We are at the point where the venue for holding this Round Table and the agenda are set:
We will be meeting at the Radio Technical Commission, 1611 N Kent St, Arlington, VA in the Main Conference Room; we also have a breakout room reserved, so two working sessions can be going at the same time. Starting time is 11:00am on Wednesday, May 13, 2015, with breakout to begin at noon. Please note the maximum number the room will hold is 50, and there are 20 politicians (so far) who have expressed interest. There is also a veterans’ group that plans on sending a delegation - I am still trying to get an accurate count from them.
If you have contacted politicians and gotten a commitment from them, I need that information, for an accurate headcount.
Those of you who worked on the handout, many thanks. I am getting them printed, along with some documentation for each point; folders will be handed out to all attendees at the meeting.
We will be working with the politicians, to find ways to implement our Top Five Concerns from within and without the governmental body. The senators, representatives, and governors who will be there know better than we do how the governing body works (or doesn’t!); they will be hearing from citizens that we are not asleep; we are aware of what is happening to the country; we are willing to work to stop it; and we have their back(s) if they step out and go against the corrupt minions presently in control in DC.
Above all, we must be professional in our demeanor; very firm in our requests, but polite - no yelling, name-calling, or cursing. The minute we do that, the politicians will tune out and turn off. Be professional!
This is a very ambitious project to accomplish in just four hours. As one member has expressed to me, we need to have a regular series of these meetings. I’d love to see that happen!
The Top Five Concerns and the Politician Name List are below:
Top Five Concerns:
1. Impeach Barack Obama
2. Enforce Immigration Laws
3. Repeal Obamacare
4. National Debt
5. End the Patriot Act
NOTE: Due to sabotage of this meeting, I have removed the politician name list from this discussion. If the saboteur had already copied the list, he/she will still have the names. If he/she was referring back to listing, this will stop it.
I strongly suspect pressure to back out came from "on high" - we have lost much of the politicians' participation...I did have about 20 who had committed to attending. There are now about 10 left. This development is disappointing, to say the least.
Anyone who is planning on attending and still needs the politicians' name list, message me, and I will email you a copy of it.
4-16-15: Two more politician cancellations today; now down to six. These may not be because of the saboteur, as one sounded shaky from the start. I am calling more politicians' schedulers, trying to get the attendee list back up. Any help would be appreciated!
Our Founding Fathers would not hesitate for one second to impeach Obama for this.
He'd be perp marched in chains and locked up for good never to see daylight again.
BTW, How did you get your hands on that info?
Taxing the Internet is the equivilent of taxing Free Speech.
Communist/Marxist control of the masses.
Patricia - ABSOLUTELY.
I listened to all of the candidates at CPAC and Cruz was the ONLY person who was blunt, direct and answered everything I wanted to hear on his political stance on the issues. Others half-heartedly answered or avoided issues with "political" responses which puzzles me as to why a post debate survey left Cruz with 11% approval???? I wonder who took the survey?
Cruz is not a candidate. He cannot run for President. He is in fact ineligible.
We'd better start brushing up on what exactly is our Constitution and why the Founders crafted it the way they did. Article II was created to keep foreign influences from dictating the direction of this Country. I don't care how great is Ted Cruz's rhetoric or if he really means what he says, because if he runs for President, he throws all of that out the window. He will be attempting to usurp the Presidency and his career will be justifiably done.
Yes, Cruz is ineligible.
If Huckabee does run....sounds like he could be a solid candidate
If Ted Cruz's father is foreign born, his son is ineligible.
This is getting beyond absurd. Another conservative publication cites the Nationality Act as proof that foreign born persons are eligible to be president under Article II Section I Clause 5. Never mind the fact that there's been numerous attempts to amend Article II in order to allow such persons to be eligible for the presidency.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo commented:
Your and Mr. Conterio’s reliance on a naturalization Act of Congress to prove that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen is misplaced. At best, you have established that Ted Cruz is a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” under a naturalization Act of Congress. But under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, being a “Citizen of the United States,” for any person born after the adoption of the Constitution, is not sufficient to be eligible to be President. Rather, such a person, which includes Ted Cruz, must prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.” A naturalization Act of Congress does not establish who is a natural born citizen. There were no Act of Congress in place when the Framers drafted and adopted the Constitution and so they surely could not have relied upon any such act to define a natural born citizen. But even if any such Act was in place which clearly none were, the Framers did not rely on any such act for their definition of a natural born citizen. Rather, as both Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) confirmed, the Framers relied upon the common law to define a natural born citizen when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. They also informed that that common law defined a natural born citizen as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens. You have not presented any evidence that Cruz satisfies this common law definition which Minor and Wong Kim Ark confirmed was adopted by the Framers.
Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark and Rogers v. Bellei (1971) explained that any person who is born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents does not automatically become a citizen of the United States by descent from the parents. Rather, the Court explained that it is only through the grace of a naturalization Act of Congress that such a person is accepted as a “citizen” of the United States and that Congress has the power to impose conditions for the acquisition and retention of that citizenship, and even the power to deny such citizenship all together. A person subject to Congress’s power to grant or withhold citizenship is not a natural born citizen under the Constitution which denies Congress such power and gives it only the power to naturalize.
Senator Ted Cruz is a naturalized "citizen" of the United States "at birth" by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress. See Wong Kim Ark; Bellei (both explain that a person born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents can become a U.S. citizen only through a naturalization Act of Congress). He is not a natural born citizen by virtue of the common law upon which the Framers relied to define a natural born citizen. Under that common law, a natural born citizen was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. Being born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father, Cruz cannot satisfy that presidential eligibility definition which still existing under the Constitution today. He is therefore not a natural born citizen and not eligible to be President.
You and Ted Cruz have failed to carry your burden of proof to demonstrate that Cruz is a natural born citizen. Hence, Cruz is not a natural born citizen and not eligible to be President.
Now let us move onto Mr. Obama, who is the reason you and other Obots commenting have emerged from your den to come here and comment favorably for Senator Cruz. Concerning Wong Kim Ark, the case did not define a natural born citizen any differently than Minor did. Minor said that under the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution a natural born citizen was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. Wong Kim Ark cited and quoted Minor approvingly on citizenship. What Wong Kim Ark did do is answer the Fourteenth Amendment question left open by Minor. Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen and so Minor did not have to address the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment which both Minor and Wong Kim Ark said did not define a natural born citizen. Since Wong was not born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents like Virginia Minor was, Wong Kim Ark had to determine if he was a “citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. There was no dispute that Wong was born in the United States. The problem was deciding whether he was born "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. The Court relied upon the colonial English common law to determine that since he was not born in the country to a foreign diplomat or a member of an invading army (the only exceptions under the English common law to the jus soli rule that any child born in the King's dominion was a natural-born subject), he was born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark never held that Wong was a natural born citizen and it did not need to. Furthermore, I can see that you do not know that the holding of a case is found neither in the dissenting opinion of the decision nor in the argument of counsel.
Hence, de facto President Barack Obama, who was presumably born in the United States to a U.S. citizen mother, but to a non-U.S. citizen father, is also not a natural born citizen. He may be under Wong Kim Ark a "citizen" of the United States "at birth" by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, which does not define a natural born citizen. But he is not a natural born citizen by virtue of the common law that does define a natural born citizen.
Having had your arse handed to you, now you can go back to the Fogbrain whence you came.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Attorney Apuzzo blogs at http://puzo1.blogspot.com
"Beyond absurd" is an understatement when considering the other onslaughts of our society which includes forced refugee-resettlement-immigration-amnesty of the current administration, anchor babies, and the new wave of birth tourisms.
Refugee Resettlement Watch:
'Hurry! Get those New Americans their citizenship before September 2016. ...'
' ... the Obama plan to replace (old) Americans with New Americans. ... the seeding plan ...'
75 Republicans Voted With Democrats To Fund Obama's Amnesty - Remember These Names:
California Apartments Raided In Federal Investigation Of Chinese Birth Tourism:
"...The children will be American citizens, entitled to birth certificates and passports - and, when they turn 21, able to help their parents become legal residents of the United States." ...
I WOULD LOVE TO GO BUT LIVE IN BOISE ID AND I HAVE DONE MY DUE DILIGENCE FROM HERE
If you wish to bring a fight that will be seen, find those in Office that will seek a forum not used but it is your Constitutional Laws and respect that is at hand.
It is made clear here: http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/profiles/blogs/taliban-drug-deal...
To put it bluntly, you have no choice, and failure is not a option, or England as well as America will face a war of terrorism of un-seen proportions.