GA GOP Passes Resolution Opposing Common Core

GOP official: Party should have taken up Common Core but message was sent: Wrong standards for Georgia 

GOP debate on Common Core avoided By Maureen Downey

Judy Craft is a Gwinnett County resident who served on the State Resolutions Committee at the state GOP convention in Athens this past weekend representing the 7th Congressional District.

She wrote this piece in response to the failure of the GOP convention to take up a resolution opposing the Common Core State Standards. A standoff on the standards, which have the support of Republican Gov. Nathan Deal and state Superintendent John Barge,  was deflected, according to my AJC colleague Jim Galloway, because of a political maneuver
By Judy Craft

On Friday and Saturday, Republican delegates descended on Athens like a herd of elephants.  More than 1,600 voting delegates and several hundred guests came to meet candidates, to hear from elected officials, to vote on party leaders, and to do the work of the party concerning rules and resolutions. I had the honor of serving on the State Resolutions Committee for the 7th Congressional District. The purpose of a resolution is to send messages to elected officials as to what the grassroots wants to be addressed or dealt with.

The latest education topic in the country these days is Common Core.  It was sold quickly, much like Obamacare, in that states had to commit to the national education program before they found out what was in it.

The hottest resolution for the Georgia Republican Party was likewise, Common Core. Eight of 14 Congressional Districts passed resolutions on to the state convention opposing Common Core.  Sen. William Ligon, R-Brunswick, introduced legislation this year, SB 167, to withdraw Georgia from Common Core and the national PAARC testing. 

Here are some of the highlights of the “hottest” Republican resolution sent forward to the state convention.

The resolution described how the Common Core scheme violates the constitutional principle that the control of education is left to the states and the people. Participation required Georgia to adopt common standards in K-12 English language arts and math and to commit to implementing the aligned assessments developed by a consortium of states with federal money, all without the consent of the people exercised through their legislative branch.

With respect to the alleged “rigor” of the Common Core standards, the resolution recognized that “the Common Core Standards have been evaluated by educational experts and were determined to be no better than Georgia’s previous performance standards and according to key members of the Validation Committee, the standards were even inferior.”

The resolution addressed privacy concerns, stating that “The Race to the Top grant conditions also require the collection and sharing of massive amounts of student-level data through the PARCC agreement which violates student privacy.” 

The resolution further recognized that “the push to nationalize standards will inevitably lead to more centralization of education in violation of federalism and local control and violates the spirit of three federal laws” and “will create new tax burdens to pay for enormous unfunded mandates on our state and local school districts.”

Given all these problems, the resolution urged withdrawal from Common Core and the PAARC testing, a more open and transparent process for adopting curriculum standards, and strict limits on collecting and sharing student data.

The resolution concluded by stating appreciation for Gov. Deal’s executive order on May 15th that took a step in this direction.

In the Resolutions Committee, the resolution passed overwhelmingly. Unfortunately, no resolutions were considered on the convention floor.

While the resolution did not receive the time it deserved at the convention, a strong message was sent in Athens. A battle is brewing as the backlash against Common Core grows. Citizens are realizing that Common Core will ultimately control the curriculum of public schools, charter schools, private schools, religious schools, Catholic schools and home schools.  There is one thing we all care about and that is our kids.  This is the very reason that Common Core was the resolution that needed to be discussed when our party came to do business.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

GEORGIA REPUBLICAN ASSEMBLY PASSES RESOLUTION OPPOSING COMMON CORE

ATLANTA, GEORGIA, February 27, 2013 - "The membership of the Georgia Republican Assembly unanimously voted to pass the following resolution regarding the Common Core curriculum", said GRA President Julianne Thompson.

She continued, “This national curriculum will not only result in significantly lowered educational standards, but will erode local and parental control over children’s educations. The power to educate our children is not granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution, and we strongly call on our legislators and our Governor to reject any policies or procedures based on the Common Core Standards Initiative.”

GEORGIA REPUBLICAN ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION OPPOSING
COMMON CORE

WHEREAS, high student performance and closing the achievement gap is fundamentally linked to an overall reform of our public education system through a strong system of accountability and transparency built on state standards; and

WHEREAS, the responsibility for the education of each child of this nation primarily lies with parents, supported by locally elected school boards and state governments; and

WHEREAS, in 2009 and 2010, the State was offered the chance to compete for education funding through the “Race to the Top” program created by the U. S. Department of Education (“ED”); and

WHEREAS, the only way to achieve a score in the competition sufficient to qualify for funding was to agree to “participation in a consortium of States that ... [i]s working toward jointly developing and adopting a common set of K-12 standards...”; and

WHEREAS, the only such “common set of K-12 standards” existent at that time, or since, is known as the Common Core State Standards Initiative (“CCSSI”) and was developed without a grant of authority from any state; and

WHEREAS, the CCSSI standards were released in June 2010, and to meet the ED “Race to the Top” requirements the State had only 60 days to evaluate them and agree to adopt them; and

WHEREAS, local education officials, school leaders, teachers, and parents were not included in the discussion, evaluation and preparation of the CCSSI standards that would affect students in this state; and

WHEREAS, citizens had no opportunity to review and comment on the final version of CCSSI standards, and states were not offered an option to modify those standards before their adoption; and

WHEREAS, no empirical evidence indicates that centralized education standards result in higher student achievement; and

WHEREAS, adoption of the CCSSI standards would force several states to lower the rigor and quality of their standards; and

WHEREAS, the National Assessment of Educational Progress national test already exists and allows comparisons of academic achievement to be made across the states, without the necessity of imposing national standards, curricula, or assessments; and

WHEREAS, imposing a set of national standards is likely to lead to the imposition of a national curriculum and national assessment upon the various states, in violation of the General Education Provisions Act, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; and the Department of Education Organization Act and

WHEREAS, claims from the Common Core Initiative that the CCSSI standards will not dictate what teachers teach in the classroom are refuted by language in the standards as written; and

WHEREAS, common standards will lessen the ability for local stakeholders to innovate and continue to make improvements over time; and

WHEREAS, when no less than 22 states face budget shortfalls and Race to the Top funding for states is limited, $350 million for consortia to develop new assessments aligned with the CSCSI standards will not cover the entire cost of overhauling state accountability systems, which includes implementation of standards and testing and associated professional development and curriculum restructuring; and

WHEREAS, special interest groups can manipulate the vulnerability of the centralized decision making that governs common standards and lower the standards’ rigor and quality over time to suit their priorities;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the GEORGIA REPUBLICAN ASSEMBLY calls upon the State of Georgia to reject any policies and procedures that would be incumbent on the state based on the Common Core State Standards Initiative.

Comments:

Georgia Republican Party Delegates passed this resolution to oppose Common Core.  Now it’s time to see if the Georgia Legislature will ignore the resolution or pass a law in January 2014.  Let your legislators know how you want them to address the Resolution Opposing Common Core and the Resolution Opposing Regionalism. They will ignore these if you let them.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
 

 

State GOP Adopts Resolution Opposing Regionalism

State GOP Adopts Resolution Opposing Regionalism

Published June 25, 2013 | By admin Media Contact
Field Searcy 678-525-7072

Supports coordination like HB 195, allowing county governments to act on projects of mutual interest.

June 25, 2013, Roswell, GA – This past weekend, the Georgia Republican Party State Committee met to complete the business of adopting resolutions. Key among them was a resolution opposing mandated regionalism.

Regionalism was thrust upon the state in form of the Transportation Investment Act of 2010, known as T-SPLOST, instituting regional governance and taxation.

Even though T-SPLOST was handily defeated in most regions last summer, the law is still on the books and can be reintroduced to the voters in the future. The Transportation Leadership Coalition believes another T-SPLOST referendum using the same flawed law will only produce more anger and distrust from the voters.

Regionalism diminishes the local control and authority of local governments or self-government through “home rule” as provided for in the Georgia Constitution. “The whole point of local control and self-governance is that local elected representatives can be held accountable by the voter-taxpayer,” said Jack Staver, Chairman of the Transportation Leadership Coalition. “Throwing a group of counties into a one-size-fits-all regional scenario against their will is not a recipe for metro Atlanta’s success.”

In addition to the opposition to regional governance, the resolution supports State Representative Ed Setzler’s HB 195 introduced in the 2013 Georgia General Assembly. HB 195 allows counties with mutual interests to work on regional-type projects without the mandated regional government structure of the Transportation Investment Act.

Under HB 195, the duly elected county commission or city council of two or more adjoining counties work together to propose projects of mutual interest that can be brought to the voters for approval in a local tax referendum.

The GOP resolution requests that formal action be taken by the Governor, Lt. Governor, Speaker of the House, and the Georgia General Assembly to dissolve the 12 Regional Commissions for purposes of taxation with the application to the Transportation Investment Act of 2010.

RepealRegionalism.com aims to educate the citizens of Georgia on the dangers of state mandated regional governance and the hazards of the unelected and unaccountable system. A copy of the GOP resolution as adopted can be found on RepealRegionalism.com under the articles tab.

About Transportation Leadership Coalition, LLC

Transportation Leadership Coalition, LLC, is a grassroots, all-volunteer organization, created in the belief that the State of Georgia can do a much better job of transportation planning. Transportation Leadership Coalition, LLC encourages the citizens of Georgia to become involved in their local governments to avoid the trappings of appointed regional government agencies. We know that if Georgians understand the facts about mandated regionalism, they will overwhelmingly reject it.

Source: Web: www.RepealRegionalism.com Facebook: www.Facebook.com/RepealRegionalism

 

GAGOP Convention Resolution 8: Opposing Regionalism Posted on June 1, 2013 6:39 PM by Todd Rehm

A Resolution Opposing “Regionalism”, which Violates the Georgia Constitution; and Supporting the Republican Form of Government

WHEREAS, Article IV, Section IV of the Constitution “guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.” A republican form of government is one in which sovereignty rests with the people and representatives are chosen by the people to represent them in public matters via a constitution; and

WHEREAS, under the Georgia Constitution there are no provisions for the creation of 12 special districts and 36 councils managed by the Department of Community Affairs and the Georgia Department of Transportation known as “regionalism;” and these districts are ruled in part by governing councils who were not elected to serve on a regional council but rather appointed by virtue of their county commission or city mayor seat; and

WHEREAS, “regionalism” diminishes the local control and authority of county and city governments for self-government through “home rule” as provided for in the Georgia Constitution, Article IX Section II; and

WHEREAS, voters living in city municipalities have greater representation on these councils than voters living in unincorporated parts of counties, violating the “one person, one vote” principle and the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause; and

WHEREAS, the “Transportation Investment Act of 2010” (known as T-SPLOST) instituted regional government and regional taxation, but was soundly defeated in 9 of 12 regions; and

WHEREAS, a bill, HB 195, has been introduced in the Georgia General Assembly to allow counties to cross over boundaries to work on regional projects with other counties, without the regional government structures of the “Transportation Investment Act of 2010.”

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the Georgia Republican Party reaffirms its commitment to the “one person, one vote” principle, the Constitution and the republican form of government, and does hereby request that formal action be taken by the Governor, Lt. Governor, Speaker of the House, and the Georgia General Assembly to dissolve the 12 Regional Commissions for purposes of taxation with the application to the Transportation Investment Act of 2010 (TIA).

Source: Georgia Pundit, 6/1/13

Comments:

The lack of coverage on the Repeal Regionalism Resolution is telling.  Unless Georgia Legislators are contacted to support legislation to repeal Georgia regionalism laws, and GA GOP Party Delegates who approved this resolution, nothing will happen.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader, Transportation Leadership Coalition Member

 

Obamacare Implementation Postponed for Businesses

Treasury Department Delays Employer Shared Responsibility and Insurer Reporting Requirements by One Year

Late in the day on July 2nd, the Obama Administration stated that it will postpone the employer shared responsibility mandate and insurer reporting requirements for one year. As a result of the delay, any employer shared responsibility payments will not apply until 2015. The delay is based on the Administration’s recognition that the insurer reporting requirements – the steps businesses have to take to show they are complying with the rules — were complex. The reporting requirements are necessary to determine which employers would have been subject to an employer shared responsibility penalty. The Administration recognizes that it would be impractical for the employer mandate to go into effect before the reporting requirements are in place.

Source: <http://ajg.adobeconnect.com/hcr_070213a/>

 

 

Fixing Our Mismanaged Economy

Free Economy & the Gold Standard

Herman Talmadge III posted in New Georgia Republican Leadership for Principles above Politicians

A fully free banking system and fully consistent gold standard have not as yet been achieved. But prior to World War I, the banking system in the United States (and in most of the world) was based on gold and even though governments intervened occasionally, banking was more free than controlled. Periodically, as a result of overly rapid credit expansion, banks became loaned up to the limit of their gold reserves, interest rates rose sharply, new credit was cut off, and the economy went into a sharp, but short-lived recession. (Compared with the depressions of 1920 and 1932, the pre-World War I business declines were mild indeed.) It was limited gold reserves that stopped the

unbalanced expansions of business activity, before they could develop into the post-World War I type of disaster. The readjustment periods were short and the economies quickly reestablished a sound basis to resume expansion.

Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy's tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government's promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets. A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a gold

standard is severely limited. The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which — through a complex series of steps — the banks accept in place of tangible assets and
treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets. The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy's books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods.

The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.

http://www.facebook.com/l/jAQFiDoGFAQFcl7h3M6Cj6OMqhSCQ9YqfECJDJSnlP9KahA/constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm

Alan Greenspan, Gold and Economic Freedom (1966)

An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense — perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire — that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrume...

Reply to this email to comment on this post.

http://www.facebook.com/n/?groups%2Fnewgagopleaders%2Fpermalink%2F483470498402718%2F&mid=83d01b2G2238f8faGbc29944G96&bcode=1.1372783748.AblqOKX35VzGCJ6o&n_m=ntl%40mindspring.com

=======================================

Reply to this email to add a comment. Change your notification settings:

http://www.facebook.com/n/?settings&tab=notifications&section=group_notification&mid=83d01b2G2238f8faGbc29944G96&bcode=1.1372783748.AblqOKX35VzGCJ6o&n_m=ntl%40mindspring.com

 

Headwind on Jobs

Manufacturing Grows at Slowest Pace in 8 Months as Hiring Stalls

U.S. manufacturing activity grew in June at its slowest pace in eight months as overseas demand dried up and firms took on the fewest new workers in more than three years, a survey showed on Monday.

Financial data firm Markit said its final U.S. Manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index stood at 51.9 in June, below 52.3 in May and a preliminary June estimate of 52.2.

A reading above 50 indicates expansion in the sector.

Editor's Note: Economist Warns: 50% Unemployment, 100% Inflation Possible

The output index rose to 53.5 from 52.7 but domestic orders were little changed and orders from abroad fell at their fastest rate since the height of the financial crisis in mid-2009.

The employment sub-index fell to 49.9, the lowest since January 2010 and "consistent with roughly 30,000 jobs being lost per month in the manufacturing sector," according to Markit chief economist Chris Williamson said. It stood at 52.6 in May.

"Firms are responding to the increasingly worrying order book trend by pulling back on recruitment," Williamson said.

That could complicate things for the Federal Reserve, which said it could begin scaling back its massive stimulus program later this year provided the economy does not lose momentum.

Economists polled by Reuters expect growth in the broader U.S. economy to have slowed to 1.7 percent in the second quarter from 1.8 percent in the first, though most say it should pick up steam in the second half.

The U.S. jobless rate stood at 7.6 percent in May, the latest month for which figures were available. Fed officials recently said they expect it to fall to between 6.5 percent to 6.8 percent by the fourth quarter of next year.

Source: © 2013 Thomson/Reuters. Monday, 7-1-13
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/manufacturing-factory-hiring-markit/2013/07/01/id/512752#ixzz2XsnZPTM8

Comments:

Declining global demand adds to the elimination of full-time jobs due to Obamacare premium increases and fines.  Real unemployment is 25% due to excessive legal immigration at 1.8 million a year and systemic illegal immigration. It would be worse but for job gains in oil and gas fracking in the upper Midwest.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Tea Party called ‘top terror threat’ in U.S.

Poll: Obama supporters fear political movement more than radical Islam

(Rasmussen Reports) -  Half of all voters consider radical Muslims the bigger terrorist threat facing the nation, but supporters of President Obama consider the Tea Party to be as big a danger.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 51% of Likely U.S. Voters consider radical Muslims to be the bigger threat to the United States today. Thirteen percent (13%) view the Tea Party that way, and another 13% consider other political and religious extremists to be the larger danger. Six percent (6%) point to local militia groups. Two percent (2%) see the Occupy Wall Street movement as the bigger terrorist threat.

However, among those who approve of the president’s job performance, just 29% see radical Muslims as the bigger threat. Twenty-six percent (26%) say it’s the Tea Party that concerns them most. Among those who Strongly Approve of the president, more fear the Tea Party than radical Muslims.

As for those who disapprove of Obama’s performance, 75% consider radical Muslims to be the bigger terrorist threat. Just one percent (1%) name the Tea Party.

How did you do in this week’s Rasmussen Challenge? Check the leaderboard  .

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on June 22-23, 2013 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Interestingly, while the Occupy movement was allegedly targeting the “one percent”, upper income Americans are more likely than others to see the Tea Party as the bigger terror threat. Among those who earn six-figure incomes, 21% consider the Tea Party the bigger threat, while just two percent (2%) say the same of the Occupy movement. Among Americans who earn less than $30,000 a year, 12% see the Tea Party as the bigger threat, and seven percent (7%) say that description best applies to the Occupy movement.

The Tea Party received a boost in popularity earlier this year following revelations that the Internal Revenue Service targeted it and other conservative groups. Most voters believe the targeting was politically motivated and that the decision was made in Washington.

Conservatives overwhelmingly see radical Muslims as the greater terror threat. Liberals are fairly evenly divided between radical Muslims and the Tea Party.

Twenty percent (20%) of government workers see the Tea Party as the nation’s bigger terror threat. Twelve percent (12%) of private sector workers hold that view.

Most voters today believe the federal government is a threat to individual rights.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of voters think it is at least somewhat likely that terrorist groups will soon gain access to nuclear weapons, including 34% who feel it is Very Likely.

However, 57% believe economic challenges represent the biggest threat to the United States. Half as many (27%) see terrorist attacks as the biggest threat.

Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.

Source: Tea Party.org, Rasmussen Report  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2013/26_of_obama_supporters_view_tea_party_as_nation_s_top_terror_threat

Comments:

You will absolutely hate and fear the Tea Party at all if you’re a one-world-government Marxist or a global Bankster.  You won’t like the Tea Party at all if you think global warming is real, or the UN is our friend, or the Federal Reserve helps our economy.  You won’t like the Tea Party much if you profit from “big government” or don’t like the U.S Constitution as written.  You won’t like the Tea Party if you’re not too bright and somebody told you not to like the Tea Party.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

 

 

Obama’s ineligibility was widely known

Sharing from a Madison Forum Member:

All, thanks to Lee Norman, Madison Forum Member, for the below information.  We have long known that Barack Obama was and is not eligible to be President of the United States.  Please see the details below of what was known prior to his first election by both Parties.  All laws and nominations signed and issued by Obama are not legal and will have to be nullified.

David Welden, Madison Forum Member, challenged Obama's eligibility solely on the issue of "Natural Born Citizen."  The evidence was accepted in Georgia's Administrative Court, and Secretary of State Brian Kemp upheld that decision that Obama was eligible to be president, as did the Fulton County Superior Court and the Georgia Supreme Court.  Obama's father was never a U.S. citizen.  It is an open and shut case, but we could not obtain an honest ruling.  Those who ignored the evidence at all levels of government must be held accountable.  Please forward to your lists.

Michael Opitz, President                                    
http://www.themadisonforum.com                 "Knowledge is power... Ignorance is slavery."

---

CONGRESS KNEW OBAMA WAS INELIGIBLE...SIX YEARS BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED!

http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/07/congress-knew-obama-was-ineligiblesix.html

Congressional records reveal a viral premeditation within the liberal ranks of our government to alter fundamental Constitutional eligibility protections in order to covertly assist an ineligible Obama candidacy and his usurpation of America's executive power.

Some diseases are so viral, so invasive, so insidious, so contagious...that they eventually infect what most would believe is the most sanitary part of any body. Even the once honored sovereignty of America's highest legislative body is now coming under the attack of the disease of multi-culturalism and liberal extremism.

Congressional records show that on eight separate occasions over six years, between 2003 and 2008, legislators attempted to eliminate or change the definition of the "Natural Born" eligibility clause of Article 2 of the Constitution in order to remove restrictions and, thereby, create legal justifications supporting Obama's unlawful candidacy for President.

We now know what members of congress knew about Obama's ineligibility, and when they knew it.

In a recently produced documentary, Carl Gallups, a senior pastor at Hickory Hammock Baptist Church for more than two decades with a ten year professional background in law enforcement, presents documented evidence showing that members of congress submitted repetitive, coordinated proposals to alter the 'natural-born' eligibility clause.

Gallups also serves on the board of regents at the University of Mobile and hosts several weekly radio programs in the northwest Florida region.

Gallups' documentary shows that between June 11, 2003 until Feb. 28, 2008, there were eight attempts to circumvent the Natural-born eligibility clause of the U.S. Constitution.

1. On June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Arkansas, introduced House Joint Resolution 59 (HJR 59) which attempted to Constitutionally change the understood historical definition of a 'natural-born' eligibility for the U.S. Presidency in order to "permit persons who are not natural born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of president and vice president." The resolution did not make it to a senate vote at that time.

2. Then, on Sept. 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, introduced HJR67, which would have defined presidential eligibility the same as Snyder's proposal, only the requirement to be a citizen in Conyers' bill was actually lowered to 20 years, not the more stringent 35 years. Conyers' bill was also rebuffed prior to an official vote. However, the introduction of two such proposals within a mere four month period reveals that Congressional leadership was conscious of the issue of Presidential eligibility prior to Obama's candidacy. Whether these acts were put into motion at this time specifically for the benefit of Obama, exclusively, is unclear, but highly suspicious.

3. Then, in an attempt to contend with the obvious attack against the natural born citizenship clause, on Feb. 25, 2004, Sen. Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma, introduced Senate Bill 2128 which also failed to hit the eligibility requirement target. It defined a 'natural-born citizen' as someone who was born in and is subject to the United States." This was not the understanding of the framers of the Constitution. Exhibiting the same ignorance as other legislators, Nickles failed to acknowledge that the intended purpose of the natural-born eligibility clause was to ensure that the sovereignty, identity and loyalty of a presidential candidate was measured by not only a geographic birth under the protection of the U.S. Constitution but also the possession of natural natal biology afforded by birth to TWO parents who are U.S. citizens at the time of conception AND the preservation of the continuity of that citizenship status until election.

Five months later, on July 27, 2004, Barack Obama delivered his keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention which essentially and suddenly made America aware of him at a national level.

4. Then, just two months later, on Sept. 15, 2004, House Representative Dana Rohrabacher, R-California, submitted HJR 104, which audaciously attempted "to make eligible for the office of president a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years." Rohrabacher's fallow resolution attempted to completely ignore the Constitution's requirement that a president had to be a natural born citizen. The resolution was rejected on its face.

5. Four months later, on Jan. 4, 2005, Conyers pushed yet another unwanted attempt to change the definition of 'natural born citizen' in HJR 02, which was the exact same as Rohrabacher's.

6. Just one month later, on Feb. 1, 2005, Rohrabacher submitted a revised version of her previous resolution in HJR 15 which would require only 20 years of citizenship to be eligible for the office of president.

7. Two months later, on April 14, 2005, Snyder resubmitted his bill under another proposal, HJR42, requiring 35 years of U.S. citizenship to be eligible. Interestingly, it has long since been established that Barack Obama's return to the U.S. from Indonesia took place in approximately 1970-1971.

At that time, if Obama had re-naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, this resolution would have made him just eligible in 2005.

Barack Obama announced his candidacy for the U.S. presidency on February 10, 2007.  The Iowa Caucus is held on January 3, 2008.

8. Finally, in Feb. 28, 2008, after seven failures to change the natural-born eligibility requirement, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., attempted to parasite SB 2678 with the Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, an amendment clarifying what "natural-born citizen" includes. Obama and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were sponsors of this bill.     Liberal democrats in Congress were in an obvious array to push against this long-standing Constitutional mandate at the time, coincidentally, when the first unnatural born presidential candidate, Barack Obama, began his political career at the national level.

Why?

Who or what was pulling their strings?

As reported by Bob Unruh of World Net Daily, Gallups' documentary then demonstrates that "..on April 10, 2008, being "unable to alter or remove" the natural-born eligibility requirement for Barack Obama..", the Senate engaged an active deception by distracting the growing consciousness of Obama's ineligibility by introducing Senate Resolution 511, which addressed Sen. John McCain's qualifications as a 'natural-born citizen.'

Overcompensating for their failure to validate Obama, the Senate feigned generosity for McCain in hopes of making his eligibility the target of attention, but not criticism, by declaring him eligible as a "natural born citizen".

Senate leadership desired to avoid making McCain's eligibility the subject of criticism because they knew that if McCain was not eligible, Barack Obama was certainly not eligible.

The weight of scrutiny against a worthier McCain would have caused Obama's campaign to fail, politically, if not legally.

However, in what can only be described as complete legislative incompetence, SR511 writers and sponsors specifically stated McCain was eligible because he was "...born in a territory under treaty with the U.S." and, therefore, under the protection of the U.S. Constitution and, most importantly, "because he was the son of TWO U.S. citizen parents."

The language of Resolution 511 actually and explicitly commits McCain to presidential eligibility because of the citizenship of his parentage. Both of McCain's parents were U.S. citizens. This is a qualification which Barack Obama does not possess.

Shockingly, Obama voted in favor of Resolution 511 knowing he, himself, was not eligible under these same metrics.

Barack Obama voted in favor of a formal resolution stating that a presidential candidate was Constitutionally eligible because the candidate was defined as being 'natural born' by the fact that the candidate's birth was, in fact, to TWO U.S. citizen parent.

Obama's father was never a U.S. citizen and his mother was only 18 at the time of his birth which disqualified transfer of citizenship if the birth occurred outside the U.S

Obama's qualifications were never reviewed or conferred upon under any similar resolution, nor were his qualifications to be president ever vetted by any federal authority, legislative body or formal inquiry, as were John McCain's. Not ever.

Unruh continues: "After his election, Gallups points out, Obama held a secret meeting with eight of the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court - from which no public information was released.

The meeting was held even though there were legal challenges in which Obama was a defendant pending before the Supreme Court at the time.

The attorneys for the plaintiffs never were told of the meeting or invited to participate in what critics have described as extrajudicial contact between the court and a defendant."  

Consider this very carefully, sons and daughters of vintage America. Barack Obama, an illegally appointed president under suspicion of violating the U.S. Constitution, actually engaged personal contact with eight sitting supreme court judges who were actively considering pending cases regarding his ineligibility as president, in covert meetings, without the presence of any opposing legal representation.

The suspect was allowed to meet alone with very authorities who were presiding in law suits against him, who have the supreme legal power to dismiss, overrule or uphold these lawsuits with binding jurisdictions, without any record of the content or accounting of attendance of those meetings, and without any representation of those filing complaints against him.

This level of corruption and judicial tampering is unprecedented in American history.

Ironically, only Justice Scalia, the longest serving conservatively oriented judge, appointed by Republican President, Ronald Reagan, in 1986, was absent from this secret meeting. Scalia has often been hailed as the "conservative intellectual anchor" of the supreme court.

If any one of the nine supreme court justices would have held opposition to Obama's illegal presidency, Scalia would be the first.

He was either not allowed in the meeting, or recused himself for reasons of deniability about the subject.

Unruh continues, "WND previously reported on another link between Obama and a campaign to change the constitutional provision.

It came from an associate lawyer in a Chicago-based firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then-Sen. Barack Obama.

She advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen, calling the requirement "stupid" and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic."

The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate.

Herlihy was listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis.

A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cited his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., on the corporate website.

The article by Herlihy was available online under law review articles from Kent University when it originally was the subject of reports but later was removed.

Herlihy's published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.

The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the "stupidest provision" in the Constitution, "undecidedly un-American," "blatantly discriminatory" and the "Constitution's worst provision," Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle."

She concludes that the "emotional" reasons to oppose changing the Constitution will prevail over the "rational" reasons demanding a change.

The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstanding about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization,

Herlihy wrote:  "Although this argument is admittedly circular, because globalization is the thing that makes the need to abolish the requirement more and more persuasive, Americans' subsequent perceptions about globalization are the very things that will prevent Americans from embracing the idea of eliminating the natural born requirement.

"Logical Americans are looking for a reason to ignore the rational reasons promoted by globalization so that they may vote based on their own emotions and instincts," she wrote.

In the body of her argument, Herlihy said the constitutional provision simply is outdated.

"Considering that the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the current stability of the American government and the intense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates the possibility of a 'foreigner' coming to America, becoming a naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become president, and somehow using the presidency to directly benefit his homeland," she wrote.

"The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is outdated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty," she wrote.

Many of the reasons for keeping the limit, she wrote, "are based primarily on emotion."  

Or, Ms. Herlihy, perhaps you must be forced to accept that it was simply a wise measure correctly foreseen as necessary to prevent a lying, criminal usurper, perhaps like Barack Obama, from assuming power over the value, work and lives of the greatest people in world history.

There is nothing outdated in any doctrine devised to preserve that.

Is there no limit to the degeneracy of this current political roster into which they will descend in order to achieve their psychotic agenda and control over the blood-ransomed freedom, value and power of the only true decent and prosperous people of humanity?

Wake up, vintage America.  Your nation is under attack from within.

Liars and deceivers are stealing your daily lives, creeping closer into your personal boundaries and mocking the screaming blood of your pristine warriors.

It is time all who consider themselves decent and sovereign to reject Barack Obama as the criminal usurper that he is.

Source: The Madison Forum,  http://www.themadisonforum.com   

Comments: 

The silence of the entire Republican Party and its elected officials in 2008 and again in 2012 is an indictment of their untrustworthiness.  All of these elected officials must be removed through the electoral process in 2014 and 2016.  As for Democrats, they are damaged beyond repair.  We all must restore and reform our parties to reverse our economic decline.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader