stats for wordpress
 







Are you on Facebook?

Would you please click "like" in the box to your right, or

Visit us on Facebook!


Birther: Impeach Chief Justice Roberts For Swearing In Obama, Because, Nuremberg

by David Badash on January 7, 2013

in News,Politics

Post image for Birther: Impeach Chief Justice Roberts For Swearing In Obama, Because, Nuremberg

The birther fringe is demanding the House of Representatives impeach Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts if he — again — swears in Barack Obama as President of the United States. World Net Daily, home to the crazed birther nuts, “Obama is secretly gay” nuts, along with racism, and homophobia — aka Rick Santorum, who now writes exclusively there — is petitioning Roberts to refuse to swear in Preisdent Obama or face the consequences. Those consequences supposedly include “impeachment and eternal dishonor,” and, somehow, “the Nuremberg Trials.”

“Your failure to investigate these citizenship issues surrounding Mr. Obama at the time questions were raised during his first term places you in a terrible position. You are now confronted with a most difficult choice,” Craige McMillan at WND writes:

Your own oath of office, sworn before God and the American people, requires you to uphold the Constitution. (If not you, then who?) If you now administer the oath of office for the presidency to a man who by his own admission fails to meet the natural born citizen requirement imposed by that Constitution, you have violated your own oath of office and are rightly subject to impeachment by any House of Representatives, at any time, now or in the future.

The National Memo responds:

It’s been proven over and over over again that the president was born in Hawaii. But let’s say for the sake of argument that he wasn’t… here are the requirements for American citizenship with one American parent and one foreign parent, if you’re born on foreign soil:

If you are born abroad to one United States citizen and one foreign citizen, you may be considered a U.S. citizen if you meet the following requirements:

• One of your parents was a U.S. citizen when you were born. CHECK
• The parent who is a U.S. citizen has lived at least five years in the U.S. before you were born. CHECK
• The parent who is a U.S. citizen must have lived in the U.S. for at least two years of these five years after his/her fourteenth birthday. CHECK

Our laws are quite clear: If you spring from an American womb, you’re an American. Whether you’re born in Kenya,Panama or on Mars, if your mom was a born-and-bred, Kansas-cornfed American — like Stanley Ann Dunham Obama — you’re an American and thus eligible for the presidency. PERIOD.

WND’s McMillan continues, ludicrously:

If you choose the easy course of ignoring our Constitution, it does not change the fact that Mr. Obama is barred by that same Constitution from acting as president. I am sure that if you turn your judicial mind to the ramifications of this fraud, both foreign and domestic, you will understand that the harm you will have done insures your impeachment and eternal dishonor at some point down the road: If not this House of Representatives, then the next, or the next, or the next.

These things do not end well. One need only look to the aftermath of World War II and the Nuremberg Trials to see what awaits. Illegal wars. Illegal debts. Illegal laws. Will the rest of the Supreme Court’s justices, now knowing they are violating their own oath of office, continue the sham through a second presidential term? How, then, is the highest court of law in the nation any different than that pictorial proverb in Japan of the three monkeys who see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil?

Given the gravity of this situation, we therefore urge you to take the honorable course of action and refuse to administer the oath of office to Mr. Obama. And yes, this will also require you to explain to the nation in the clearest possible terms why you have been compelled to take this most extraordinary action.

Wow.

Image via Wikimedia

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Friends:

We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.

Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!

{ 4 comments }

Alex_Parrish January 7, 2013 at 2:05 pm

You can't fix "stupid" — not even with duct tape.

davidfarrar January 7, 2013 at 6:35 pm

For the common good of the country, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts could have a small evidentiary hearing BEFORE swearing in Obama to establish the probative value of his prima facie evidence.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts could even ask Obama to volunteer such documentation before such swearing in ceremony.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Siddigfan January 7, 2013 at 10:29 pm

Just how much more will it take to have any judge declare Rick Santorum certifiably insane and have him, for his own safety, transported to the bubble-wrapped room? The man is a raving, foaming at the mouth lunatic!

kibitzer3 January 8, 2013 at 8:44 pm

<div class="idc-message" id="idc-comment-msg-div-539256713"><a class="idc-close" title="Click to Close Message" href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(539256713)"><span>Close Message</span> Comment posted. <p class="idc-nomargin"><a class="idc-share-facebook" target="_new" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fthenewcivilrightsmovement.com%2F1-birther-impeach-chief-justice-roberts-for-swearing-in-obama-because-nuremberg%2Fpolitics%2F2013%2F01%2F07%2F57840#IDComment539256713&t=I%20just%20commented%20on%20Birther%3A%20Impeach%20Chief%20Justice%20Roberts%20For%20Swearing%20In%20Obama%2C%20Because%2C%20Nuremberg%20%7C%20The%20New%20Civil%20Rights%20Movement&quot; style="text-decoration: none;"><span class="idc-share-inner"><span>Share on Facebook</span></span> or <a href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(539256713)">Close MessageThere is a real travesty of justice being perpetrated on this blog and in its comments (except for the intelligent response from David Farrar). Are you for justice or not? It cuts both ways, folks. Listen up, lefties, and come to the debate with some common sense, not this over-and-over-again obfuscation of the issue that is used by the Left in this matter. Who's kidding whom in that performance??

The issue is not whether he is a 'citizen' or not. It is whether he is a 'natural born citizen' or not. That is a higher bar of citizenship set in the Constitution for a candidate for the office of the presidency, and no other office (with an amendment later including that of the office of the VP, since that person may succeed TO the presidency). It was set that way in order to rule out a candidate who could have dual loyalties or allegiances by virtue of not having TWO U.S. CITIZEN PARENTS.

Being born 'of the soil' (jus soli) is also a factor in the definition of the term, beyond the critical factor of being born 'of the blood' (jus sanguinis). But the key issue is the parentage one. The definition of a NBC was very clear to the Framers of the Constitution (as attested to by many sources), and has been affirmed by various Supreme Court decisions subsequently. And if someone here is going to try to throw the 14th Amendment at me in response: don't. It doesn't talk about a 'natural born' citizen; just who is a 'citizen'. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, whether either the Left or the Right wants to admit to it or not. (The establishment Right has obviously avoided this issue for its own reasons. Watch this space, as to who the Republican Party tries to put up for those offices, with this breach in the barriers of the Constitution. The barriers to unconstitutional government.)

This matter should have been dealt with long ago. It has been obscured from view by just such agents and sophistries as the above blog. Why do you people think it is of any value to hide the truth of the matter, behind obfuscation and attempts at ridicule?? It WILL out. Let's get with it, and deal with it. Because I assure you, it is not going to go away. There are still many citizens left in this country who believe in, and will fight for, the Constitution. To say: who don't believe in arbitrary law. Another word for which is tyranny.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: