Saturday, November 28, 2009

Quo Warranto to Remove Obama from Office

quo warranto to remove obama from office
quo warranto to remove obama from office
quo warranto to remove obama from officeClick images to enlarge. Also available on Scribd as a pdf.
[Update: Visit NaturalBornCitizen for periodic updates.]

[Update: Jim Anderer interviewed about lawsuit on Fox Business on 12/29/09]
[Update: Filed: Rule 60 Motion To Reconsider on Behalf of 21 Rejected Chrysler Dealers]
[Update: Leo Donofrio and Stephen Pidgeon will represent former Chrysler dealers using Quo Warranto. Also see exclusive story at The Right Side of Life.]
[Update: Copies of Leo Donofrio's three legal briefs on Scribd.]
[Update: Video of Jim Anderer being interviewed on Fox Business News, Dec. 4, 2009. Anderer is the lead plaintiff in Donofrio/Pidgeon lawsuit]


To the best of my ability, I have created these three graphics to illustrate the Quo Warranto process, which is believed by New Jersey constitutional attorney, Leo Donofrio, to be the appropriate legal means by which Americans can legally remove Barack Obama before his first term expires. Another constitutional attorney, Mario Apuzzo, has a different interpretation of the law. Apuzzo's links are provided at the end of this article.

Mr. Donofrio has written three extensive legal briefs about this subject on his blog, and answered thousands of questions from the public, but at this writing his blog, NaturalBornCitizen.wordpress.com, is offline.

Quo Warranto is a legal proceeding that asks the question, "By what authority does this person hold office?" Since Barack Obama has dual citizenship with Britain through his father, he does not meet our framers' eligibility requirements for President, which states that only a "natural born Citizen" qualifies for the presidency. A "natural born Citizen" is a person born on U.S. soil of parents who are both U.S. citizens. Obama's father was born in Kenya while it was under the legal jurisdiction of Britain. Thus Obama Sr. was a British Subject, and his citizenship governed Obama Jr's birth. Obama openly admits his dual citizenship on his official web site linked above.

An "interested person" as described in statute 16-3503 needs to file a request for a quo warranto proceeding with the District Court in the District of Columbia because that is the place where Obama holds office. Mr. Donofrio argues this is the proper venue for a quo warranto proceeding because the Office of the President is in D.C.

Barack Obama is a usurper to the Office of President. Every bill he signs, every command he gives to the military as Commander in Chief, and all of his executive decisions, including the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, is unconstitutional, and thus illegal.

An interested person would be someone harmed by an official action of the usurper, such as an appointed civil servant who has been fired, demoted, or otherwise injured through an executive decision by Obama. For example, Inspector General Gerald Walpin and U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor were forced to leave their jobs. There may be many more civil servants who were harmed as well.

Another option would be for a large group of retired military officers to file a petition to the court as "third persons," under 16-3502, and ask the Attorney General or the U.S. Attorney to file a writ on their behalf for the sake of the military in particular, and the public in general.

Mr. Donofrio is adamant that active military personnel should not attempt to pursue quo warranto because there might be personal repurcussions for challening their Commander in Chief.

I should also point out that constitutional Attorney Mario Apuzzo, also of New Jersey, has taken a different approach to the eligibility question in the Kerchner et al v Obama et al case filed in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey. Readers will find a wealth of information at Mr. Apuzzo's blog. Check his blog for recent updates on the pending case.

I respect the work done by both of these attorneys, even though they are not in full agreement on how the issue should be handled. I don't know which of their arguments will win the day in court, but I think it's important we understand the options, and pursue every possible angle.

[Editor's Note: Links to statutes 16-3502 and 16-3503 used to be available through http://michie.lexisnexis.com/ but for unknown reasons, they no longer work.]

Friday, November 20, 2009

Graphic: Obama The Unconstitutional Usurper

graphic obama unconstitutional usurperClick image to enlarge.  Also available on Scribd as a pdf.


Barack Obama has dual citizenship through his non-U.S. citizen father. Our Founders excluded dual citizens from eligibility to the Presidency for national security reasons.

Every order he gives as Commander-in-Chief, every bill he signs, and every executive decision he makes while seated in the Office of President, are unconstitutional and thus illegal.

The U.S. courts and Congress must address this and force Barack Obama, the usurper, to step down.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

A Narcissist's Christmas

narcissist christmas
Click image to enlarge.  Also available on Scribd as a pdf.


Christmas in the White House won't be traditional for the next few years.

Barack Obama: Narcissist or Merely Narcissistic?
By Sam Vaknin, Ph.d.

Understanding Obama: The Making of a Fuerhrer
By Ali Sina

Monday, November 16, 2009

Capitalization, The Constitution, And The Meaning Of Natural Born Citizenship

capitalization constitution meaning natural born citizenHas typing and the use of computers contributed to a serious misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution, especially with respect to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5? This clause lists the eligibility requirements for the Office of President.

Many of us are researchers of the U.S. Constitution, and the issue surrounding the definition of “natural born citizen.” As stewards of the Constitution, we need to be very precise when we quote the eligibility clause in our writings, because as you will see below, our Founders used capitalization and word choices to send a specific message. They weren’t simply making the text decorative.

This realization didn’t hit me until I went offline, and began to read a hard copy of the U.S. Constitution, reproduced by the Cato Institute. Immediately I noticed words capitalized, which I had not seen capitalized online, including at the website of Cornell’s University Law School. They, too, omit capitalization in the eligibility clause for President, as well as elsewhere in the document.

Why would the Cato Institute capitalize certain words in the eligibility clause, unless they were replicating the document exactly as it was handwritten, not just word for word, but visually as well? To check the veracity of their reproduction, I located an image of the page containing Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, and printed it to get a better view. With the aid of a magnifying glass, I was able to confirm my assumption. The Cato Institute was absolutely faithful in their reproduction of the original document. Sadly, Cornell is not faithful to the document.

Why should the Founders use of capitalization matter to us today?

Because we are in an historic battle to protect and preserve the Constitution from politicians and usurpers, whose mission is to remake this document and our country into something the Founders would never recognize. President Obama said prior to election day, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America”. We must stop Obama from transforming the Constitution to suit his particular worldview.

To that end we must pay particular attention to the way our Founders used words, because this gives us the legal tools we need to constitutionally remove him from office.

Here is the eligibility clause, exactly as the Founders wrote it, and as we should always reproduce it in our writings:

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; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

A great many people believe, rightfully so, that all U.S. citizens have equal rights and responsibilities. Unfortunately, they also believe that all citizens therefore have the right to serve as President. This thinking is incorrect, and the Founders demonstrate this clearly in the above quotation.

Note first how they assigned importance to the term by capitalizing the word “Citizen,” giving it special significance. Note also that the Founders placed two adjectives before the first Citizen, but not in front of the second Citizen. This is a distinction with a profound difference! Words have meaning. Those two simple adjectives tell us the Founders wanted a special kind of Citizen to serve as President of the United States.

To understand the difference between these two kinds of citizenship, readers should view the Graphic Defining “Citizen” vs “Natural Born Citizen”. This will clarify the reasons why Barack Obama fails the eligibility test, and why he should not hold the Office of President.

It is incumbent upon all of us to preserve the Constitution by quoting it with fidelity to the original. For this reason, and when in doubt, I highly recommend readers get a copy of the U.S. Constitution from the Cato Institute and keep it next to your keyboard.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

One Nation Under God (by artist Jon McNaughton)

Click to enlarge.
This beautiful and symbolic painting recently came to my attention, and I simply thought some of our readers would like to see it.

Christ holds the Constitution to symbolize that our nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles, an idea that too many would like us to forget. The people surrounding him played a role to one extent or another in the formation of our country. Each person has a name. To read the stories, click the title above to visit the artist's site.

Excerpts from the artist:

Each figure including Christ represents a symbol. Everything about the painting is symbolic.


Let me make myself clear from my writing that just because they stand behind Christ, does not mean they are devout Christians evoking all to come unto Jesus and be baptized?! What I am saying is that they represent those who have influenced our country and our Constitution in a positive way. Many of these men and women gave their lives so we could have the liberties we enjoy. We are now at a time when these liberties are in peril. Our government has grown so big and powerful that the rights of the individual are at risk. This is what the Constitution was about—to limit the size of government. The patriotic heroes who stand behind Christ and the Constitution are pleading with us to defend the cause of liberty. Except for the pregnant woman in the lower left corner, these people symbolize those who have pushed our country towards Socialism. (The pregnant woman's place in the painting is explained on the website.)

When you visit McNaughton's web site, you'll be able to move the cursor over every person to learn the name, and why he or she was included.

I have ordered a giclee print of this painting to hang near my desk. And for the record, there is absolutely no financial incentive for me to post the image on this site. I only hope to encourage you to look back on our history, and then ask, "What can I do to protect our Constitution and secure the future of our nation?"

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

The Media's False Shield of "Objectivity"

the media's false shield of objectivityClick to enlarge.  Also available on Scribd as a pdf.


A better title for this graphic might be "The Collaborators."

Obama's slick marketing campaign was designed to create the image of a "rock star." Once the plan was established, the predominantly left-wing media took charge and provided the spotlights, microphones, cameras and ink, all the while pretending they were objective in their coverage. Some journalists will tell you they are Independents, but proof they're liberals is in the headlines and their reporting.

If anyone in America should get credit or blame for enabling the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, it is the media.

Readers are urged to express their opinions about the liberal media by contacting media outlet Ombudsmen, writing letters to the editor, canceling subscriptions, sending the DECLARATION OF WAR On The Biased Mainstream Media to offending journalists, networks and newspapers, and signing up for the campain currently underway at Operation: Can You Hear Us Now?

Saturday, November 7, 2009

DECLARATION OF WAR On The Biased Mainstream Media

Click cartoon to visit Erin Bonsteel's website

Inspired by the Operation: Can You Hear Us Now? campaign, readers are invited to download our DECLARATION OF WAR On The Biased Mainstream Media.

If you agree with the sentiments expressed in this declaration, I recommend you email or snail mail this delcaration to media organizations that you believe have lost their objectivity. It's up to you whether or not you sign the document when you send it. The important thing is to let these organizations hear your concerns, anonymously or otherwise.

The people most likely to be concerned about public opinion will be their executive editors, subscription and advertising department heads, as well as their ombudsmen, so look for those individuals when searching for contact information.

If you want to do even more, be sure to sign up with Operation: Can You Hear Us Now?

Onward soldiers!

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Missionary Media Muddy The News

Where, oh where, have the journalists of old gone? Once upon a time, we could read our favorite paper or watch the nightly news, and come away from the news with the information we needed to discuss and debate the issues with our friends, families and coworkers. Those lively conversations often led to brainstorming about ways we as individual citizens, or as groups, could help to solve the problems of the day. At that time, the issues alone were the topics of discussion. Today, the media has become the issue, and muddied the flow of information with its partisan advocacy.

Over many years, I have watched this evolution in journalism with frustration. Night after night I have cursed the television or the newspaper because journalists will not ask the hard questions I need answered. Even worse, they stack the deck with like-minded people and clearly take sides, especially on political issues. Because of this, I’ve canceled my local paper, and turned to Fox News and the internet to find balance and answers to my questions.

Journalists attempt to tell me what to think, instead of giving me the facts so that I can make my own decisions. They cloud the issues by inserting their personal biases. At the same time, they have the bald-faced audacity to pretend they are balanced. What a lie! They have become zealous missionaries.

Journalists are expected to follow an ethical code, so I searched the internet to see what these codes recommend. They vary somewhat from school to school and newsroom to newsroom. Regardless of the guidelines, today’s journalists simply are not following their own ethical standards. See these Ethics Codes and decide for yourself.

What did surprise me was to discover there is actually a term used in journalism schools that describes the evolution of news reporting we are experiencing today. They call this madness civic, public, or community journalism.

In The Ethics of Civic Journalism: Independence as the Guide, Bob Steele describes public journalism as follows:
Some advocates of public journalism believe that news organizations move from traditional standards of objectivity to play a more activist role in community activities, affairs, and issues. Roy Clark says public journalism asks us, on occasion, to step across the traditional line of journalistic independence--to go across the line that takes us from observers and reporters to convenors and builders. The Newspaper as Problem Solver.
To be fair, not every journalist agrees with the concept of public journalism. For example, in the same article:
Jane Eisner, editorial page editor at The Philadelphia Inquirer, says it's true that public journalism may have a good ring for many journalists, touching their chord of idealism and their desire to "make the world a slightly better place." But, Eisner suggests, "owning part of the public stage comes with a price. Our central mission," Eisner believes, "is to report the news, to set priorities, to analyze but not to shape or direct events or outcomes. Subsume or diminish the central mission, and we become like any other player in society, like any other politician, interest group, do-gooder, thief."
And thieves of the truth they have become! Time for a wake-up call.

The American people are not fools. We recognize partisan journalists when we see them, and we will fight them as we would any political opponent, because that is exactly what they have become. If they do not give up their advocacy, they will go the way of the dinosaurs by the time we're done with them.

Let the battle begin. Please join Operation: Can You Hear Us Now?