Exclusive: Fined and Sanctioned for Seeking Truth about Obama's Eligibility?Margaret Calhoun Hemenway
John D. Hemenway, Esq., filed yesterday, Monday, March 16th, in U.S. District Court, his mandated reply by court order in the ongoing lawsuit to determine Barack Hussein Obama's (aka Barry Soetoro) eligibility to serve as President of the United States. The Judge, James Robertson, a Clinton appointee, ordered the response to his dismissal of the lawsuit, and threat to impose sanctions on Mr. Hemenway, to be submitted within a scant 11 days.
Judge Robertson pooh-poohed the lawsuit, initiated by former Sen. Hillary Clinton's political ally, Philip Berg (a former Deputy Attorney General in the State of Pennsylvania), implying that this issue had been resolved by "Twittering and blogging" and invoking "conspiracy theorists." Perhaps this Judge is not mindful that because of the modern-day phenomenon of fraudulent e-mails, a small bevy of organizations that offer "fact-checking" services have cropped up on the Internet in an attempt to thwart rumors and propaganda before they spread far and wide – and that some of those Internet sites purporting to be King Solomons of "truth or fiction" have also become partisan tools for defending the indefensible-- i.e. Mr. Obama's hiding of any and all records which would prove the legitimacy of his right to occupy the nation's highest office. These deceptive websites have therefore become co-conspirators in disseminating shoddy research and/or disinformation aired by Obama's campaign and camp followers.
Mr. Hemenway, a World War II veteran, Naval Academy graduate and Rhodes Scholar, claims he went to law school "for the same reason” he studied and became fluent in Russian – “and it wasn't to become a Russian." He finds it perplexing that many seem to have forgotten that part of Mr. Obama's professional background includes time spent explaining the Constitution to students. In fact, Barack Obama regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," including at a March 30th fundraiser in 2007 when he claimed: "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution" (the University of Chicago had him listed as "senior lecturer.") Mr. Obama's professed respect for the Constitution doesn't seem to include its clear-cut qualifications for President in Article 2, Section 1, which directly impacts upon whether he is entitled to hold the current political position to which the voters entrusted him.
Sadly, the American people depend upon a vetting process for national candidates which evidently is, truly and astonishingly, non-existent.* Instead of actual verification of genuine documents to determine citizenship by some impartial board or committee, the vetting process appears to have become subjugated in the case of Mr. Obama to competing campaigns or partisan websites, a flawed internet phenomenon which Judge Robertson referenced as Twittering and blogging, and online postings of suspect copies of documents, which should never have been a substitute for the Judge's Constitutional duty to examine evidence and rule on facts, bolstered by legal and forensic experts, not opinions from the blogosphere. Mr. Hemenway points out that none of the numerous lawsuits filed across the country have been dismissed as "frivolous." The court in a less high-stakes lawsuit presumably would employ the standard procedure of discovery and fact-finding. These cannot be outsourced, however politically expedient, to websites like SNOPES and FactCheck.org.
Moreover, disregard of the Constitution, especially as it applies to the highest political office in the land, is a serious legal matter. Americans have had a long tradition of welcoming legal immigrants, but at the same time, when President Bush attempted to push an amnesty bill through the Congress, public outrage killed the bill – switchboards to the House and Senate were jammed with calls from constituents, incensed that those who broke our laws and came here illegally should be rewarded with citizenship. Those same people are similarly outraged that a man who wants to govern as President should believe that it is not necessary that he end this controversy by simply turning over the documents necessary to ensure his eligibility. Hiding behind websites, the Privacy Act, and threatening to punish and sanction those who seek the truth is only stoking the controversy and heightening suspicions that his birth and schooling records are hiding something that is either very politically damaging or which might end his short-lived Presidency.
While our open southern border has permitted millions of illegal aliens to enter the country, it does not mean that we can turn a blind eye to a violation of the Constitution's Article 2,
Section 1. The Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that America was governed by someone who understood the unique history and political culture of America – they rightfully feared foreign influences, having fought wars with Britain and France. The phrase "natural-born citizen" was meant to ensure that the Presidency was never occupied by someone who was not fully "Americanized" and who would be loyal to the Republic and committed to defending its independence and hard-won liberties.
Mr. Obama regularly insults our intelligence by permitting campaign hacks to mislead the public with postings on websites that purport that his COLB (Certification of Live Birth), not even accepted by Hawaiian State authorities as evidence of a birth in Hawaii, is the same as an actual Birth Certificate (which like mine, typically includes a doctor's signature and a hospital, neither of which are on Mr. Obama's posted COLB). Mr. Obama's campaign fliers frequently touted his co-sponsorship of legislation with conservative Republican Sen. Tom Coburn – requiring better transparency over earmarks and other government grants and contracts. Sen. Coburn credited "the army of bloggers and concerned citizens who told Congress that transparency is a just demand for all citizens, not a special privilege for political insiders." Mr. Obama, where is that spirit of transparency and openness when it comes to the raging dispute about your own birth and school records?
*Representative Bill Posey (R-FL) introduced legislation which would require proof of citizenship for future Presidential candidates. Unfortunately, it is not retroactive; the Congressman's released statement indicates that it is up to Mr. Obama to decide to release his actual birth certificate. Congressman Posey's bill is a step in the right direction and commendable at a time when political courage appears to be in short supply. But it does not resolve the current Constitutional crisis nor obviate the sworn oath taken by every Senator and Congressman to uphold the Constitution.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.2762/pub_detail.asp
1 comment:
Okay, after hearing how only the media in other countries are willing to take on the story of Obama's lack of NBC status, I've come to a conclusion. We might be wasting our time complaining to Americans. Perhaps we should be throwing our time, effort, and money into complaining to foreigners.
All these lawyers and all that money. So many letters, emails, and phone calls. All have been aimed at getting a judge or elected official to do their job or to wake up the population to the dire need for action. It's all pretty much been a failure.
However, this country HAD allies. Most of them are now either nervous, depressed, or outright ticked off.
So, we appeal to our former allies. We The People can mail, email, fax, post, and call the media and officials of other nations like England and Israel. We tell them that America is basically being held hostage. Millions of Americans are well aware that Obama is not a legal president, but our courts are so corrupt, nothing is being set right. Remind them that all the stuff Obama is doing will be ruled invalid once this all comes to light, so it's better to get it over sooner.
Appeal to our former allies to ask the tough question: Why should they deal with a country when its new leader might not be legitimate? Should they agree to any summit or treaty when it might be attended by an usurper working against America's will and the world's best interests?
If we can convince them of the truth--that this is not just a few nuts on the internet--they might start rumbling. England's already disgusted with this usurper. Israel realizes it has lost its number one partner. Australia has already started down the liberal path and knows where we are headed. When some of the most powerful nations on Earth start to ask questions, America will HAVE to deal with it.
Help contact folks like Dr. Orly, WND, Berg, Rush, Hannity and whoever might listen. Tell them the plan to bring in a bigger audience.
America has asked for and accepted help from other countries in the past. Without that aid, the Constitution might never have been written. It only seems natural that we ask for aid again, as we have another tyrannical foreign dictator to get off our backs.
Post a Comment