Taitz, Donofrio and Obama
I have watched from the sideline as everyone jumps aboard the Taitz-Donofrio Express Train – hoping for a journey into an Obama-free White House. The latest stop on the track is QUO WARRANTO – a sleepy little place where a US District Court in DC supposedly can convene a jury and throw the usurper out the door, with a kick in the butt for good measure. This is based on Leo Donofrio’s assertion that a DC Municipal Code gives the DC court exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving nationally elected officials usurping a federal position such as President. Both Orly Taitz and Donofrio have filed suits in multiple states, including California and New Jersey making these arguments.
My question is this:
Q: If Donofrio and Taitz really believe their contention that DC Municipal Code § 16-3501 gives the US District Court for the District of Columbia the power to throw Obama out of office, why are they wasting time and resources making that argument everywhere but that court? Why not march down to the courthouse at 333 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 and file their quo warranto petition?
A: Because the petition would not survive the first motions hearing, and their 15 minutes of fame would be over. This is a jurisdictional question and the judge has the authority and duty to address the issue sua sponte, without relying on the opposing side to file an objection. He does not have to wait for Obama to be served or file an answer.
Here are the quo warranto statutes:
§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.
A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States , civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action. (Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 602, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 562, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3501; 1981 Ed., § 16-3501.)
§ 16-3502. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.
The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person. The writ may not be issued on the relation of a third person except by leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly verified setting forth the grounds of the application, or until the relator files a bond with sufficient surety, to be approved by the clerk of the court, in such penalty as the court prescribes, conditioned on the payment by him of all costs incurred in the prosecution of the writ if costs are not recovered from and paid by the defendant. (Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 602, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 562, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3502; 1981 Ed., § 16-3502.)
§ 16-3503. Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure.
If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States , on the relation of the interested person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to security for costs. (Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 602, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 562, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3503; 1981 Ed., § 16-3503.)
§ 16-3541. Allegations in petition of relator claiming office.
When a quo warranto proceeding is against a person for usurping an office, on the relation of a person claiming the same office, the relator shall set forth in his petition the facts upon which he claims to be entitled to the office.(Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 602, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 563, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3541; 1981 Ed., § 16-3541.)
§ 16-3545. Verdict and judgment.
Where a defendant in a quo warranto proceeding is found by the jury to have usurped, intruded into, or unlawfully held or exercised an office or franchise, the verdict shall be that he is guilty of the act or acts in question, and judgment shall be rendered that he be ousted and excluded therefrom and that the relator recover his costs. (Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 603, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 563, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n).)
Here are some hard and fast rules of statutory construction:
• It is presumed that a statute will be interpreted so as to be internally consistent. A particular section of the statute shall not be divorced from the rest of the act.
• The ejusdem generis (Latin for "of the same kind") rule applies to resolve the problem of giving meaning to groups of words where one of the words is ambiguous or inherently unclear.
• If a statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable construction, courts should choose an interpretation that avoids raising constitutional problems.
• Statutory interpretation should avoid absurdity. The legislature did not intend an absurd or manifestly unjust result.
Donofrio and Taitz are pulling the Quo Warranto sections out of a much larger statute, and interpreting it out of context – thereby twisting its meaning and application so far out of reality that it is unrecognizable. They are arguing for judicial activism – where the judge makes policy despite what the legislature intended. Anyone who buys into that must ask yourself why you didn’t support Sotomayor, and why you hate the Ninth Circuit.
Pub. L. 88-241 and Pub. L. 91-358 were so uncontroversial that both passed by voice vote. Before I get into the legislative histories, ask your self these questions: first, under our constitutional system does it make sense that a lower federal court in one jurisdiction would be given the power to throw an elected official in the executive or legislative branch out of office?; second, does it make sense that a Republican senator or house member would vote to give a DC jury (citizens are 88% Democrat) the power to throw a Republican senator, house member, president or vice president out of office?; third, would these same Republican legislators vote to give a lower court federal judge (all of whom were Democrat appointees at the time) authority over that proceeding?
As you know, the District of Columbia is not considered a state for most statutory purposes. Although it is now Home Rule, many of the non-elected officers in DC are appointed by the US, either through direct operation of congress or via agencies, such as the Dept of Justice. DC being what it is and always shall be has had more than its share of local appointed officials who have been thrown out of office and have refused to leave.
DC was administered exclusively by congress during the relevant times, and local DC ordinances were passed as federal public laws and codified as DC Municipal Code. Pub. L. 88-241 and Pub. L. 91-358 dealt with the organization and subsequent reorganization of the DC municipal court system, dividing authority over what would be sent to the local DC court system and what would be handled by the federal courts on behalf of DC. The constitution requires that the federal system deal with problems related to actions of federal appointees, including those who usurped, intruded into, or unlawfully held or exercised an office or franchise overseeing DC government as a federal appointee. The quo warranto statute in the DC municipal code, § 16-3501 et seq. dealt with the miscreants who would not leave office when told to by an incoming administration.
One major clue that Pub. L. 88-241 and Pub. L. 91-358 apply ONLY to DC governmental issues and not to the rest of the world is that the code sections are codified in the DC Municipal Code and NOT the United States Code.
Writs of quo warranto are writs of public right in common law, and in early US jurisprudence were filed against public officials when the constitutionality of their actions were challenged. They were originally covered in the All Writs Act, but are now nearly extinct in the federal system under the Federal Rules of Judicial Procedure and the Anti-Injunction Act.
The particular quo warranto statute we are talking about does not cover any national elected official - only officials appointed by the US to positions overseeing DC and DC government. Plus, the private action Donofrio and Taitz are trying to pursue is arguably blocked by Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923).
If, by some fluke, the case did make its way to the Circuit Court and the Supreme Court, it most likely be overturned under the theory of separation of powers and an unconstitutional attempt to circumvent the impeachment authority of the legislative branch.
Finally - here are copies of two Hawaii newspapers from, August 13, 1961 where the Hawaii Health Bureau of Statistics info was used to list recorded births. Do you think Dr. Tony Newman and Dr. Raymond Swain jumped into the Time Tunnel and altered history? (For those who were not watching television in 1966-1967 I apologize for the Time Tunnel reference).
My question is this:
Q: If Donofrio and Taitz really believe their contention that DC Municipal Code § 16-3501 gives the US District Court for the District of Columbia the power to throw Obama out of office, why are they wasting time and resources making that argument everywhere but that court? Why not march down to the courthouse at 333 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 and file their quo warranto petition?
A: Because the petition would not survive the first motions hearing, and their 15 minutes of fame would be over. This is a jurisdictional question and the judge has the authority and duty to address the issue sua sponte, without relying on the opposing side to file an objection. He does not have to wait for Obama to be served or file an answer.
Here are the quo warranto statutes:
§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.
A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States , civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action. (Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 602, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 562, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3501; 1981 Ed., § 16-3501.)
§ 16-3502. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.
The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person. The writ may not be issued on the relation of a third person except by leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly verified setting forth the grounds of the application, or until the relator files a bond with sufficient surety, to be approved by the clerk of the court, in such penalty as the court prescribes, conditioned on the payment by him of all costs incurred in the prosecution of the writ if costs are not recovered from and paid by the defendant. (Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 602, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 562, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3502; 1981 Ed., § 16-3502.)
§ 16-3503. Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure.
If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States , on the relation of the interested person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to security for costs. (Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 602, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 562, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3503; 1981 Ed., § 16-3503.)
§ 16-3541. Allegations in petition of relator claiming office.
When a quo warranto proceeding is against a person for usurping an office, on the relation of a person claiming the same office, the relator shall set forth in his petition the facts upon which he claims to be entitled to the office.(Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 602, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 563, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3541; 1981 Ed., § 16-3541.)
§ 16-3545. Verdict and judgment.
Where a defendant in a quo warranto proceeding is found by the jury to have usurped, intruded into, or unlawfully held or exercised an office or franchise, the verdict shall be that he is guilty of the act or acts in question, and judgment shall be rendered that he be ousted and excluded therefrom and that the relator recover his costs. (Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 603, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 563, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n).)
Here are some hard and fast rules of statutory construction:
• It is presumed that a statute will be interpreted so as to be internally consistent. A particular section of the statute shall not be divorced from the rest of the act.
• The ejusdem generis (Latin for "of the same kind") rule applies to resolve the problem of giving meaning to groups of words where one of the words is ambiguous or inherently unclear.
• If a statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable construction, courts should choose an interpretation that avoids raising constitutional problems.
• Statutory interpretation should avoid absurdity. The legislature did not intend an absurd or manifestly unjust result.
Donofrio and Taitz are pulling the Quo Warranto sections out of a much larger statute, and interpreting it out of context – thereby twisting its meaning and application so far out of reality that it is unrecognizable. They are arguing for judicial activism – where the judge makes policy despite what the legislature intended. Anyone who buys into that must ask yourself why you didn’t support Sotomayor, and why you hate the Ninth Circuit.
Pub. L. 88-241 and Pub. L. 91-358 were so uncontroversial that both passed by voice vote. Before I get into the legislative histories, ask your self these questions: first, under our constitutional system does it make sense that a lower federal court in one jurisdiction would be given the power to throw an elected official in the executive or legislative branch out of office?; second, does it make sense that a Republican senator or house member would vote to give a DC jury (citizens are 88% Democrat) the power to throw a Republican senator, house member, president or vice president out of office?; third, would these same Republican legislators vote to give a lower court federal judge (all of whom were Democrat appointees at the time) authority over that proceeding?
As you know, the District of Columbia is not considered a state for most statutory purposes. Although it is now Home Rule, many of the non-elected officers in DC are appointed by the US, either through direct operation of congress or via agencies, such as the Dept of Justice. DC being what it is and always shall be has had more than its share of local appointed officials who have been thrown out of office and have refused to leave.
DC was administered exclusively by congress during the relevant times, and local DC ordinances were passed as federal public laws and codified as DC Municipal Code. Pub. L. 88-241 and Pub. L. 91-358 dealt with the organization and subsequent reorganization of the DC municipal court system, dividing authority over what would be sent to the local DC court system and what would be handled by the federal courts on behalf of DC. The constitution requires that the federal system deal with problems related to actions of federal appointees, including those who usurped, intruded into, or unlawfully held or exercised an office or franchise overseeing DC government as a federal appointee. The quo warranto statute in the DC municipal code, § 16-3501 et seq. dealt with the miscreants who would not leave office when told to by an incoming administration.
One major clue that Pub. L. 88-241 and Pub. L. 91-358 apply ONLY to DC governmental issues and not to the rest of the world is that the code sections are codified in the DC Municipal Code and NOT the United States Code.
Writs of quo warranto are writs of public right in common law, and in early US jurisprudence were filed against public officials when the constitutionality of their actions were challenged. They were originally covered in the All Writs Act, but are now nearly extinct in the federal system under the Federal Rules of Judicial Procedure and the Anti-Injunction Act.
The particular quo warranto statute we are talking about does not cover any national elected official - only officials appointed by the US to positions overseeing DC and DC government. Plus, the private action Donofrio and Taitz are trying to pursue is arguably blocked by Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923).
If, by some fluke, the case did make its way to the Circuit Court and the Supreme Court, it most likely be overturned under the theory of separation of powers and an unconstitutional attempt to circumvent the impeachment authority of the legislative branch.
Finally - here are copies of two Hawaii newspapers from, August 13, 1961 where the Hawaii Health Bureau of Statistics info was used to list recorded births. Do you think Dr. Tony Newman and Dr. Raymond Swain jumped into the Time Tunnel and altered history? (For those who were not watching television in 1966-1967 I apologize for the Time Tunnel reference).
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Walt Bernard on -
Sooner or later a judge will hear the case on its merits.
And the finding will be that BO is a NBC, and fully qualified.
That's when the whole birther movement will fold up like a cheap suitcase.
Just my opinion.
Walt
-
Permalink Reply by Art Leritz; M.D. on -
Thanks for clarification of the dicta. I've researched this to the point where I feel there is at least a case to be heard, but it's not going to happen.
I still think, as I said in the previous post, and my gut confirms, the intent of the framers when they said Natural Born Citizen was: Two US Parents, US soil. . . Sounds logical to me and a damned good idea. Obama can lawyer his way out of this, but I bet if the framers were here, that's what they would say. . If we could talk to them, do you think that's what they would say?
-
Permalink Reply by Barbara Brown Raines on -
Dillon, please read 'Liberty & Tyranny'. . .it will give you a more clear fix on the framers' intent in the wording of the Constitution.
BTW, Jefferson believed that human slavery was a great moral wrong. . .had he not been in such bad financial shape in his later years, he would have freed his slaves.
-
Permalink Reply by Buzz 76 on -
BTW, Jefferson believed that human slavery was a great moral wrong. . .had he not been in such bad financial shape in his later years, he would have freed his slaves.
Sorry, but that simply doesn't make sense -- if something is a great moral wrong, then it is not justified by one's bad financial shape.
If it were, there would be nothing wrong with robbing banks.
Buzz
-
Permalink Reply by SilentNoMore on -
The framers made it quite clear they wanted no one in power whose allegiance was to any country but the United States of America...no dual citizenship, only natural born citizens. Obama's allegiance, through his bowing to others as well as apologizing for everything he can find wrong with the U.S. instead of emphasizing all we have done for other countries in their times of need, clearly points out his allegiance to Islam and the muslims more so than America. He sits in Wright's church for 20 years listening to anti-American garbage, and hung around with American hating Bill Ayers, and now he is doing everything he can to destroy America as we have known it. I would say the framers were pretty smart when they put that 'natural born citizen' in the Constitution. They knew what could go wrong if somebody wasn't totally committed to the U.S. and that is what we are now seeing.
-
Permalink Reply by Steve on
-
The problem here is that the Dept of Health in Hawaii provided the information to newspapers on a regular basis. That is why they have several days of births listed. Because the Dept of Health did NOT screen the info, any info was provided. Hence even an adoption recorded by the Dept of Health would have issued the same info to the papers. There IS no crediible evidence that Stanley Ann was his birth mother. Obama's grandmother Sarah has stated on several occasions that he was born in Kenya, but to whom. Therefore Obama SR could have brought Obama into his marriage with Stanley Ann. And Hawaii would have issued a COLB. Read it all;
http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/the-adoption-of-obama/
-
Permalink Reply by DK on
-
Many an unwed mother has done things like these news announcements to help defer stigma from her child. Where's her marriage certificate?
Why the venom, Jerry?
Are you being paid to do this?
No one here hates you or the person you are worshipping in error. We hate the lack of transparency after being promised the opposite. We hate unconstitutional czars and actions of this congress, and yes, there were a few czars before and we didn't like them either. We hate that our individual sovereignty and state sovereignty are being scoffed at and ignored. We want ACORN to go back where it came from..h.e.double hockey sticks! We want our jobs back...Bush didn't destroy them, Barry's plan did, and they aren't coming back anytime soon. After he promised jobs ! Where are the jobs Jerry?Do you have one of those new invisible jobs ?
We like our healthcare the way it is. It isn't perfect but it's the best in the world. We already have Medicare and Medicaid. People without insurance being admitted to hospitals get a social service worker...who helps them apply if they're eligible. If they're illegally here, they need to go back home! Free handouts are why they're here! A few people falling thru the cracks need help, especially since Barry destroyed their jobs. But 1/3 of America's uninsured make $50,000 or more. They just don't want to pay premiums. Socializing our country is rediculous.
And global warming? Did you never learn anything in science class as a child? Trees "breathe" carbon dioxide...they love the stuff! And their waste product is...are you ready? Oxygen!!! Ding! Ding! Ding! All cap 'n trade advocates should just go plant a garden, or some trees ! Maybe they'll get chiggers. They deserve that ! Or snake bite!
The Birth Certificate Jerry.
He needs to pony up.
I know a growing number of people, all colors of the rainbow, some who voted for the guy and would take it back if they could,who want the real deal BC, no ifs, ands, or buts, and No Substitutes !
Because Republican, Democrat, Independent, or whatever, at the end of the day we're all Americans and we know the rules, and he ain't playin by them !
Barry Boy is uniting our country ! Who would have thought? But he is! Unless you're on his paroll or one of those pinko commies he hangs with. Folks are coming around.
I want Admin to go ahead and start a troll forum. We'd have some real fun with you there !
Get out of the messianic trance guy!
Jesus is coming and Barry ain't him!
-
Permalink Reply by Barbara Brown Raines on
-
I like the Troll Forum idea. . .it IS needed.
ONE QUESTION: WHY HAS OBAMA SPENT OVER ONE MILLION $$s to keep, not only his long-form Birth Certificate but a long list of other documents, sealed, away from public view?
ANSWER THE QUESTION. . . . .WHAT IS UP WITH THIS? This the ONLY qiestion. WHY/////////
-
Permalink Reply by Former Obamista on
-
Why indeed does he need to hide everything???
It should also be pointed out that his academic records might offer evidence that he registered as a foreign student to receive scholarship money for college, and his Harvard records could back up Malcom X's lawyer's (Percy Sutton) assertion, one which he made on an African-American TV program, that Khalid al Mansour, a former Black Panther and financier for a Saudi billionaire, introduced Obama to Sutton (Sutton says that he wrote a letter of recommendation for Obama, which would be in his files, at Mansour's behest) and Mansour was trying to raise money for Obama to attend Harvard.
This guy's got more secrets than a Cold War-era spy!!!!
-
Permalink Reply by Art Leritz; M.D. on
-
I say it daily:
What is he Hiding and Why?
-
Permalink Reply by SilentNoMore on
-
And why do Obama's legal begals threaten the USJF for pursuing the birth certificate issue, threatening to put them out of business. They have been in business for years exposing political crooks, like the Clinton's. The USJF is going to keep pushing, and so am I, with my dying breath. I want to see his birth certificate, his adoption papers, his school funding, all those things he is keeping secret for what purpose other than to hide who he really is. I am looking forward to that OMG moment.
New Podcast 3/17/10
Haiti Disaster Relief
Click HereFollow us on Twitter!
Follow Us on Facebook
Forum
Rep John Boehner's speech last night 1 Reply
Started by Thomas Hohenstein in General, Uncategorized Town Hall. Last reply by Thomas Hohenstein 1 minute ago.
BHO's Mandate to for the american people 1 Reply
Started by Leon in Admin Alerts. Last reply by james reynolds 7 minutes ago.
LETS SEND THEM A MESSAGE/Civil Disobedience 9 Replies
Started by Bill Nelson in An ObamaCare Nationalized Health Care. Last reply by Gail Louise Stoltzfoos 7 minutes ago.
Where do we go from here...? 6 Replies
Started by John A Diefenbach in Admin Alerts. Last reply by Alice Grannas 11 minutes ago.
Make No Mistake, This Is a War for Freedom and We Can Win! ! !
Started by Maxstake in Constitutional Issues 14 minutes ago.
Blog Posts
THUNDER
Posted by Larry G.Cripe on March 22, 2010 at 9:38am
Resurrect the Principles of '98
Posted by Linda Fletcher on March 22, 2010 at 9:33am
CONGRESS BEGINS EASTER VACATION.... WE MUST CONTINUE THE PRESSURE... OBAMACARE WILL NOT BE DELIVERED.
Posted by TONY SALAZAR, SC DIST.#5 COORD; on March 22, 2010 at 9:30am
Abolish the government the Declaration of Independence gives us that right
Posted by mike on March 22, 2010 at 9:29am
America voted for SOCIALISM......
Posted by conservative cowgirl on March 22, 2010 at 9:25am
Latest Activity
REAL CONSERVATIVES
VOTE..in 2010!....Conservative voices from the GRASSROOTS.
A message to all members of REAL CONSERVATIVES
JOIN THE
SWARM OF SCORN
THIS CONGRESSIONAL VACATION!!
MAKE THEM AWARE
...OF YOUR PRESENCE,
RELENTLESSLY!
CLICK HERE…
After the law suits have been filed and have been heard,know this. The health care reform was passed over decent of the majority of the American people there for you may decent to comply with this sham.
There will be many hidden taxes to be set in m…
super!
Resisters teaming together to stop Obama's plans to open our borders and give amnesty to illegal aliens.
Dose anyone know how we can get a list of people running against the dems in each state.
I second your motion Lindy,we need some of the working people to run for office in the state and fed. goverment.
We need some people that will listen to us and do the rigth thing for the peole.
The big banks and corporations are using the government to force everyone into their monopolies. And destroying all competition. Are government is these institutions. We will not get out of this if we comply with their demands. Americans do not make…
I believe this is good advice and I thank you for your voice of reason. I am a hot-headed person who, naturally, would want to do something rash, hasty, probably stupid. Yes, I want to act - and, act now! But I don't want to tarnish the reputation o…
James, We will get no help from federal judges,the CIA, the FBI, DHS or Any One. The only way any of this can be stopped, is by We The People. If We do not act, Our Republic is certain to fall. Our children and grand children will be nothing more th…
as i returned home from work sunday i turned on fox news and fliped from the race to the news. i continued to watch smith, orielly and hannity. hannity concluded with still no vote so i turned to fox business with cavuto.i was stunned to see the sni…
John Boehner is a man I would really like to see run for President.
Boehner Floor Speech Opposing the Democrats’ Government Takeover of Health Care “We have failed to listen to America. And we have failed to reflect the will of our constituent…
My name is Eddie McCain, recently retired Sergeant First Class (E7) with the U.S. Army, and I am a Congressional candidate for the Libertarian Party nomination for South Carolina's Second District. The core of our campaign is Small Government, Free…
Where are the votes for Collins and Snowe?
America denounces 'Obamacare' threat
Will it soon be the U.S.S.A. – the United Socialist States of America?
Tens of thousands of people descended on Washington today, lining up in circles around the Capitol, in protest of a pending vote Sunday on P…
Badge
© 2010 Created by Grassfire Nation
