Despite the efforts of some to make “entitlements” a dirty word, we have always been an entitlement society. The Declaration of Independence says just because we are human beings we a entitled to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Jefferson wrote “to secure these rights (One could also call them entitlements) Governments are instituted among men.” Here is one example of how our government protects our entitlements.
My uncle recently had a pacemaker installed, an expensive operation that was largely paid for by a government “entitlement” program, Medicare. Should he have felt entitled to this benefit? He is a citizen of the United States, a veteran of WWII, the father of now-grown productive children, a participant in his community and church. But most importantly, my uncle is entitled because he paid for his benefits. Social Security and Medicare are financed through payroll taxes that he paid his entire working career. Is he a freeloader dependent government handouts; a person who will not take responsibility for his own life? No way. He is a person, a citizen, a veteran, a taxpayer; you bet he is entitled, in just the same way you are entitled.
We have joined together to form a government that secures for it’s citizens rights that are not always available in other countries; like freedom of religion or freedom of speech. Mr. Obama is not attempting to create an Entitlement Society, he is trying to preserve what we have always had. Mr. Romney would change us to a society where Entitlements are available to only a certain social and economic class.
Friday 28 September 2012
Saturday 15 September 2012
Formal Objection to Mitt Romney's Certificate of Nomination
A triumvirate of august officials in Kansas is apparently burnishing their TEA Party street cred by considering removing Barak Obama's name from the general election. See article here.
We here at the TTFFIATT(IAT) have realised for some time that the objections to Mr.Obama holding the office are identical to the objections to the candidacy of Mitt Romney. (Father not a citizen, etc etc...)
I have sent a formal objection to Mitt Romey's inclusion on the general election ballot in Kansas Nov. 6. The basis being that Mr. Romney is not eligible to serve in the office for which he has been nominated.
The objection is being delivered to the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Lt. Governor by e-mail and USPS. My letter may make similar arguments to the objection to Barak Obama's nomination, but you may find it superior in both logic and legal acumen.
The formal objection letter is heavy with legal arguments honed from my years of legal training watching Perry Mason and Law & Order, but please wade through it. Do it for America.
Formal Objection to Mitt Romney's certificate of nomination
I wish to file a formal objection to the certificate of nomination for Willard Mitt Romney under KSA 25-308, given allowance that two calendar days following the date of the documents filing (Sep. 6) fell upon a Saturday and Sunday, limiting the ability to access the office of the Secretary of State. Any statutory limitations concerning filing dates should be ignored due to the fact that I had never heard of the “Objections Board”. I file this objection with and expectation of consistency under Chapter 25 Article 3.
I contest the nomination of Willard Romney under KSA 25-1436(a) through KSA 25-308(e). As you know, Part A of Article 1436 reads: (a) The person to whom a certificate of election was issued was ineligible to hold such office at the time of the election.”
Willard Romney, purportedly nominated by the Republican Party is ineligible to hold the office of president according to multiple legal precedents. The Supreme Court has ruled that candidates for this office must be born in this country to parents who are US citizens, primarily to a US citizen father.
I reject the popular argument that the framers, when writing Article II, Section 1, used the term “natural born Citizen” to discourage the use of the obstetric procedure know as “Cesarean Section.’ At the time the ratification this method of delivery was dangerous to both mother and child; hence the use the term “natural born.” It is impractical to go back to medical records and update every American’s Birth Certificate to include the categories “Natural" or "Cesarean". Current legal thinking is that the framers had something else in mind.
The “landmark” case Minor v Happersett supports my contention that Mr. Romney is ineligible to hold the office of president. The case US v Wong Kim Ark does not bolster my argument, so I will label it “controversial”. When comparing the correctness of these aforementioned cases it should be noted that in a subsequent case, Luria v Unites States, the Minor case was cited and the Wong Kim Ark was NOT cited. It should also be noted that Wong Kim Ark was not cited in the comic Spy v Spy or the movie Alien v Predator. So any legal analyst would conclude that Minor v Happersett wins.
Citing well known Swiss lawgiver Emmerich de Vattel, author of “Law of Nations”, a legal source frequently used by the Supreme Court, the dissent to US v Wong Kim Ark included:
The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens….The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.
It is important to not note that the dissenting opinion is the LOSING opinion. The well-established legal principle that citizenship is passed only through the male parent is universally know as “Moms Don’t Matter”.
Willard Romney was not born to a citizen father. His father was born in the Republic of Mexico, (jus soli) to parents who disagreed with some of the laws of the United States and took up residency in that country, leaving behind their homes and their citizenship. See The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814) The Romney family snuck back across the border to Texas to escape violence (as Mexicans still do today, but remember, this was pre - Fence), but there is no record of George Romney (Willard’s father) ever taking the test to become a naturalized citizen.
George Romney held elected office in the United States and was, in 1968, on primary ballots for the office of president. However, unlike some candidates of today, there was little or no discussion of his parents’ citizenship, his eligibility, or his birth certificate (long or short form). George Romney sounded American, looked American and had probably not been delivered via Cesarean Section. And he was white.
The Costituion does not, being a concise document, define the term “natural born citizen”. It is up to US courts to apply the term. Willard Romney’s ineligibility is pointed to in US legal precedent in decisions such as Minor v Happersett, Luria v United States, or Elk v Wilkins. When a court decision may indicate that Mr. Romney would be eligible (US v Wong Kim Ark), we birthers will even cite foreign laws (Law of Nations, British Nationality Act 1948)
Willard Romney has not provided to authoritative bodies in Kansas or anywhere else any documentation of his alleged birth. He has stated publicly that no one has asked to see his birth certificate but this filing is intended to put an end to that.
I am confident in my ability, shared with many fellow citizens, to ascertain that a document has been altered or forged. This ability applies even to documents that we have not even seen. So, I can state that the alleged birth certificate that has not been released by Mr. Romney is not valid, true, or accurate.
Any public official who might in the future attest to the validity of any such purported document should be deemed incompetent, mendacious and/or pants on fire.
Willard Romney has not provided valid documentation concerning the circumstances of his birth. He cannot meet the constitutional requirement of being a natural born citizen, in terms established by the Supreme Court of the United States because his old man was a foreigner. The appearance of his name on any ballot in Kansas is illegitimate and unconstitutional. As a registered voter of the State of Kansas with the right to challenge his inclusion, ask that the Board of Objections remove his name from the ballot, refuse to count any votes cast for him, and assign no electors on his behalf.
I am asking the Board of Objections to ignore legal precedent, ignore the will of the Republican primary voters, ignore the democratic form of government, but most of all, ignore the facts; and prevent Willard Mitt Romney’s inclusion on ballots for the general election on Nov 6. I also ask that this case not be settled until there has been consultation with authorities in Arizona and Mississippi, for verily, these locations are the two fonts of all wisdom and truth.
We here at the TTFFIATT(IAT) have realised for some time that the objections to Mr.Obama holding the office are identical to the objections to the candidacy of Mitt Romney. (Father not a citizen, etc etc...)
I have sent a formal objection to Mitt Romey's inclusion on the general election ballot in Kansas Nov. 6. The basis being that Mr. Romney is not eligible to serve in the office for which he has been nominated.
The objection is being delivered to the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Lt. Governor by e-mail and USPS. My letter may make similar arguments to the objection to Barak Obama's nomination, but you may find it superior in both logic and legal acumen.
The formal objection letter is heavy with legal arguments honed from my years of legal training watching Perry Mason and Law & Order, but please wade through it. Do it for America.
Formal Objection to Mitt Romney's certificate of nomination
I wish to file a formal objection to the certificate of nomination for Willard Mitt Romney under KSA 25-308, given allowance that two calendar days following the date of the documents filing (Sep. 6) fell upon a Saturday and Sunday, limiting the ability to access the office of the Secretary of State. Any statutory limitations concerning filing dates should be ignored due to the fact that I had never heard of the “Objections Board”. I file this objection with and expectation of consistency under Chapter 25 Article 3.
I contest the nomination of Willard Romney under KSA 25-1436(a) through KSA 25-308(e). As you know, Part A of Article 1436 reads: (a) The person to whom a certificate of election was issued was ineligible to hold such office at the time of the election.”
Willard Romney, purportedly nominated by the Republican Party is ineligible to hold the office of president according to multiple legal precedents. The Supreme Court has ruled that candidates for this office must be born in this country to parents who are US citizens, primarily to a US citizen father.
I reject the popular argument that the framers, when writing Article II, Section 1, used the term “natural born Citizen” to discourage the use of the obstetric procedure know as “Cesarean Section.’ At the time the ratification this method of delivery was dangerous to both mother and child; hence the use the term “natural born.” It is impractical to go back to medical records and update every American’s Birth Certificate to include the categories “Natural" or "Cesarean". Current legal thinking is that the framers had something else in mind.
The “landmark” case Minor v Happersett supports my contention that Mr. Romney is ineligible to hold the office of president. The case US v Wong Kim Ark does not bolster my argument, so I will label it “controversial”. When comparing the correctness of these aforementioned cases it should be noted that in a subsequent case, Luria v Unites States, the Minor case was cited and the Wong Kim Ark was NOT cited. It should also be noted that Wong Kim Ark was not cited in the comic Spy v Spy or the movie Alien v Predator. So any legal analyst would conclude that Minor v Happersett wins.
Citing well known Swiss lawgiver Emmerich de Vattel, author of “Law of Nations”, a legal source frequently used by the Supreme Court, the dissent to US v Wong Kim Ark included:
The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens….The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.
It is important to not note that the dissenting opinion is the LOSING opinion. The well-established legal principle that citizenship is passed only through the male parent is universally know as “Moms Don’t Matter”.
Willard Romney was not born to a citizen father. His father was born in the Republic of Mexico, (jus soli) to parents who disagreed with some of the laws of the United States and took up residency in that country, leaving behind their homes and their citizenship. See The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814) The Romney family snuck back across the border to Texas to escape violence (as Mexicans still do today, but remember, this was pre - Fence), but there is no record of George Romney (Willard’s father) ever taking the test to become a naturalized citizen.
George Romney held elected office in the United States and was, in 1968, on primary ballots for the office of president. However, unlike some candidates of today, there was little or no discussion of his parents’ citizenship, his eligibility, or his birth certificate (long or short form). George Romney sounded American, looked American and had probably not been delivered via Cesarean Section. And he was white.
The Costituion does not, being a concise document, define the term “natural born citizen”. It is up to US courts to apply the term. Willard Romney’s ineligibility is pointed to in US legal precedent in decisions such as Minor v Happersett, Luria v United States, or Elk v Wilkins. When a court decision may indicate that Mr. Romney would be eligible (US v Wong Kim Ark), we birthers will even cite foreign laws (Law of Nations, British Nationality Act 1948)
Willard Romney has not provided to authoritative bodies in Kansas or anywhere else any documentation of his alleged birth. He has stated publicly that no one has asked to see his birth certificate but this filing is intended to put an end to that.
I am confident in my ability, shared with many fellow citizens, to ascertain that a document has been altered or forged. This ability applies even to documents that we have not even seen. So, I can state that the alleged birth certificate that has not been released by Mr. Romney is not valid, true, or accurate.
Any public official who might in the future attest to the validity of any such purported document should be deemed incompetent, mendacious and/or pants on fire.
Willard Romney has not provided valid documentation concerning the circumstances of his birth. He cannot meet the constitutional requirement of being a natural born citizen, in terms established by the Supreme Court of the United States because his old man was a foreigner. The appearance of his name on any ballot in Kansas is illegitimate and unconstitutional. As a registered voter of the State of Kansas with the right to challenge his inclusion, ask that the Board of Objections remove his name from the ballot, refuse to count any votes cast for him, and assign no electors on his behalf.
I am asking the Board of Objections to ignore legal precedent, ignore the will of the Republican primary voters, ignore the democratic form of government, but most of all, ignore the facts; and prevent Willard Mitt Romney’s inclusion on ballots for the general election on Nov 6. I also ask that this case not be settled until there has been consultation with authorities in Arizona and Mississippi, for verily, these locations are the two fonts of all wisdom and truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)