By: Devvy
June 22, 2009
© 2009 - NewsWithViews.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd451.htm

Removing this usurper from office. How, you ask?

Those not walking around in a self induced coma are aware of the 38 lawsuits regarding Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro aka Barry Obama aka Barack Dunham aka Barry Dunham, over his false citizenship claims. Double digit millions of Americans now know the legal facts or at least are questioning why Obama/Soetoro won't release his long form birth certificate. Of course, that isn't the core issue, but millions of us know there is something wrong or Obama/Soetoro would have released it by now, as well as his college transcripts as have other candidates and presidents.

Despite the bald faced lies by the compromised media, not a single case to date has been heard on merit or legal arguments..

Obama recently crowed to an audience of his cult followers and fellow Marxists:

"Why bother hanging out with celebrities when I can spend time with the people who made me one?" Obama asked the crowd of black tie journalists and media personalities gathered at the Washington Convention Center. "I know where my bread is buttered." And: "I have to admit though, it wasn't easy coming up with fresh material for this dinner," Obama said. "A few nights ago, I was up tossing and turning trying to figure out exactly what to say. Finally, when I couldn't get back to sleep, I rolled over and asked Brian Williams what he thought."

Obama/Soetoro thinks that's funny. It is the compromised media that helped "elect" this usurper and continues the black out regarding his real citizenship status. All these cable network anchors and reporters for the MSM are fake reporters and journalists. They have shamed their profession, and as Joseph Pulitzer said, "A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself."

There currently is one case I need to mention because of statements by the federal judge and that is Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al. Attorney Mario Apuzzo and of of his clients (plaintiff), Charles Kerchner, were guests on my radio show, June 10, 2009. While the courts have played fast and loose with the law because they are gutless cowards, it appears, at least at this point in time, that U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider, may be an individual who does respect the U.S. Constitution and the absolute right of we the people to challenge any usurper to public office. Read this because it's important:

"On page two the Judge writes, "In their complaint Plaintiffs assert violations of their constitutional rights alleging that Defendants have failed to conclusively prove that President Obama is a natural born citizen and therefore may not be eligible to serve as President of the United States." Then on page four the Judge writes, "Plaintiffs' Complaint raises significant issues necessitating that the named Defendants engage competent counsel to represent their interests."

"The Judge points out that the Department of Justice still has not decided who is going to represent whom for the seven defendants in the case. Later he then writes, "The Court is confident that after all the attorneys enter their appearances on behalf of all Defendants, that the case will proceed expeditiously." The Judge of course noted that we opposed the extension. And previously on page two, the Judge noted, "The Court has also received numerous letters from non-parties opposing Defendants' motion [Doc. Nos. 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25]."

Let me go back for a moment to one of the staples used by Obama/Soetoro supporters who care absolutely nothing for the supreme law of the land - the gimmee crowd who have their hands out to receive the fruits of your labor Obama/Soetoro promised to steal for votes: Standing for plaintiffs. Dr. Edwin Vieira addressed this in one of his past columns:

"In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him—rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all. For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.” If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.

"The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility:

...regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [A] candidate's ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.

"This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.

"First, the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg's suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].” The present judicial test for whether a litigant's claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[ ]” comes under the rubric of “standing”—a litigant with “standing” may proceed; one without “standing” may not. “Standing,” however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.

"True enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as the judiciary's so-called “compelling governmental interest test,” which licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of “standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3)—in the face of the Constitution's explicit limitation on official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].” Yet, because the test for “standing” is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty. And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America's constitutional form of government. Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election” of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained below).

"Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama fastened—namely, that Berg's “grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact,” i.e., if everyone is injured or potentially injured then no one has “standing”—is absurd on its face."

I'll take Dr. Edwin Vieira's credentials over some hack from ABC or the NY Times any day of the week. As to the legal arguments, a new and comprehensive piece is now posted using some of Leo Donofrio's legal research and highly recommended by Leo. Please click here to read the "primer" on the eligibility issue.

In the meantime

"The highest law of the land is the Constitution of the United States. The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statue must be in agreement with it to be valid. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail over the other. The Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, (2nd ed., Section 256), states:

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statue, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby." Stephen K. Huber, Professor of Law, University of Houston

This usurper president is by far and and away the most aggressive destroyer ever to sit in the White House. A devout Marxist, Obama/Soetoro (with the blessing of his co conspirators in Congress) is ripping this country apart, shredding what's left of the Constitution, destroying the free market, and in his narcissistic arrogance, thinks he can get away with it.

Each time this usurper signs another piece of unconstitutional legislation passed by a corrupt body of law breakers (Congress), we get closer to forcing the issue of his dual citizenship. Let me quote Dr. Edwin Vieira again on this very issue:

"Assume, however, that no inquiry, or only a perfunctory inquiry, or only an obviously tainted inquiry takes place at the stage of counting the Electors’ votes. Is the issue then forever foreclosed? Not at all. For a extensive class of litigants who absolutely do have “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility will come into existence, and demand relief as a matter of undeniable constitutional right and practical necessity, as soon as Obama’s Department of Justice attempts to enforce through criminal prosecutions some of the controversial legislation that the new Congress will enact and Obama will sign—such as statutes aimed at stripping common Americans of the firearms to which (in Obama’s derisive terminology) they “cling.”

"For example, in a criminal prosecution under a new statute that reinstates the Clinton “assault-weapons ban” (or some equally obnoxious affront to Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 and the Second Amendment), the defendant will undeniably have “standing” to challenge the indictment on the grounds that no statute imposing such a ban even exists, because the original “Bill which * * * passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” was never “presented to the President of the United States”, and therefore could never “become a Law,” inasmuch as the supposed “President,” Barack Obama, being constitutionally ineligible for that office, was then and remains thereafter nothing but an usurper. [See Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 and Article II, Section 1, 4]"

Let me give you a few hypotheticals. The Pedophile Protection Act has been passed by an immoral group of craven individuals in the U.S. House of Representatives. It's now sitting in the senate and YOU need to phone your senator TODAY. Why? "This Thursday, Senate Judiciary Republicans could well prove to be the Achilles heel of hate bill opposition." The usual gutless Republicans. This so called "hate crimes" bill is more unconstitutional trash, but if passed by the senate, there is no question the usurper president will sign it.

Let's say that immediately following Obama/Soetoro signing this bill into law, dozens of ministers and preachers exercise their God given First Amendment right to practice their religion by warning their congregations that sexual deviants are after your children in the schools. By warning their faithful that God condemns sodomites and lesbians and that they should reject the agenda of the sexual deviants. The vile, corrupt, Eric Holder, Attorney General of these united States of America, decides to charge all of them with a "hate crime" under the PPA.

Obama/Soetoro signs an unconstitutional "health care reform" law that will force Americans to buy health insurance. That was tried the first time with social security and it didn't work, which is why people must apply for an SSN. A social security number is not automatically issued to anyone because there is no law that requires any American to obtain an SSN to live or work in the U.S. A thousand Americans who refuse to buy health insurance are charged or fined under this new "law" Obama/Soetoro has signed.

How about the grotesque HR 2749: Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009. You an bet that hundreds of individuals and small farmers will violate this draconian legislation and will be charged.

Comrade Obama/Soetoro signs some sort of executive order for mandatory flu vaccinations for all Americans - including your child: Government Readies Schools As Mass Vaccination Clinics. Of course, tens of millions of us will refuse and will file lawsuits immediately based on the fact that Obama/Soetoro has no legal authority as an usurper to issue an EO.

These are just a small sample where the defendants should use Obama/Soetoro's ineligibility as a defense in my humble opinion. As Obama/Soetoro is an usurper and never had any legal right to run for president, much less be elected (with the help of ACORN and massive vote fraud), any legislation he signs into law is null and void. The same applies to executive orders. Be sure to send your Congress critters a short letter explaining this and that the lawsuits WILL flood the courts the minute the ink is dry. Use a real letter and not email. Every member of Congress received hundreds of thousands of emails a month. All you'll get is a form reply. A real snail mail letter is something they can't ignore.

While I am not a lawyer, I would think this also applies to any and all unconstitutional legislation Obama/Soetoro signs that damages banks (who refused the grand larceny known as "bail outs"), auto dealerships, as well as any decisions by his "Czar's." If it were my livelihood affected, I would pursue a lawsuit with as many co plaintiffs as I could find and sue under that one narrow issue: Obama was a British citizen at the time of his birth and we can prove it.

What else can do you? Please note in Mario's statement above that the judge referenced, "The Court has also received numerous letters from non-parties opposing Defendants' motion [Doc. Nos. 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25]." This means that ordinary Americans like you and me have, on their own, sent letters to the court asking the judge to force the defendants to answer. The defendants (Obama, Pelosi, et al) are not above the law and this is a constitutional crisis. McCain was also clearly ineligible to run so this isn't a game of favorites, it's about the law.

I hope you will take a few minutes to pen a short, polite letter to Judge Schneider. Let him know that this fraud has gone on long enough and why would Obama/Soetoro spend more than $940,000 to keep his long form birth certificate hidden as well as all his college records? Let him know the longer this goes on, the worst it will be for our republic because there will be lawsuits filed over legislation Obama signs into law. Send your letters to:

U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider
United States Courthouse
400 Cooper Street
Camden NJ 08102-1570

I am still demanding an investigation by the U.S. Attorneys (forget the FBI under Eric Holder) into wire fraud by Obama. He solicited campaign funds knowing full well he was not eligible. Massive fraud. I hope you take the time to read a statement by Dr. Ron Polarik, a forensics document examiner. An expert in his field. Click here to his letter to FOX News (Dear Bret). "Obama’s campaign manufactured this bogus birth certificate to deceive the American public into believing that Obama was born in Hawaii, and was therefore eligible to be President. This forgery was also used to derail attempts to see his actual original birth certificate which undoubtedly contains birth information that differs from what his fabricated birth certificate image shows. The reason why Obama still refuses to release his original birth certificate is because it would confirm that he is not eligible to be President, that he lied about his history and citizenship status, and that he engaged in document fraud to hide these facts from the American public." Those individuals who crafted that bogus birth certificate should also be indicted for fraud.