Clarence Thomas

Child’s Play: Scott Brown and abortion

If Scott Brown runs for President in 2016, will Tim Tebow support him?


Next Sunday, Focus on the Family is scheduled to run an ad during Super Bowl XLIV, featuring the Heisman Trophy winner. The ad will also feature Tebow’s mother; as’s Brent Bozell III notes, the spot will focus on “the story of how doctors told her she should have an abortion, and she refused that exercise of ‘choice.’ Pam Tebow was a missionary in the Philippines and had contracted dysentery, and the medicine had a chance of causing birth defects.”


The upcoming ad has stirred up an unusual controversy: as Bozell notes, “…’[F]eminist’ groups have exploded in fury, demanding CBS censor the ad. The Women's Media Center wrote a letter signed by an array of feminist organizations. They projected the ad would be ‘disastrous’ for CBS, and it throws women ‘under the bus’ and ‘endangers women's health.’ They even suggested pro-life ads resulted in ‘escalated violence’ against abortionists…Words like these might make a scintilla of sense if Focus on the Family were running some kind of hardcore, negative ad with inflammatory abortion images. But that's not the message, and they know it. The Tebow ad is not far removed from the positive pro-life ads run by the Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation during the Clinton years with the slogan ‘Life. What a beautiful choice.’”


The protests against the ad are a tempest in a teapot: Bozell has a point when he asks, “Isn't it a little strange to see people who present themselves as ‘pro-choice’ get so upset when someone suggests their choice was to keep the baby?” However, there could be a real political tempest within the Republican Party in just a few years.


Let’s assume for the sake of argument that President Obama manages to secure a second term (we cannot forget that it’s still tremendously difficult to dislodge incumbent Presidents, despite the circumstances surrounding the 1976, 1980 and 1992 Presidential elections.) Let’s also assume that the Bay State’s vibrant young Senator wins a full term in 2012 (once he is sworn in later this month, Brown will fill out the remaining years of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy’s final term), and eventually emerges as the odds-on favorite to be the GOP nominee in 2016. Will there be any controversy over Brown’s moderately pro-choice stance—and will that controversy divide the GOP?


It would shock the conscience of many conservative Republicans to have a GOP Presidential nominee who was not explicitly pro-life. Even though Brown opposes late-term abortions and favors parental-consent laws, his overall support for Roe v. Wade may disturb some GOP primary voters.


However, it’s not clear that it would disturb all of them.  If Brown, as a Presidential contender, vowed to support reasonable restrictions on “abortion on demand” and appoint strict constructionists such as Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas to the US Supreme Court, would pro-life activists really abandon him for a less electable alternative?


The courageous Bay State group Massachusetts Citizens for Life supported Brown in the 2010 special election, recognizing that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.  One hopes that if Brown emerges as a viable Presidential contender in 2016, national pro-life activists will demonstrate similar pragmatism.


Yes, the thought of supporting someone who does not completely disavow Roe might be a difficult pill for pro-life activists to swallow. However, if there is clear evidence that Brown can win the White House in 2016, and that a less charismatic pro-lifer cannot, these pro-life activists will have to think long and hard about the consequences of not supporting Brown—especially after eight years of Obama appointing judges who oppose any real restrictions on abortion to the federal bench.


This is highly speculative, of course. Yet time moves fast, and the 2016 elections will be here before we know it. Sure, Obama could lose in 2012 to an as-yet-unknown Republican contender, putting the Oval Office out of Brown’s reach for years. However, if Obama and Brown both win in 2012, the conservative from the Commonwealth will certainly be considered a championship contender four years down the line.


Barring a career-ending scandal, severe illness, or a loss of support from Massachusetts voters, Scott Brown will be a GOP superstar for years to come. He has the same qualities Ronald Reagan exhibited a generation ago. He’s already a household name, and clearly comes across as being of Presidential timbre. If, a half-decade from now, Brown generates real momentum as a White House aspirant, pro-life activists will have to decide if they are with him or against him.


Lest we forget

the indignities, connivance and dirty tricks of Democrats (including VP Biden) toward another person of color, now Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. It was awful what they tried to do to him. Truly ( as Thomas himself described it) it was a new form of "lynching". Let us not forget how the press interpreted what happened back in 1991.

If Republicans even breathed in this manner toward Sotomayor, the press would be all over them in rebuke.

Media bias still lives.

If anything, she must be attacked on her liberal record, not the way Democrats tried to personally attack Clarence Thomas.




December 03, 2008


Donofrio v. Wells No.08A407 has been distributed and is scheduled for conference on December 5, 2008, thanks to Justice Clarence Thomas. The U.S. Supreme Court scheduling docket for No.08A407

shows the history of the writ of certiorari of Donofrio v. Wells. Justice Thomas has asked his colleagues to consider the lawsuit challenging President-elect Obama's status as a United States citizen.

Thomas action took place after the presiding Justice over the New Jersey district had rejected the petition known as an application for a stay of writ of certiorari that asked the court to prevent the Electoral College on December 15, 2008, which will certify Obama as the 44th president of the United States.

The AFRO American News reports

Thomas's actions were rare because, by custom, when a justice rejects a petition from his own circuit, like Justice Souter did in this case, the matter is dead. Even if, as can be the case under Rule 22 the matter can be submitted to another justice for consideration, that justice out of respect, will reject it also. Trevor Morrison, a professor of law at Columbia University School of Law, said that "Thomas's actions are once in a decade." "When that does happen the case has to be of an extraordinary nature and this does not fit that circumstance." Read the Full Story.

What will it take for the Justices to docket this cause and hear oral arguments? The RULE OF FOUR, four of the nine justices must agree to hear this case, if four of the justice agree then the case will be heard. Donofrio v. Wells, the lawyer turned "citizen advocate is not questioning Obama's birth certificate, but rather his citizenship, in fact the Kansas City Star in todays A-1 front page article mistakenly stated that this action dealt with Obama's birth certificate, that is not the case as Donofrio states that Obama was born in Hawaii, that is not the issue in this action. You may read more at Donofrio's blog

Now this is not the only lawsuit in the courts, yes there are more, many more, concerning Obama's Birth Certificate, Natural Born, citizenship, etc. For a review you can check out this article from the New American. READ FULL STORY.

On December 1, 2008 & again today December 3, 2008, WE THE PEOPLE FOUNDATION in a full page ad displayed the following open letter to Barack Obama in Obama's back yard the Chicago Tribune:

An Open Letter to Barack Obama:

Are you a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.?

Are you legally eligible to hold the Office of President?

December 1, 2008

Mr. Barack Obama
Barack Obama Transition Office
Kluczynski Federal Building
230 So. Dearborn St.
Chicago, Illinois 60604

Dear Mr. Obama:

Representing thousands of responsible American citizens who have also taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies foreign and domestic, I am duty bound to call on you to remedy an apparent violation of the Constitution.

Compelling evidence supports the claim that you are barred from holding the Office of President by the “natural born citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution. For instance:

Your father was a Kenyan citizen at the time of your birth and your mother was 18.

Legal affidavits state you were born in Kenya.

Your grandmother is recorded on tape saying she attended your birth in Kenya.

Hawaii Dept of Health will not confirm your assertion that you were born in Hawaii.

You have posted an unsigned, computer-generated birth form that was created in 2007, a form that lacks vital information found on an original, hand signed Certificate of Live Birth, such as hospital address, signature of attending physician and age of mother.

U.S. Law in 1961 denied U.S. citizenship to any child born in Kenya if the father was Kenyan and the mother was not yet 19 years of age.

In 1965, your mother legally relinquished whatever Kenyan or U.S. citizenship she and you had by marrying an Indonesian and becoming a naturalized Indonesian citizen.
You have repeatedly refused to provide evidence of your eligibility when challenged to do so in a number of recent lawsuits. Instead, you have been successful in having judges declare that they are powerless to order you to prove your eligibility to assume the Office of President.

For instance, the judge in Pennsylvania ruled the challenger had no standing to question your eligibility because his harm would be no different from the harm to be suffered by all other American citizens if you, as an ineligible person were to assume the Presidency. The judge in Hawaii actually said it would be an invasion of your privacy for him to order access to your original birth certificate in order to prove your eligibility to hold the Office of President.

Before you can legitimately exercise any of the powers of the President you must meet all the criteria for eligibility established by the Constitution. You are under a moral, legal, and fiduciary duty to proffer such evidence. Should you assume the office as anyone but a bona fide natural born citizen of the United States who has
not relinquished that citizenship, you would be inviting a national crisis that would undermine the domestic peace and stability of the Nation. For example:

You would always be viewed by many Americans as a poseur - a usurper.

As a usurper, you would be unable to take the required “Oath or Affirmation” on January 20 without committing the crime of perjury or false swearing, for being ineligible you cannot faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States.

You would be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from the People.

The armed forces would be under no legal obligation to remain obedient to you.

No civilian in the Executive Branch would be required to obey any of your proclamations, executive orders or directives, as such orders would be legally void.

Your appointments of Ambassadors and Judges to the Supreme Court would be void no matter what subsequent actions the Senate might take.

Congress would not be able to pass new laws because it would not be able to acquire the signature of a bona fide President.

As a usurper, Congress would be unable to remove you from the Office of the President on Impeachment, inviting certain political chaos including a potential for armed conflicts within the General Government or among the States and the People to effect the removal of such a usurper.
In consideration of the escalating constitutional crisis brought on by the total lack of evidence needed to conclusively establish your eligibility, I am compelled to lodge a First Amendment Petition for a Redress of this constitutional tort.

With all due respect, I ask that you immediately direct the appropriate Hawaiian officials to allow access to the vault copy of your birth certificate by our forensic scientists on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, December 5, 6 and 7, 2008.

In addition, I ask that you to arrange to have the following documentary evidence delivered to the National Press Club by 10 am on December 8, 2008.

a certified copy of your “vault” (original long version) birth certificate.

certified copies of all reissued and sealed birth certificates in the names Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham and Barry Dunham.

a certified copy of your Certification of Citizenship.

a certified copy of your Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of maturity.

certified copies of your admission forms for Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School.

certified copies of any court orders or legal documents changing your name from Barry Soetoro.

“In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.” Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this urgent matter.


Robert L. Schulz

We The People Foundation
For Constitutional Education, Inc.
2458 Ridge Road Queensbury, NY 12804

Here is my clear and practical legal analysis on the question of whether Obama is or is not a natural born citizen of the United States of America. As a criminal defense attorney, if my clients are guilty they will hide and conceal the truth as long as they are able. Mr. Obama reminds me of some of my clients, if you are innocent expose the evidence, reveal the truth, if you are guilty conceal, hide, & deny. Here Obama has continued to conceal, hide, & deny. He continues to conceal his original Birth Certificate, his college records, and his law school records. If he was actually a natural born citizen would he not want to readily prove this, instead of making this a issue that may or may not be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

So what does this mean? Obama is hiding or trying to conceal something, I do not know what it is, but this is the typical behavior of someone who does not want the truth revealed, whatever that is? However, the end result is this, the electoral college will convene on December 15, 2008, President-elect will be certified as the 44th president of the United States of America. On January 20, 2009 at 12:00 noon, Mr. Obama will place his left hand on the Bible and will be sworn in as the 44th President. President Obama will swear to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, and he will occupy the White House as the President at least for four years.


Syndicate content