a chess match here. You don’t bumb rush the board when you are playing it. You have to study your opponent and find its weaknesses and find your strengths to counter those weaknesses.
Our strength is informing the public and mobilization of the people. The more people we get, the more people will respect us.
leo is funny
his condemnation fails to read clearly into the what the grand jury says, he says he can’t stand for anything outside the law as posters grow weary of challenge after challenge being denied, and hypocritical bans posters (freedom of speech) on his board. Some lack of credibility is there about what he is trying to accomplish. But at least he is trying.
I guess even George Washington wouldn’t be Leo’s friend for killing the Brits and breaking the law of the land at the time of the revolution. Drastic times that we are in, in which the judges are corrupt, non-representative representatives are elitists and immune to any form of common sense, etc. demand drastic actions.
Our nation has lost the meaning of the Constitution , many thanks tothe far left wing liberals who have brainwashed our culture and corrupted it.
I differ with Mr. Leo Donofrio on this.
No sworn officer of the court should be guided by how many people want or don’t want some law enforced or not enforced.
Should any officer of the court be aware of a law being broken it is that officer’s duty to make a remedy under the law.
I have sent a certified letter to my federal AG of the Northern District of GA and made a complaint against Mr. Obama.
I respect Mr. Leo Donofrio but his action went no place.
By what wisdom does he now tell others not to do something?
It is officers of the courts that are not acting as they should that is putting the road block up.
I agree that it will take millions in the street to get anything done about this.
Mr. Leo Donofrio don’t lay the lack of action at the feet of those people that can’t come to DC to protest. Lay it at the feet of the people whose sworn duty is to act and not wait.
I have never agreed with Donfrino and his approach to Obama’s citizenship issue.
The reason is that the definition of whether a person is a Natural Born Citizen if one of their parents was not an American citizen at the time of the person’s birth is subject to valid debate on both sides. Getting cases like this heard is bad for the real eligibility issue and that is because cases like Donfrino is involved with admit that Hussein was born in America.
It is my opinion that that is BS and that Hussein was born in Kenya. That he is now also a citizen of Indonesia and is an illegal alien in America.
Where someone was born is a matter of fact
What citizen they are a country of is a matter of fact
Whether someone is a Natural Born Citizen is subject to debate and legislative and legal fiat.
Donfrino is not only barking up the wrong tree with his approach but is barking way too loud at others.
Personally I am insulted by this clown who has the audacity to chew others out for not supporting him even when they think his approach is mucking up the whole question.
In fact when I read about his efforts in Hawaii it sounded like Donfrino was saying that Hussein was qualified to be POTUS because Donfrino said Hussein was born in Hawaii.
Go away Donfrino.
Does anyone know the schedule of Jeffery Taylor? He might speaking or attending public events sometime in the immediate future. This is the big for patriots to attend and voice their concerns directly to Jeffery Taylor and give him documentation. If Taylor is going to be at an event soon, patriots need to get together for a massive turnout to address Taylor about Obama’s eligibility.
Dr. Taitz is certainly having all her patriots call, email, fax, etc., A.G. Taylor. I think it is a wonderful idea.
A 1000 patriots need to call the office and raise the issue. It would also help if patriots in the Washington DC area made a trip to attorney’s office to deliver letters and raise concerns.
Leo brings out an important point and a sad point at the same time…..it will take millions of us and sadly…why should it have to???? However….thousands of us sent “point of order” petitions to the Congress and Senate before they confirmed the electoral votes and we heard not a peep. I myself sent in “point of order” petitions certified mail…faxed and snail mail to 4 different Senators and Congressmen…..I didn’t hear one word from any of them!
I also followed up with phone calls and got some foolish letters back just this month….3 months later. All of this is falling on deaf ears or maybe only a few are starting to pay attention. It is going to take something really BIG to wake the government up…..so far the legal channels are failing us…..I pray it doesn’t resort to bloodshed but I’ve been praying this same prayer since December 2008….some who are less spiritual may not have the same patience as me!!
Mr Taylor plays basketball with Obama and they’ve been out to dinner
several times that I’ve seen myself. So good luck with that. It’ll never happen. The Supreme Court has said no, twenty eight suits have been dismissed by judges from Washington state to Florida. The only thing that’s come out of the legal process is that there’s a group of high ranking officials who are determined that Orly will be civilly committed eventually or arrested for stalking. She’s in a crapload of trouble, but no one will challenge the president. He’s there for 4 years, maybe 8 years.. There’s no will from anyone that really matters.
Where does it say in the Constitution that we have to beg to be heard?
There’s alot of truth to the stuff Leo says and I agree with alot of what he has to say, but he seems to disregard an even greater truth to which I believe John Adams made clear.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams
I just find it hard to swallow that a person that portrays himself as punk-rocking, gambling, hippy-like, self-proclaimed “artist” has got THE ANSWER to this madness. (I grew up in the 80’s, most of those turned out to be queer) There comes a time when man-made law breaks down and no longer suffices. The laws that don’t bend or break are the laws of God. Alot of our founding fathers knew this. They viewed American government as a great experiment. Well, the experiment is failing. Why? Simple. Man. The founding fathers knew this great society they fought for would soon erode.
A country that allows the wholesale slaughter of millions of children is on its last leg, I’m afraid. Nothing short of a great move of God would change the impending judgement on this land.
“Fear God… For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” Ecc. 12:13,14
I agree, Phil. I’ll be listening to Arlen on Monday.
Meanwhile as we slowly trudge through the legal system, trillions and trillions of dollars of our money is going overseas in the biggest heist in World History.
We keep this up, there won’t be any Constitution or country left to defend!!!