Dear Gang Of 8

US Immigration Office Tired Poor etc. SC Dear Gang of 8

There should be no discussion whatsoever about changing or amending immigration policy without first securing our border, enforcing current immigration law, and implementing E-verify. Our borders are wide open, and we all know it.  You have no idea who the millions of illegal immigrants in this country are. You don’t know why they came, where they’ve been, and what they bring with them.  You haven’t asked each and every one of them.  Our current immigration process does just that – so the United States knows that when an immigrant has become a citizen, his background has been checked for criminal records; his blood has been checked for communicable diseases; his financial records have been checked for stability; and his knowledge of the country, its laws, and his reasons for being here have been committed to record.  My husband went through that process and became a citizen; it’s not that hard!

The millions who go through that process have declared that they want to be citizens, and they obeyed our laws so that they too could be protected by them.  Many fled from countries where they didn’t have such protection.  The last idea our representatives should be entertaining is to pile millions of illegal immigrants – who didn’t want to bother with our legal process – on top of the millions who did.  This is already an overburdened process.  How much extra taxpayer-funded staff will have to be added to field the paperwork of all the new Amnesty recipients?  How many legal immigrants’ cases will be slowed and pushed aside for illegals to get a cheap ticket at the front?  Why should lawbreakers be rewarded?  Why should law-abiding legal immigrants be so slighted?

You should demand that every inch of our border is protected, fenced, surveilled, and patrolled.  You should oppose illegal immigrants being given any taxpayer funded services or driver’s licenses that are magnets drawing them here.  You should demand the implementation of E-verify.  This obvious and peaceful solution will have illegals returning to their countries of origin on their own.  The interest of Big Businesses who want cheap labor are not more important than the safety of every citizen and the livelihoods of citizens out of work in Obama’s horrible economy.  You should demand the implementation of voter ID – stand against those who are nullifying the votes of legal citizens with their fraud.  Give these three to five years to work before discussing any Amnesty policy.

The anti-gun bill was killed this past week.  People know that we need to be able to protect ourselves every single day.  The best defense against both threats are law-abiding gun-owners exercising their right to bear arms, and the government and criminals shouldn’t be the only ones with guns.  Your Amnesty bill should fail for similar reasons because it’s not just terrorists that are a concern.  In my home state of North Carolina, there are dozens and dozens of crimes committed every month by illegal aliens.  They are drunk drivers, rapists, molesters, batterers, and murderers.  We know about the government’s catch-and-release policy.  We know of all the criminals who were released, supposedly in preparation for Obama’s Sequestration.  The purpose of the government is to protect its citizens, and part of that is securing our borders and enforcing the law.  It’s obvious; we all know it. Every country does it, and there’s nothing racially charged or unfair about it.  Stop the push for Amnesty!

Photo Credit: terrellaftermath

Why Do I Have To Show ID When Obama Shows None?

a birthcertificate obama small 300x225 Why Do I Have To Show ID When Obama Shows None?

I just went through this in re-instating my architectural license in AZ. They wanted me to provide college transcripts, proof of registration in previous states, proof of passing the national licensing exam, and 30 year professional experience (work) history, proof of citizenship, proof of Social Security registration, and government-provided photo ID (not necessary to vote in every state won by Barack Obama in the recent election) – all of which I had to provide 8 years ago upon being licensed initially in the state, and ALL of which is in my file IN THEIR OFFICE. The forms which they send to be re-completed are all available on-line, but cannot be filled out electronically. They have to be printed, filled in by hand (or typewriter!), scanned, printed, and mailed. (I was stunned yesterday that they let me email an additional form they requested from another state!) Meanwhile, the “supervisor” was attending a “conference” in San Francisco, or was it San Diego?

By the Way, just try telling them that your birth certificate is posted on your MySpace page, and let me know how that works out for you. Oh yeah, your’re not the guy with the Connecticut Social Security Number (who couldn’t pass the Federal Government’s own E-Verify system last year), and whose Selective Service Registration is a clear forgery (both departments refusing to provide proof of original documentation, while scurrying to destroy past records – all such actions a matter of public record). Anyway, you’re not the guy walking around with the Nuclear Launch Codes (the Nuclear Football) within 20 feet of you at all times (or was it meters?), so no big deal. Oops! I got that backwards. It isn’t a big deal for HIM, but it is for those of us who hire and pay him, and to whom HE is to answer. But saying all of this only makes me a “racist” and “birther” according to the media elites in BOTH parties.

No, you and I are just people who believe that under the Rule of Law, we are all EQUAL, even if we’re not an impoverished, government-assisted, transgender “male” (or lesbian), Muslim, or, at least non-Christian or non-Jewish (yes, lots of contradictions there) person of color. Too bad about that “document of negative liberties”…but that apparently only applies to angry white Christian males…like those who wrote that dusty old document (found recently in a trash bin behind the Capitol!).

Tom Ballantyne – Author of Oh Really, O’Reilly! an expose of the greatest fraud and cover-up in American history, by none other than the political elites in the Republican Party and so-called “Conservative” establishment media. (Available at www.UncommonSenseNow.com.)

Immigration: So What Exactly Is It Again That We Are Trying To Fix? (Part 2)

Obama Immigration Policy SC Immigration: So what exactly is it again that we are trying to fix?  (Part 2)

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Did I do something wrong again? I thought this article was insightful and interesting, and all under 1,000 words.

If we want to fix immigration, we first have to know and agree on what is wrong with it.

There are different views on what is wrong. The most obvious problem is that we have maybe 11 million people who are not supposed to be here. And our country has lost the will to remove them. Many of them, of course, were brought here as children, so they personally bear no culpability.

The second problem that we hear about is that it is taking too long for the families of immigrants still in their home countries to be able to come here.

However, there are two other problems not being discussed that need to be addressed. The first I mentioned in part 1, that we are rewarding bad behavior by giving free citizenship to children born here of illegal immigrants. As long as we do this, we will always have an abundance of illegal immigrants. And I noted also how the 14th Amendment is being misunderstood and abused to apply here.

The other problem will be seen more clearly after we ask the bigger question: Why do we want immigration in the first place?

The main reason we allow and encourage immigration, so we are told, is for what they bring to our country in terms of hard work and their entrepreneurial spirit. Yes, our country was built on immigrants, but it was not the first come first served totally open immigration that we have today. We chose the countries of origin, and we put a priority on what they could contribute to our country.

The more important reason, however, though not mentioned in public, is that the people already living here are not reproducing in sufficient numbers to replace the population. So our populace is aging with fewer younger people to support the elderly and the ever growing federal government. So the idea is to bring working people into the States so we can have a larger tax base to support an aging population.

However, since 1965, our government’s priority in immigration has been to reunite families. Noble, compassionate intent, but it defeats the whole purpose of immigration. This means that we are not only getting the taxpayers but the entire family, which essentially resembles the demographics we already have here.

For example, I have two siblings who are not working, one due to age and another due to health. My extended family includes more of the same. So if I were the immigrant and my entire extended family were to come here, all the supposed advantages of immigration would be nullified, taxpayers offset by non-taxpayers.

So, as our current immigration system is set up, there is no real advantage to bringing in these 700,000 new people every year. Except one. The Democrats believe they will have a lock on their votes.

The only real advantage of immigration would be if we pursued and prioritized the best and the brightest. Of course, their immediate family would be allowed, but to concentrate on reuniting the entire family essentially nullifies any perceived benefits to immigration.

So what exactly would or should immigration reform look like?

1) We must first stop rewarding unlawful behavior by giving instant citizenship to the children of those who are in this country illegally. What do people risk by entering our country illegally? A return trip home? And what are the rewards? For many, it is the citizenship of their children. Yes, of course, there is also the free medical care (if you go to the county hospitals) and a better life in so many other ways.
2) We must secure our borders, so we can control the flow of people into our country. And we must fix our visa system, so that visitors who extend their stays cannot disappear off the radar.
3) We need to implement the E-Verify system immediately. This is the best way we have now to ensure that companies do not hire people who are not here legally.

If we don’t do these first three things, we will have this same problem again and again and again.
If we are not serious about enforcing the laws we already have, any new laws would simply be a joke. We have three states now that offer driver’s licenses to illegals. And these are the people who make our laws? If they have no respect for the laws we already have, why are they in office?

4) After we deal with essentially ending the flow and incentives for illegal immigration, those who were brought here as children could be given legal status with a path to citizenship. However, those who are still children living with their parents, if the parents are no longer able to find employment, they may find themselves returning with their parents to their country of origin. Those who were already deemed US citizens can come back when they are able to live on their own.
5) We have far more people wanting to come here than we can assimilate. So why are we showing no apparent regard for what they can contribute to our country? Political and religious refugees should always be welcomed here, though there have been cases where entire ethnic or religious groups have been targeted for extinction, but that’s for another article.

So we can and should show preference to those who can be of most benefit to us and who are most common to our culture. There is no reason or justification for bringing 700,000 new people into our country every year without looking for what value they can bring to our country.

If we don’t do everything here, our immigration system will still be broken. And there is still the issue of the melting pot. For another time.

Obama Could Not Get Cleared For A CCW!

Yet he wants to know anything and everything about us; how nuts is all of this? Obama could not pass E-Verify to apply to work at the White House as a gardener, let alone the office of the president.

Supreme Court To Conference On Obama Eligibility Today

Supreme Court building 2 SC Supreme Court to conference on Obama eligibility today

Today, February 15, 2013, Attorney Orly Taitz brings her request to move the Obama eligibility challenge from conference to the oral hearing stage at the US Supreme Court.  She is moving forward in spite of the fact that four African-American Supreme Court clerks refused to allow Taitz to see the signature of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who denied her petition originally.  “But I resubmitted to Justice Roberts, and he sent it to the conference,” Taitz said.

The California attorney is asking “…how do we know that he (Kennedy) ever saw the brief?”  In no uncertain terms, clerk James Baldin told her that “I (Taitz) [was] not allowed to see the signature.”   This denial of her right to see Kennedy’s signature “does not make any sense.”  Perhaps her Russian ancestry and background knowledge of the suppression of citizens caused her to note similarities with DC police actions that blocked “more and more streets” during Obama’s State of the Union address. The group of eligibility challengers were pushed farther and farther away, making it impossible for the public to see or question those who attended the event.  When school students touring the buildings came up to the Taitz group to ask questions, their teacher was said to have made them leave!

The crux of the Taitz challenge to Barack Obama’s legitimacy to serve as US President involves the following charges: use of forged IDs and a stolen CT Social Security number; last name not legally his; fraudulent claim to being US Citizen; legal last name is SOEBARKAH on certified copy of passport records of Obama’s mother S. Ann Dunham (Taitz is presenting this passport evidence!); Obama’s Indonesian school records show his citizenship to be Indonesian; credible expert testimony by law enforcement individuals in sworn affidavits showing the birth certificate and selective service certificates are forged; the 2009 Social Security number on Obama’s tax returns failed both E-Verify and SSNVUS.

Also, Attorney Taitz is presenting evidence that  1 1/2 million invalid voter registrations were filed in the state of California!  She is asking US citizens to “please, write and fax SCOTUS and demand to see the order by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who allegedly originally denied my case Noonan v Bowen before it was sent by Justice Roberts to the conference.”  Is not this the very least we can do to attempt to clear up this matter?

Photo Credit: Laura Padgett (Creative Commons)

Obama E-Verify: Court Overbilled $10K For Fighting Obama’s Identity Fraud

A citizen exposing Obama’s E-Verify identity fraud was fined $10,000 for doing so.

Obama Failed E-Verify: Linda Jordan Fined For Challenging Obama’s Identity Fraud

Here is the story of how a mother and homemaker in Washington State stood up to challenge the identity fraud of Barack Obama. Learn how she paid a price for her courage to run the president through E-Verify.

Regarding Immigration Proposals, Beware Of Your Opponents’ Motivation

Chuck Schumer SC Regarding Immigration Proposals, Beware of Your Opponents’ Motivation

The subject of immigration (and evidently, illegal immigration) has proven to be a divisive issue for conservatives. There are divergent opinions as to which policies should be pursued vis-à-vis the 12 million illegal immigrants who reside in the country. However, as conservatives, there are certain fundamental goals and red lines that we should all unite behind as we commence debate on this issue. Any so-called comprehensive immigration reform proposal that is worth more than a bucket of spit must ensure the following:

we are not saddled with 12 million new consumers of the welfare state;
we don’t have 12 million new Democrat voters;
those receiving the amnesty will not have the ability to spawn chain migration;
before any amnesty is implemented, there is a complete establishment of visa tracking, border control, and mandatory E-verify to ensure that this won’t create another ‘Charlie Brown with the football’ scenario of more waves of illegal immigration;
our legal immigration system move towards a merit-based process that favors high-skill immigrants instead of the current “Kennedy” system that is random and tendentious towards low-skilled immigrants.
Undoubtedly, Republican negotiators of reform proposals, like Marco Rubio, are well-intentioned in their desire to solve a serious problem with thoughtful solutions. However, if they are really committed to advancing conservative solutions and addressing conservative concerns about the immigration system, they must understand the adversity we all face with our Democrat opponents on this issue. Their proposals must be crafted to work not just in a world full of Marco Rubios and Paul Ryans, but in a political system full of Luis Gutierrezs and a judicial sphere full of ACLU and MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) types. Hence, when proposing immigration bills, to know thy enemy is key.

Democrats like Luis Gutierrezs and Chuck Schumer believe that all 7 billion people in the world are born with a God-given right to immigrate to the United States. When they speak of “our broken immigration system,” they are not bemoaning our policies that are biased towards low-skilled immigration; they are complaining that our generous acceptance of over 1 million new immigrants every year, predominantly from the third world, is not enough. As such, they believe that illegal immigration is a natural and justified result of our refusal to let in even more low-skilled immigrants than we have already admitted over the past two decades. They believe that our unwillingness to immediately grant them amnesty is a violation of their natural rights, and is a reflection of our sinister bigotry towards others.

Perforce, when they speak of “comprehensive immigration reform” they are referring to the following: complete amnesty of all illegals so they can immediately sign up for welfare programs and commence the path towards becoming a permanent Democrat voting bloc; an even larger increase in legal immigration from the third world and from countries that represent a security risk; more welfare recipients now – enforcement later (or never).

This is the brutally honest reality of the liberal immigration policy desideratum. Any Republican who plunges into this debate while disregarding this reality is willfully ignoring the statements and actions of Democrats over the past several decades.

Read More at Red State . By Daniel Horowitz.

The Communist And The Chambermaid

Nikita Kruschev and Fidel Castro SC The Communist and the Chambermaid

 

It was a chilly, early November night in New York City.  The mild fall weather was coming to an end, and winter was near on this memorable evening in 1960.  In a few days, Americans would go to the polls to choose a new president, either Vice President Richard M. Nixon or the popular Senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy.  Mountains of books would later be written to tell us about that historical election, but those stories are for another time.

This story is about the chance meeting of Russian Premier Nikita Krushchev and a pretty 17 year old who worked part time as a chambermaid at the Waldorf Astoria hotel on Park Avenue in midtown Manhattan.  The Premier was on his second visit to the United States but was restricted to New York City and Soviet property on Long Island.  Krushchev had appointed himself the leader of the USSR’s United Nations delegation, and it was there a few days earlier when he had made the headlines with his famous shoe-banging-on-the-table demonstration decrying American colonialism.

Annie Swanson had come from her hometown in Ames, Iowa to New York City to seek fame and fortune as a Broadway actress following her graduation from high school in June, 1960.  She was an introvert, somewhat of a wallflower during her school years, and had a dream to become rich and famous and to show everyone back in Iowa that anything is achievable for those with goals and aspirations.  She was staying with her aunt and uncle who lived in New York while she pursued her dreams.  To help pay her way, she worked part time at the Waldorf Astoria hotel and took classes at night.

On Friday, November 4th, Krushchev came back to the hotel after a trying day at the United Nations.  He had planned to rest for a couple hours before going out to dinner and drinks with some members of his delegation.  It was a chance meeting as Annie, dressed in her proper maid’s attire, was startled when the door to the suite opened and Nikita Krushchev entered the room.  Without all the steamy details, let’s just stipulate that 40 weeks later, a baby boy was born in New York to an Iowa teenager and a Russian statesman.  What happened later is that Annie moved back to her parents’ farm near Ames.  Premier Kruschchev and the new American President, John F. Kennedy, had multiple confrontations that changed the world in the 3 years following early November of 1960; and the November night in New York was gone forever.

No one knew about the tryst for many years.  Andrew Campbell was raised to believe his father was Iowa farmer Nathan Campbell, a former classmate of Annie’s at Ames High School.  She reunited with Nathan when she returned from New York City with her bundle of joy.  They married in 1962 and raised Andrew and his two step-sisters as an ordinary Midwestern family while they farmed a section of ground north of Ames.

When Andrew finished high school in 1979, he was accepted at Yale.  At Ames High School, he was an award-winning debater, class president, and one of the most charismatic and popular students in the school.  He wanted to become a lawyer, advocating for the less affluent and also for political causes such as social justice and the unfairness of capitalism regarding wealth distribution.  He was a member of the Young Democrats and had dabbled in Karl Marx’s and Freidrich Engels’ theories.  But his biggest achievement up to then occurred when he was given a primetime speaker slot at the 2004 Democratic National Convention at the Fleet Center in Boston.  Even though John Kerry lost to incumbent George W. Bush in the 2004 election, a star was born in Boston.  Andrew was elected to the Senate from Iowa in 2006 and won the early Democrat Straw Poll in Iowa to propel him face to face with Hillary Clinton to run for President of the United States in 2008.

But when a background check revealed that his biological father was Russian Premier Nikita Krushchev, who had died in September of 1971, detractors were concerned that Andrew was not qualified to run for president because of the “Natural Born Citizen” clause contained in Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.  Andrew was born in New York to an American citizen and a Russian.  That made him a U.S. citizen, and even a “native” U.S. citizen (as opposed to naturalized); but did it make him a natural born citizen?

The requirements for office holders are stated in the Constitution, but the definitions are not always clear.  That is why we have a Supreme Court.  It is supposed to rule on litigation according to the original intent of the founders.  We all know that liberal or progressive justices (even though they are supposed to be apolitical) do not like the Constitution and especially do not adhere to original intent.  If they did, we would have a federal government with an annual budget of about 10% of the bloated leviathan that is Washington D.C. and enumerated powers with the rest reserved to the States as the 10th Amendment requires.  Instead, we have the mess we now face with an unsustainable deficit and a debt that will never be repaid.

Natural Born is listed in the Constitution only for the President and Vice President.  Senators and Representatives do not have to be natural born citizens, only citizens.  For definition and precedence, never challenged, in the 1875 SCOTUS decision in Minor v. Happersett, it was unanimously agreed that to be a “natural born” citizen, a person must meet two qualifications:  1) born on U.S. soil (including territories and military bases) to 2) TWO citizen parents.  It does not say “a” citizen parent.  It says “citizen parents”.   Andrew Campbell, whose biological father was Nikita Krushchev, is NOT a Natural Born citizen of the United States of America.  The founders were clear that anyone with dual allegiances could not become president.

Therefore, Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama (not his legal name, never changed), is NOT eligible to be POTUS, regardless of whether he was born in Kenya, Honolulu, or Timbuktu.  It doesn’t even make a difference if his obviously fake long form birth certificate presented on April 27, 2011 is accepted – even by the co-conspirators in Hawaii.  The birth scenario or location is irrelevant.  It doesn’t even make a difference if his Social Security number #042-68-4425 does not pass the country’s E-Verify system and comes back flagged as fraudulent.  It doesn’t even make a difference if his Selective Service registration is bogus like it has been proven to be.  It doesn’t make any difference where he spent 1981-83 while he was supposedly matriculating at Columbia.  He is NOT a Natural Born citizen.  Period.  End of story.

Note:  Some of this story is fiction.  The last three paragraphs are not contrived; they are true.

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”  — John 8:32

Photo Credit: Delmarva Dealings (Creative Commons)

If I Were A Member Of Congress….

Ballantyne 2 SC If I Were a Member of Congress....

Here is a speech I’d give to my peers:

My fellow Representatives, I come before you not as a member of a particular political party, but as one who like each of you has sworn an oath before God and man “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic . . . so help me God!”

I also approach you as simply one of the People of this great nation and remind you that the People are the only true sovereigns of this or any other legitimate government. And that it is only upon the authority granted to us by these, the true sovereigns, and rightful rulers of the nation, that we legitimately act . . . as their representatives.

I will begin my brief remarks by directing your attention to something which the great Friederich Hayek correctly observed in his classic work The Road to Serfdom when he wrote this, with respect to the values of the collectivist state, in Chapter 11 – The End of Truth:

“They are destructive of all morals because they undermine one of the foundations for all morals: the sense of and the respect for truth.”

“If the feeling of oppression in totalitarian [states] is in general much less acute than most people in [freer] countries imagine, this is because the totalitarian governments succeed to a high degree in making people think as they want them to.”

“And the whole apparatus for spreading [information] – the schools and the press, radio [,television,] and motion picture – will be used exclusively to spread those views which, whether true or false, will strengthen the belief in the rightness of the decisions taken by the authority; and all information that might cause doubt…will be withheld.”

This propagation and suppression of information must, of course, apply first and foremost to the legitimacy of the government itself – starting with the head of state – “and all information that might cause doubt [as to his validity, must] be withheld.”

But there is yet more which must be done….

“The word ‘truth’ itself ceases to have its old meaning. It describes no longer something to be found, with the individual conscience as the sole arbiter of whether…the evidence (or the standing of those proclaiming [or withholding] it) warrants a belief; it becomes something to be laid down by authority, something which has to be believed in the interest of the unity of the organized effort….

“The general intellectual [anti-intellectual, in fact] climate which this produces, the spirit of complete cynicism as regards truth which it engenders, the loss of the sense of even the meaning of truth, the disappearance of the spirit of independent inquiry and of the belief in the power of rational conviction [or of even simple common sense], the way in which differences of opinion in every branch of knowledge become political issues to be decided by authority, are all things which one must personally experience – no short description can convey their extent.”

And having “personally experienced” this for ourselves, ladies and gentlemen, over these past four years now – if we can be honest about it – no “description” (“short” or long) is necessary to “convey their extent.”

But there is something yet even more insidious; and Hayek, speaking from the perspective of history – in both his day, and now ours – describes it. Continuing his observations on the suppression of – and “the spirit of complete cynicism as regards” – the truth, he notes:

Perhaps the most alarming fact is that contempt for intellectual liberty [i.e., freedom of thought – or even the freedom to state the overwhelmingly obvious] is not a thing that arises only once the totalitarian system is established, but one which can be found everywhere among [so-called] intellectuals [and “Progressives” – my word] who have [already] embraced [the] collectivist faith…even in countries [which have not yet openly, at least, embraced totalitarianism itself]. Not only is even the worst oppression condoned if it is committed in the name of socialism [or ‘fairness,’ or ‘equality’], and the creation of a totalitarian system [although by some other name] openly advocated [in principle] by people who pretend to speak for the scientists of [freer] countries, intolerance, too, is openly extolled.

While Hayek’s words were first published in 1944, he could not possibly have described better the intolerance and disdain for truth – or for even the discussion of obvious and uncontested facts on the public record – which exists in America today…to the extent that this body, “pretending to speak for” the People of this once-free country, refuses to publicly acknowledge – mush less address or even debate – the striking anomalies surrounding its enigmatic Commander in Chief!

We hear much talk of secession among the People of the various states as a response to their outrage at the unwillingness of this Republican-controlled body of their Representatives to stand against the seemingly unceasing unconstitutional acts of this Administration. In the view of countless Americans, the acts of oppression by this President far exceed those that caused the Founders to “declare the causes which impel[led] them to the separation.”

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator [not by their Government, nor by any man] with certain unalienable Rights…[and] that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

…That whenever Any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

It is with reference to this “long train of abuses” by both this President and the other branches of Government today that I will conclude my remarks….

In August 2011, some 250 citizens of Maricopa County, Arizona, petitioned Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio to investigate allegations that Barack Obama’s identity documents were forged, raising questions about his Constitutional eligibility to hold the high office of President of the United States.

So begins Mike Zullo’s 150+ page report of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s now-fifteen-month long investigation of Barack Obama. The investigation studied the original short-form, computer-generated Certification of Live Birth, curiously first posted on the far-left DailyKos website in June of 2008 and on the Obama campaign’s “FightTheSmears” website shortly thereafter.

The investigation turned its attention to Mr. Obama’s “original” long-form Certificate of Live Birth, which was posted at whitehouse.gov on April 27, 2011 (three years after the short-form) following several months of public challenges by Donald Trump (and on the eve of the release of Dr. Jerome Corsi’s National New York Times best-seller Where’s The Birth Certificate?)

In its first official Press Conference, on March 1, 2012, the Posse presented a series of six thorough but concise videos covering many of the extensive (and subsequently un-refuted) anomalies on both the purported digital image of the long-form birth certificate and another key-identifying legal document – his alleged 1980 Selective Service Registration Card. Both were shown to be riddled with clear signs of forgery. It was also noted that failure to register with the Selective Service Administration, as required by law, would alone disqualify any male from subsequent service within any department or branch of the Federal Government.

With respect to the only two attempted explanations (by defenders of the Administration) to dismiss the anomalies on the long-form birth certificate – that it was subjected to OCR (Optimal Character Recognition) and/or Optimization (or Compression – to reduce file size) – the Investigators clearly demonstrated that neither process could account for the myriad irregularities.

The Investigation also documented what has become the standard response from this Administration on all matters relating to the President’s identity – an abject refusal (on the part of the Selective Service Administration, in this case) to provide any further documentation of the document in question. (The identical thing occurred with respect to his undeniably-suspect Social Security number.) We read the following from the Washington Times:

The Selective Service System’s new privacy rules were published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, September 20, 2011, four days after the September 16 announcement by World Net Daily that the Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff’s Office ‘Cold Case Posse’ was opening an inquiry with full subpoena power into alleged forgery of several documents concerning Obama’s birth and draft registration.

In the course of the investigation, lead investigator Mike Zullo made two separate trips to Hawaii. While there as a representative of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office on official government business and as part of an official law-enforcement investigation, he was denied the opportunity to meet with Dr. Alvin Onaka, the Registrar of Vital Statistics for the Hawaii Department of Health. Onaka is the person whose signature (curiously, that of an employee whose initials follow “Onaka’s” signature) was on the digital document at whitehouse.gov.

After insisting on meeting with someone from the State, Mr. Zullo was allowed to meet with Deputy Attorney General Jill Nagamine, who refused to offer any evidence of the validity of Mr. Obama’s purported birth documents – beyond a three-ring loose-leaf binder that contained a computerized list of those for whom certificates are on file with the Department of Health. Ms. Nagamine is the person who has vigorously defended the State of Hawaii’s steadfast refusal to admit access to the alleged original document on file with the State – all of this after she purportedly posted an exact digital copy of it online for all the world to see!

She has also represented the State in its ongoing refusal to allow Duncan Sunahara’s perfectly-legitimate request to obtain a copy of his own sister Virginia’s original birth certificate from the morning of Mr. Obama’s alleged 7:24 pm, August 4, 1961 birth. It has been suspected that Virginia’s certificate number may have been the one used by the creators of the Obama digital document, as Virginia died the following day – which might explain why the alleged certificate number for Mr. Obama is higher than that of twins born a day later and registered three days after his. (Virginia’s certificate number is indefensibly some 440 higher than the President’s!)

If the President has nothing to hide, he should simply do what every other American must do to obtain a driver’s license, a Social Security number (his is, of course, inexplicably from Connecticut – a state in which he never resided), a passport (his application for which has also been withheld from the public), a job (he was unable to pass E-Verify), or even to play Little League Baseball – and provide a certified hard-copy, raised-seal long-form birth certificate!

Sheriff Arpaio’s Investigation also uncovered the startling fact that the INS passenger lists for foreign flights landing in Honolulu for the two weeks including the President’s alleged August 4, 1961 birth (from July 28, 1961 – August 12, 1961) have inexplicably disappeared from their files. Coupled with the documented testimony of Barack Obama’s paternal grandmother that she was present at his birth at the Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya (for which the birth records of the time period of his birth have also been sealed in both Kenya and in Great Britain’s National Archives) and numerous other public references by Kenyan officials to his being born in Kenya (well-documented by the Cold-Case Posse and in other published works), it is undeniable that there are colossal questions surrounding the true place of his birth.

How long will we remain silent? How long will we stand idly by while the most ill-prepared and unexceptional president in our nation’s history continues in his own unending “train of abuses,” through which he has unquestionably succeeded in “fundamentally transforming” our laws, our traditions, and our own universally-unsurpassed American exceptionalism?

I will end with the words of the great Patrick Henry, from his March 23, 1775 speech before the Virginia House of Burgesses at St. John’s Church – adapted to fit our current circumstances:

Ask yourselves how this [pretended negotiation regarding the current self-inflicted financial crisis on the part of this Administration and its congressional allies] comports with those warlike preparations which…darken our land. [I refer to the recent and apparently ongoing and well-documented purchases by our government of hundreds of millions of rounds of high-caliber ammunition by agencies other than our armed forces for apparent use right here at home – all in the face of a relentless campaign to disarm our citizens. ]

Are [bullets and detention centers ] necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation — the last arguments to which kings resort.

I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? [Have we] any enemy in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of [the weapons and facilities of war]? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are …to bind and rivet upon us those chains which [our government has] been so long forging….

Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer….

We have petitioned — we have remonstrated — we have supplicated — we have prostrated ourselves before the throne and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the [Administration and the Congress]. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult [from the Occupy dissidents and Labor radicals]; our supplications [and the voice of the People expressed in local elections] have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the [self-assumed, and illegally-occupied] throne.

In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation [with those who openly seek to ‘transform’ our beloved country and disavow the rights guaranteed us by our Constitution].

There is no longer any room for [the hope of ‘getting along,’ or appeasing those who fundamentally oppose the freedom and responsibility of self-determination which we hold dear]. If we wish to be free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained — we must fight! — I repeat it, sir, we must fight!! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts, is all that is left us!

The [Republican establishment ‘advisors’] tell us, sir, that we are weak — unable to cope with so formidable an adversary [as the media and the unidentified masses]. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed…?

Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot [via blatantly unconstitutional Executive Orders, absurd and unprecedented judicial ‘rulings’ or avoidances, or by Congressional overreach or inaction]?

Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature has placed in our power. Three [hundred] millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no [choice]. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged. Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable and let it come!! I repeat it, sir, let it come!!!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace — but there is no peace…. Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or [acceptance by the very ones who oppose us] so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! — I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

The refusal of this Republican “led” Congress to act – in the face of such overwhelmingly obvious proof of fraud on the part of the Commander in Chief – is one of the great betrayals in American history. There is no excuse! There is only shame and the inevitable consequence of doing nothing…while our inalienable rights, freedoms, and property are senselessly and purposefully stripped away!

There is, however, one thing that will vanish from the Earth even before our rights are fully eroded…and that is The Party that pretends to cherish them…but will do nothing in their defense!

Your abject dereliction of duty will not go unnoticed…nor will it go unrewarded!

 

T. M. Ballantyne, Jr. is the author of three books, including Uncommon Sense…Apparently! and, most recently, Oh Really, O’Reilly! – a riveting and entertaining expose of the greatest fraud in American history!  Both are available in paperback at www.UncommonSenseNow.com.

You can email Tom at ThomasMBallantyne@gmail.com with any comments or questions, or to schedule speaking engagements.