• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

In today’s legal world, where few judges have the courage to do what needs to be done to restore the nation to justice, there comes a few rays of light. As someone who has fought the legal and government establishment for decades (see my autobiography, “Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment”), many incorrectly see me as cynical and jaded when it comes to our public servants. Actually, the reverse is true: If I were not an optimist, I would not be doing what I do, which is to fight this establishment tooth and nail and not give up on our mission for a country that truly is free and, as Founding Father John Adams hoped, would be a nation of laws and not men.

That we have sadly become a nation of men and not of laws is best seen in the context of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to be president of the United States. Clearly, even if Obama were born in Hawaii and not Kenya to an anti-American, Muslim, anti-Semitic father – and his being born in the United States is doubtful given all that we know (see “Where’s the Real Birth Certificate?”) – he is not a natural born citizen – that is born to two citizen parents – as required by the U.S. Constitution.

Over the last five years, many court challenges have been filed concerning Obama’s eligibility. Indeed, I have filed three in Florida and one in Alabama. In every instance, and I am not just referencing the cases that I filed, these court challenges have been dismissed. (They are currently on appeal.) But what is more troubling than the dismissals is that the judges presiding over these cases have generally refused to even explain the reasons for their dismissals. Apparently, they are so afraid of taking on this issue that they don’t want to go on record for their actions. That is because these dismissals are not legally justified.

To challenge a black president’s qualifications is to be branded a racist. Obama and his minions know this well and have milked his race at every turn to guilt white America, including its judges, into acquiescing to his continued destructive leadership bent on turning the country into not only a socialist pro-Muslim state, but one which is second rate in the world. And, to this end, Obama has succeeded. Today, our economy remains in shambles and Putin’s Russia is now the real superpower, having just seized a chunk of Ukraine – with more Hitleresque conquests on the horizon. As America’s power shrinks under Obama, Putin is bent on reconstituting the former communist empire of the Soviet Union. Thus, the stakes to remove this anti-American, pro-Muslim and anti-Judeo Christian president continue to rise.

Last Friday, one of the few great judges in this land, Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court – the jurist who was first impeached for displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and then overwhelmingly elected by the people of the state to be their chief justice – had the courage to write a compelling dissenting opinion validating our challenge to Obama’s eligibility to be president. While seven of his nine fellow justices took the easy way out perhaps to show that Alabama is no longer the state once governed by George Wallace and rejected my ballot challenge, Chief Justice Moore without political correctness and without the disingenuous and cowardly sensitivity to Obama’s race, told it like it is. He ruled that Alabama did have a legal duty to verify that candidates for the presidency are eligible to serve as natural born citizens if elected (see decision at FreedomWatch), Moore concluded:

“Furthermore, I believe the circuit court should have granted the petition for a writ of mandamus to order the Secretary of State to investigate the qualifications of those candidates who appeared on the 2012 general-election ballot for President of the United States, a duty that existed at the time this petition was filed and the object of the relief requested. Although the removal of a President-elect or a President who has taken the oath of office is within the breast of Congress, the determination of the eligibility of the 2012 presidential candidates before casting of its electoral votes is a state function.

“This matter is of great constitutional significance in regard to the highest office in our land. Should he who was elected to the presidency be determined to be ineligible, the remedy of impeachment is available through the United States Congress, and the plaintiffs in this case, McInnish and Goode, can pursue this remedy through their representatives in Congress.

“For the above-stated reasons, I dissent from this Court’s decision to affirm the judgment of the circuit court dismissing this action on the motion of the Secretary of State.”

This well-written and thoughtful opinion by Chief Justice Moore will hopefully give courage to other judges to tell it like it is. Indeed, I have appeals pending in Florida, and the majority decision of the Alabama justices will likely be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court under a petition for writ of certiorari.

We cannot quit. The imposter in the White House must be held accountable, and he should indeed be told to get up off his knees and come out with his hands up.

Few other judges in this nation have the courage of Chief Justice Moore. The Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, who held the Clintons to account in the late ’90s and early 2000s and ruled that Bill Clinton had committed a crime, and Richard J. Leon, who just ruled against the National Security Agency’s “almost Orwellian” surveillance on all Americans, are among the most endangered of species. But if they and more judges like them come forward to represent the interests of the American people, rather than the corrupt legal and government establishment, then there is hope.

Media wishing to interview Larry Klayman, please contact media@wnd.com.

 

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.