Replies

Danae, since you've blown your cover, I have a few questions. Honest dialog while we are still able to communicate here, is what we have left. The regime's control of the FCC, Justice Department, and military are more than enough to permit them to pick off anyone vocal about constitutional rights, as they are picking off Tea Party groups one by one. There are more than enough unproductive bureaucrats to keep productive citizens from their jobs.

Pravda, with its legacy in Soviet Intelligence, must know who Obama is. Obama’s Counterintelligence Dir., former CIA Deputy Dir. John Brennan, is protecting Obama’s history, cauterized his passport files, but other nations with intelligence agencies will know because they granted the passports. Pakistan was a USSR ally in 1981. It is unlikely that the Israeli's don't know as well, given the many Israelis in Obama's administration, Israelis with families in Israel. That observation, with which few will likely argue, illustrates why birth on our soil was also required for our chief executive.

No foreign national entity is likely to see exposing Obama in its interest (a concept addressed at length in Vattel's Law of Nations). While Soros/Obama destroys our economy, foreign entities will become relatively stronger. The Obama Regime can't threaten Pravda with IRS audits or send our justice department or FCC after them. Ironically, but understandably, for this time at least, “Truth” seems more likely to come from Pravda than from our media. Follow the money!

Many of our journalists have the same infection as their patron. Their journalism professors, Orville Schell who adored Mao Zedong, Andrew Stern, Ben Bagdikian, and many who have been trained at the communist Midwest Academy, like Ayers and Obama, or were at the Institute for Policy Studies, along with Leon Panetta, now Sec. of Defense, are fellow travelers. Some of the well-meaning fools in the media who supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo, found they weren't really on the side of tolerance and individual rights. A number of them were paid with beatings and rape; they are the useful idiots.

Question: Why were the video presentations of the Arpaio investigation so badly prepared? An amateur, my daughter, with a three hundred dollar video camera has produced many programs with decent quality. WND can produce dozens of slick infomercials to sell insurance and investment advice. WND are getting lots of traffic, and probably donations from the work done by Arpaio and his ‘Posse.” Obama is a product of propaganda. Joe Farah is an old hand in this realm. Why did he not see that the presentation, which appeared to have been covered from the audience with a cellphone camera, was not better produced? The weak presentation, not even up to usual Youtube standards, is probably why many don't take Arpaio more seriously. Was it intentional?

Why has Arpaio not submitted his evidence to a grand jury? I'm not an attorney, but appreciate the relative rigor his Cold Case team has shown in presenting its findings. But if there is probable cause, why has legal action not been initiated? How much more needs to be reassessed? Pre-announcing March 1st sounded too much like a teaser. We know, and Arpaio knows, that judges have been protecting Obama. Still, times are changing and every judge should have his/her role in this crime on recored.

Not a criticism if Arpaio has reasons, he appears to have confirmed information largely revealed by Orly Taitz long ago. Good for him. Perhaps his experience in law enforcement can do what Taitz could not. His experts sound credible, not that those working with Taitz didn't. Arpaio appears to be showing part of his hand, perhaps to deflect attacks upon himself and Arizona by the Justice Department. Eligibility is a critical national issue, an existential issue for our Constitutional Republic. Obama has been honest about his intentions, just like Ahmadenajad. Obama told us he didn't regard the Constitution as binding, a doctrine of negative privileges, or relevant to current society. It didn't allow him to do what he felt we needed. If there is documented evidence, why not bring charges?

Isn't it clear that the allegiances Obama derived from his father, a doctrinaire Marxist, were exactly why Article II Section 1 was made an eligibility requirement? That is the critical issue. Where Obama was born is not in evidence, and, seems not so important a requirement as requiring sole allegiance of his parents - citizenship. We know that Washington signed the 1790 Nationality Act, making foreign born children of citizen parents natural born, but then signed the complete retraction of that bill in 1795, removing any mention of natural born citizen. Our founders entertained loosening up jus soli, birth on our soil, but never jus sanguinis, birth to citizen parents.

You Danae, know better than most the difficulty of explaining natural born citizenship, why do Arpaio and WND seem to make no effort to explain NBC? There is so much dramatic historical confirmation of John Jay's reasons for reminding Washington to change the Constitution's eligibility requirement for President from Hamilton's ‘citizen’ to Jay, Washington, Jefferson's natural born citizen.

Beck has done a great job of presenting the history behind some of our doctrine, but has carefully steered around the President of the Continental Congress and Congressional Historian Dr. David Ramsay, Chief Justice John Marshall, Hamilton's letters to Washington, Jefferson's founding our first law school with Vattel as its first text, Chief Justice Waite, 14th Amendment author John Bingham ... Beck is clearly hiding from the issue, along with advertiser Hillsdale College. None of these paragons of originalism have explained their reasoning. They are clearly afraid of this particular truth. Have they been guaranteed civil war if Obama is examined and found ineligible? Once you find an excuse to avoid the truth, every other precept of our foundations is up for negotiation. I don't trust WND, and have some questions about Arpaio, Trump, Corsi, ....

No one has more money than Soros and our ‘fed’ supported banks, which probably explains the fear of anyone with lots to lose about taking on the eligibility question. Trump has never addressed the constitutional eligibility violation, birth to an alien. Soon we won't have nearly so much to lose. Clarifying the truth for as many as possible is in our interest, because most of those not willing to become targets, like Limbaugh, Levin, and Beck, will join us when the majority prevail, which we will, one way or the other.

The education process you are driving will become especially important later, when we begin to use our presumed right to impeach judges, and remove any judge appointed by Obama, remove legislators who lied and or failed to vet Obama when asked, and to overturn invalid contracts signed by an ineligible president. Obamacare is simply not law. It will be a mess, but a mess worth cleaning up.

First we need to explain the truth to people working two jobs, or put off by the unsupportable and often crude allegations about Obama's heritage, as fascinating as many of them are, or who just weren't interested until they saw the $10/gal gas and skyrocketing utility prices. Much of the nonsense associated with the clever Alinsky/ "Birther" campaign was generated by Obama operatives working to discredit legitimate questions. He is ineligible for not having been born on our soil to citizen parents. His father was never a citizen. We must accept that Obama's father is who he told us he was. That was the man we elected. Otherwise his election was fraudulent, as intriguing as are the allegations that his father is Malcolm X, or Marshall Davis.

Apuzzo and Donofrio are skilled at the law. Cotter and Simpson are skilled journalists. I know writing for the public is hard, and that some like you have the talent and energy to efficiently present ideas. That is the task at hand. And you seem to have very little company. If Pravda is to be your publisher, lets hope Pravda sells lots of advertisements and makes lots of money, because Russia has a flat tax, and is acting more like a capitalist nation than we are at the moment. Just a look at the interest in every forum I've seen, from the comments to blogs such as Glen Beck's, shows that there are few issues that approach eligibility for the active readers it attracts.

A few in the conservative media are beginning to take take notice. More will follow when they sense that the wind is changing. Most have no idea how oppressive our would-be dictators can be. Most don't understand that Obama has his army, larger and better funded than our military, ready to control us, just as the military in the USSR waa large because its principal role was to control its own citizens. Obama's army is comprised of unions, ten times the size of our military. They will follow orders because the lives, the incomes, of union families will depend upon it.

It is an old idea used by Islam, but with origins from long before. When a Roman soldier lost a battle his family could be killed and property taken by the state. Soldiers knew they must win, or die fighting to save their families. The families of Islamic suicide bombers were sent generous prizes, twenty thousand dollars equivalent from Saddam Hussein to Palestinian families of martyrs. It is rule by fear. Obama is creating the context which will insure that union workers, most in the government, better paid today than the average worker in the private sector, become his army. Our Constitution is is there to protect us, but useless if it is not honored, defended, and protected. It is under attack, and is surely not being honored.

Donofrio found the well-hidden key. No discussion of eligibility that fails to address Minor v. Happersett is legitimate. Minor is positive law. As Chester Arthur demonstrated, hiding documents can be effective. Erasing our history is harder; Donofrio discovered the document that that Chester failed to burn, and exposed Arthur's ineligibility one hundred and ten years after the deed. Our law schools know the truth. Our Congress, at least our Senate, knows the truth. Dianna knows the truth and will find a way make it heard. Look at all the attention the Pravda article has attracted?

No pundit, legislator, or journalist who cannot explain why Minor doesn't hold can be believed. They are serving enemies of the Constitution. All they have is the claim that Minor's definition is dictum. But then why did so many courts cite Minor? Soros/Obama minions thought Minor was important enough that they scrubbed dozens of Supreme Court decisions of citations to it! How else was Elizabeth Minor a constitutional citizen before the signing of the 14th Amendment? The reasoning isn't trivial. Natural law can be explained, because most people believe it to be true. That is why it is ‘natural law.’ The logical construction of Minor by Chief Justice Waite is a bit subtle, but we have the benefit of Donofrio's legal mind. Yes, the Supreme Court can ignore precedent; but they must explain why they ignored it, not avoid the issue as Clarance Thomas, has told us they are doing. And if we believe justices are violating their oaths, if our congress still honors that provision of our Constitution, we can impeach them. We must reaffirm the principles of our founders and framers, the negative rights which limit government, or we will soon experience the dictatorship from which they fought to defend us.