Rose Colombo – Rev. 4/11/2012, 3/30/2012 (C)
“The proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: Congress shall make no law that applies to the senators and or representatives that does not apply equally to the Citizens of the United States of America.”
Wake up, America! How is it that the U.S. Congress and Executive Office and U.S. Judicial Officers would dare to hold themselves above the laws of the land, which they mandate for you and me, yet, they have the audacity to exempt themselves, even though they swore an oath to uphold all constitutional laws and follow all laws of the land? It’s even more disturbing that most recently the 111th Congress stated they didn’t bother to read the national health care bill, which is an umbrella law known as ObamaCare, and is a restructured set of laws replacing freedom and liberty, in my opinion. ObamaCare consists of 2,000 pages of excessive mandates and excessive regulations, including excessive punishment, but it only targets American citizens , not foreigners, cronies, unions, congress, illegals, or refugees – 2,000 pages of regulations and punishments – the 111th Congress stated that they did not read, but approved!
In my book, “Fight Back Legal Abuse,” I state, “The American people must not go down to their level, but must force the lawyers to come up to their level.”
After all, Article II of the United States Constitution requires that a U.S. President meets a specific requirement for a specific reason as written by our Foundsers. A Natural Born U.S. Citizen is a baby born on U.S. soil to two U.S. Natural Born Citizens, period! There isn’t any compromising on the law. All laws must be changed through proposed new laws or proposed amendments in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and approved by the U.S. Congress.
So, how is it that an inserted amendment written by Obama into a pre-existing presidential Executive Order is rendered the law of the land or even constitutional law, if it circumvents Article II without congressional approval? Obama’s self-serving and self-protecting inserted amendment provides to himself – the authority to conceal his identity from the government – and from the public. It would seem that it isn’t ethical or constitutional for a public servant to write self-serving and self-protecting laws or amendments which alter or circumvent Article II of the U.S. Constitution without congressional approval. When did writing an amendment with the intent of circumventing a constitutional law and inserting the amendment into a pre-existing presidential Executive Order without congressional authority suddenly be rendered a law of the land? This begs the question why is the U.S. government treating an “amendment” inserted into a pre-existing executive order which circumvents Article II being treated as an amendment to Article II of the U.S. Constitution without congressional approval? Shouldn’t it be viewed as meaningless or not?
Isn’t it true the U.S. Congress must approve all proposed amendments that would change, circumvent, or alter any constitutional law? This makes it very difficult to understand why the U.S. federal government is allowing Obama to write an “amendment,” and insert the amendment into a pre-existing presidential Executive Order, so he can declare it as a constitutional law and conceal his personal identification records from the world, since all amendments to change constitutional laws must be presented to Congress and approved by Congress. To my knowledge, Article II, as defined by the Law of Nations, remains the law of the land and requires identification of a candidate’s birth certificate as proof of his or her U.S. Natural Born Citizenship in order to be eligible to be a U.S. President.
The reason our Forefathers were wise and established Article II as an intricate part of the U.S. Constitution requiring that a U.S. Natural Born Citizen be the only person eligible to be a U.S. President is to prevent foreign and anti-American usurpers from stealing the birthright of a U.S. Natural Born Citizen and denying him or her their right to be a U.S. President. It is the birthright of every U.S. Natural Born Citizen passed down from their U.S. Natural Born Father that must be protected. The Forefathers required that only a U.S. Natural Born Citizen be a U.S. President in order to ensure that the birthright passes down from generation to generation assuring the preservation of the U.S. Constitution, liberty and freedom, sovereignty, our Judeo Christian roots, traditions, and for the preservation of Western Civilization so future generations can live free and carry on the Liberty Torch.
For example, a usurper could bring millions of foreigners into the United States of America with the intent of dominating the United States of America. He may intend to donate funds to public schools with the requirement that they insert foreign history into U.S. History books. His agenda might include donating funds to Christian churches and requiring they insert foreign religion into their Christian religions. Perhaps, he intends for the migration of millions of foreigners to dominate the land and wipe out Western Civilization making the U.S. Natural Born Citizens the minority.
A usurper with an iron fist may decide to reduce the population of future U.S. Natural Born Citizens through mandated abortions. Perhaps, he’ll implement radiation of all citizens, but exempt those he favors; perhaps abuse the use of chemicals, indefinite detention, assassinations, assisted suicide, denying and rationing health care and medications, denying organic foods; promoting contraceptives and the morning after abortion pill; denying natural vitamins and herbs; or donate to public schools requiring that they indoctrinate U.S. kids into same-sex lifestyles under the guise of education. All the potential agendas are programs that could be used for depopulation of a nation’s natural-born citizens and future natural-born citizens.
A tyrannical usurper, legitimate or not, who wields power unjustly and arbitrarily to oppress the citizenry, is a despot.”
Should it not be a major concern to the American people, when a U.S. President and U.S. Congress grant absolute power to an unvested president granting him the power to assassinate or indefinitely detain Americans based upon an accusation? It appears to me that the American people should be very concerned when they witness an unvested president and the U.S. Congress shredding the U.S. Constitution, especially Article IV, and deny their citizens due process of law. Yet, Obama and Holder demand that all Middle East radicals be treated with kid gloves and that they be read Miranda Rights and be provided Due Process of Law. How is that?
Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro, raised his hand on or about January, 2009, and repeated the presidential sworn oath leading Americans to believe that he is a U.S. natural-born citizen, prominent lawyer, and law professor prior to the elections. The American people are continuously demeaned by the media, if they ask questions about Obama’s birth place. In fact, the media is alleged to have misled Americans into believing that the Obama’s were prominent lawyers, but failed to report that they had been investigated by a branch of the Illinois Supreme Court and prohibited from practicing law, which is public record, and this may have changed the outcome of the elections.
Although, Philip J. Berg, esq., challenged Obama’s eligibility in the U.S. Supreme Court prior to the inauguration, Justice Roberts denied the lawsuit. On the day of the inauguration about January 2009, Obama repeated the presidential sworn oath with his hand on the Bible, but flubbed it up, and repeated the oath a second time with his hand off of the Bible, so it begs the question if it was intentional, after all, he mocked the Bible and Jesus during a speech. Obama swore to uphold, defend, preserve and protect all U.S. Constitutional laws, as required by the law of the land including Article II and Article IV. A violation of a U.S. Sworn Oath can be punishable according to federal law.
But, on or about January 2009, after Obama swore the presidential oath administered by Justice Robert including, Article II, the question remains if he intended to circumvent Article II prior to his sworn oath or during his sworn oath because without hesitation and upon taking office, he immediately inserted an amendment into a pre-existing presidential Executive Order to conceal his personal identity and circumvent Article II without congressional or constitutional approval, so when did he decide to conceal? Is it not mind-boggling how Obama was allowed to provide himself the authority to conceal his identification records from the entire United States government including law enforcement, federal judges, and the American people, who pay his $400,000 per year taxpayer wages, and as a result are told that they aren’t allowed to request that a certified copy of his U.S. Birth Certificate be presented in a court of law even if filed by credible professionals? So, again, I ask the question, under which constitutional authority is Obama applying that provides to him self the authority to circumvent Article II of the U.S. Constitution by inserting an “amendment” into a pre-existing Executive Order and by-pass Congress?
Obama’s inserted amendment to conceal his identification records states that he can seek the advice of the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder. But, how is concealing his identity from the government and the American people lawful, constitutional, or ethical? After all, Article II requires identification of the public servant and proof that he is a U.S. Natural Born Citizen. After all, his sworn oath doesn’t state that he can pick and choose which laws he will or will not follow or that of Congress.
On the other hand, how is it that an amendment inserted into a pre-existing Executive Order signed by President Bush, which circumvents Article II of the U.S. Constitution, be considered a constitutional law, because according to Representatives Lundgren and Ron Paul, they stated that Executive Orders were not intended to be laws and are not laws. Thus, how is an amendment inserted into a pre- existing presidential executive order written by Obama, which conceals his personal identification records and circumvents Article II, be treated by law enforcement and congress as a lawful law since he didn’t present his amendment to alter Article II to the 111th Congress and seek Congressional approval?
So, should Americans dare ask if Obama’s intent was to conceal his identification papers prior to taking his sworn oath or at the time he swore to uphold the entire Constitution of the United States, or the day of writing the amendment, because Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton prior to the 2008 elections, secretly inserted an amendment into a military bill proposed by Rep. McCaskill, to remove the words U.S. Natural Born Citizen from Article II, which is public record. The intent to remove the words U.S. Natural Born Citizen from Article II combined with Obama’s writing a secret “amendment” into a “pre-existing presidential Executive Order” which circumvents Article II’s requirement of proof of U.S. Citizenship, but is intended to conceal his identity from the government and from the American people immediately after swearing his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution is troubling for the majority of American citizens.
Furthermore, so shouldn’t there be a question by Congress as to whether or not if secretly writing an amendment that circumvents Article II to avoid producing a U.S. Certified Birth Certificate immediately after swearing an oath to uphold Article II is an ethics violation since a sworn oath is administered and believed to be repeated in “Good Faith” in front of God and witnesses. After all, Obama and his wife, Michelle, presented themselves as prominent lawyers in good standing with the ABA, and in fact, presented Obama as a law professor. The media also presented them as prominent lawyers, but they didn’t disclose that they had been prohibited from practicing law prior to the elections. And, Sworn Oaths are administered based upon the belief that everything the candidates represented to the American people is honest and factual. After the elections of 2008, published records from the Illinois Supreme Court appeared on-line disclosing that Obama and Michelle Obama had been investigated and prohibited from practicing law which is public record. If the candidates and the media had published the truth then perhaps, Hillary or McCain could have won the elections. It’s also interesting that the ABA and the Illinois Supreme Court judicial officers allegedly didn’t inform the DNC or the Congress of that information.
As I stated, this begs the question of why Obama found it necessary to write a secret amendment inserted into a pre-existing Executive Order with the intent to circumvent Article II, after he swore to uphold all constitutional law, including Article II, especially since he’s prohibited from practicing law. And more importantly, one must ask why Congress and law enforcement are considering an amendment inserted into a pre-existing executive order to conceal a president’s U.S. Birth Certificate and other personal records required by Article II be considered an”amendment” that lawfully or constitutionally changed or altered Article II back in 2009?
These questions are complicated not only by the fact that Obama is prohibited from practicing law, but the fact that he admits his father is a natural-born citizen of Kenya, a Muslim, African, and Subject of Britain, making Obama a Subject of Britain at birth. And, according to the Law of Nations, a baby born on U.S. soil to one parent who is foreign-born isn’t eligible to be a U.S. President. Surely, Harvard students are taught basic 101 constitutional law.
How then are the federal lawmakers justifying that the U.S. Congress and the oval office are granting themselves the authority to exempt themselves from the laws which they are mandating for the U.S. Citizens. ObamaCare is a restructured set of laws known as consisting 2,000 unread pages which were not read, but approved. The 2,000 pages include hundreds of mandates, excessive regulations, fines, penalties, death panels and mandated abortions, as well as excessively cruel and unusual punishments including IRS agents knocking on citizen’s doors, but not on the doors of the Obama’s or the U.S. Congress. Congress exempted themselves from the laws of the land which they are also obligated to follow, but for some reason, think they have the authority to hold themselves above the laws of the land and exempt themselves from the same treatment they’re dishing out for the American people, but not for themselves or the millions of Muslims, SEIU union members, possibly millions of Palestinian refugees, and illegals. So, if ObamaCare is such a great umbrella law with thousands of pages of mandates and regulations, punishments, and fines, as well as death panels, which deny all freedom and liberty, then why did Congress exempt themselves from being forced to pay up, comply, and from punishment?
In fact, it appears that only U.S. Natural Born Citizens will be picking up the tab for millions of people who won’t have to pay up and have contributed nothing or very little to our nation, but if the Americans are forced up to pay up and don’t comply, they will be sent to jail for one year and ordered to pay a $25,000 penalty, and have an IRS agent sent to their home or business.
ObamaCare is the restructured set of laws which replace all freedom and liberty and punish U.S. Natural Born Citizens fulfilling his father’s dream, I suppose, who believed America was an oppressive nation. Yet, all the people who are anti-American and apologize for America are the same people refusing to live anywhere else, jetting about ,and living off taxes of the hard working American citizens. ObamaCare represents tyrannical laws imposed on citizens who live in Communist and Third World nations.
Therefore, I have three questions: 1) How can the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Congress, and U.S. law enforcement follow an amendment written for self-serving and self-protecting reasons into a pre-existing executive order with the intent of circumventing Article II, with the intent of concealing an unvested president’s identification, be considered constitutional or lawful, since the amendment which circumvents Article II wasn’t presented to Congress or approved by Congress? 2) How can a public servant who admits his father is foreign-born and a Subject of Britain, which makes him a Subject of Britain upon his birth under the British Nationality Act of 1948, not be vetted properly by the congress or federal courts, as it is their fiduciary duty to correct the records for historical purposes and for the welfare and safety of the American people; 3) Under which constitutional authority is the U.S. President, the U.S. Congress applying that provides them the authority to exempt themselves from the laws of the land they mandate for you and me as well as provide themselves the authority to exempt millions of foreigners, refugees, illegals, and people Obama favors or those who support the Democratic Party from complying with ObamaCare? (This article may be shared but not Plagiarized by a Third Party)
Rose Colombo, a long time legal activist, award-winning former local newspaper columnist, whose Irwin Award Winning book, “Fight Back Legal Abuse” available on amazon.com or Bn.com, empowers people with self-help information and true short stories of injustices. She’s helped motivate victims of legal abuse become survivors since she founded the first self-help group in the nation for victims of injustices. Visit www.fightbacklegalabuse.com – Thanks for the read and please click the like star button below –