U.S. Congressional Candidate Kesha Rogers: Remove Obama by invoking the 25th Amendment


by Sharon Rondeau

Kesha Rogers (D) is running for U.S. Congress in the 22nd District of Texas against incumbent Pete Olson (R)

(Oct. 31, 2010) — The Post & Email recently interviewed Kesha Rogers, Democrat candidate for U.S. Congress from Texas’s 22nd District, who released a statement on her website calling for the immediate removal of Barack Hussein  Obama from office via Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Kesha has since posted a new video  entitled “Invoke the 25th Amendment Before the Election” in which she reiterates her position, stating that “There is no chance of saving the nation unless this happens.”  She has asked that Congress meet this weekend, before the election, to vote to remove Obama.

Ms. Rogers is affiliated with Lyndon LaRouche, who on October 26 reportedly issued a warning that “Either we get Barack Obama out of office now, or the United States and the rest of the world will soon plunge into a state of ungovernability.”

Here she shares why she stands by her statement about Obama’s removal as well as her views on other constitutional issues which the country is currently facing.

MRS. RONDEAU: Recently you stated on your website that you felt that the 25th Amendment should be invoked and that Obama should be removed from office.  What precipitated your making that bold statement?

MS. ROGERS: First of all, every single day, we see complete and total mental breakdown of this president, and every single day we see that the president is not competent to deal with the crisis at hand and has no solutions.  When I first started my campaign, I said, “This president must go; we must call for his immediate impeachment.”  As time has gone by, we’ve seen that he has a failed personality which can be identified as a narcissistic, “Nero“-type personality.  Lyndon LaRouche, whom I work for, agrees with this assessment.

If you look at what has happened throughout this administration, especially with the breakdown and the fleeing of several of his top officials, advisers and top military officials, you have to say that there is nothing but a complete and utter, devastating breakdown and that the president is not competent to complete his term in office.  This is what our Constitution actually provides for:  in the 25th Amendment, Section 4, it says that if you have a president who is mentally or physically incompetent to carry out his duties, then the Congress, the Vice President and others can actually submit a letter of request for removing the president from office.

I believe that that is exactly the place we’re at right now because what you have to look at, in the midst of having an insane president who is continuing to back up the interests of his British puppetmasters, you also have the fact that the entire financial system is disintegrating.  It is bankrupt, and we have provided clear solutions to this crisis.  The only solution that is going to solve this economic collapse is getting Obama out now with the 25th Amendment, going with the Glass-Steagall banking reorganization and putting forth a real economic solution to the crisis.

MRS. RONDEAU: I read that on your website.  Do you feel that it took a lot of courage on your part to come out and make this statement about a member of your own political party?

MS. ROGERS: Absolutely; it takes guts and it takes courage.  It also takes true patriotism because we have to realize that the fight we’re waging is not about party; rather, it’s about defending the nation, acting as a true patriot to the nation, and not being aligned with “party” but rather, with principles.  Right now, you have both parties which are refusing to tell the truth: that the whole system is bankrupt; that you have a president who is a failed personality and is providing no solutions but rather, running the country deeper and deeper in the gutter.  So it takes a lot of guts and courage, and it takes the courage that most members of Congress on both sides do not have.

MRS. RONDEAU: The nation has been watching this situation unfold for almost two years now, and it’s astounding to many that nothing has been done by any member of either party.  Why do you think no one is calling for an investigation into Obama’s competency?

MS. ROGERS: I think the real thing we have to look at is the question of tragedy, and that’s what we’re dealing with right now.  It requires an understanding of the fact that a tragic society actually encompasses tragic leadership.  That’s what we’ve seen.  We’ve seen the breakdown and degeneracy in our culture, and you have a leadership that represents the same type of gutless quality of failing to fight and defend the truth and real principle.  This is the way I try to address people in terms of their role as citizens in this Republic:  when you go to see a play written by Shakespeare or Aeschylus – any of these great dramatists – you don’t go and see it because you want entertainment.  You go and see it because it’s supposed to give you a reflection of the type of society you’re living in and what you’re going to do about it.

This is the problem we have with our leadership:  it is cowardly, like Hamlet. It’s gutless.  People don’t have that sense of history…look at the Congress right now.  The reason why they’re not doing what other patriotic leaders did such as President John F. Kennedy, Lincoln or Roosevelt, who understood the real fight that we were up against, which has been a British empire and their destruction, all the way back to the American Revolution and George Washington, is that they fail to draw on history.  So you have this go-along-to-get-along, let’s-play-the-political-game, let’s-make-a-deal-under-the-table mentality.  Unfortunately, this is the mentality that the population has accepted.  They won’t go against it.

My campaign has not only provided the solutions economically and politically but has also said, “We have to have a complete and utter transformation of the culture; we have to get the population to stop thinking of itself as underlings and to actually demand real leadership.  That’s what a republic is; it’s not sitting around, waiting to see what’s going to happen after you go to press the button at the voting booth.  It’s demanding that real solutions are put forward, and the real solution has to be that our president is incompetent and is a puppet of the British empire, and he has to go.  We have to invoke the 25th Amendment to do so, and anyone who isn’t calling for that is not fit to run for office.

MRS. RONDEAU: I’m sure you’ve heard about the controversy about whether or not Obama is even eligible to serve per the eligibility requirements set forth in the U.S. Constitution.  What do you think about the eligibility question, and how can it be answered?

MS. ROGERS: I can tell you that my thoughts are that he’s not an American citizen because he’s a traitor to the nation, not because of his paperwork and whether or not it says he has a birth certificate.  I would say that he’s more in line with being a citizen of the British empire than an American citizen, because being an American citizen means that he’s actually going to stand up and fight for the Constitution and defend it.  I won’t go as far as saying whether or not Obama should be impeached because we can find some birth certificate in Hawaii or not, or whether or not he should be in Kenya, but I think there are many more principles and psychological examples as to why he should be out and is not fit to deem himself as a true patriot and citizen of this nation.

MRS. RONDEAU: Why do you use the term “British empire?”

MS. ROGERS: We’re talking about the monetary interests that actually take financial institutions over governments and nation-states, and that’s what I mean by “British empire.”  When you think about the British empire, you think about today, the Inter-Alpha Group of financiers of banks that controls close to 70% of the world’s financial earnings.  The Inter-Alpha group was started by Jacob Rothschild back in the 1970s.  The British empire, as we know historically, has been the empire that we fought against in the American Revolution.  I believe that empire still exists.  It exists as a fat financial conglomerate today which controls nations, and that’s what we’re fighting against:  how you get  nations to be sovereign and productive and not held under the thumb of financial interests.

MRS. RONDEAU: Does that tie into what some people call the “New World Order?” Is that part of the conglomerate?

MS. ROGERS: I’ve heard the term.  I would say that it’s an expression of it; when people speak about “New World Order” or “one-world government,” it would be an expression of it, but I would say it goes a step further.  You have to look at it historically; this was the same banking and financial interest of unscrupulous money-changers, if you will, which President Franklin Roosevelt went after.  This is the same financial interest and oligarchical interest that President Lincoln opposed and went after.  Throughout the course of history, it’s been an interest that has been against sovereign-nation states and in favor of financial corporate cartels.

MRS. RONDEAU: What are your thoughts on the health care legislation that was passed?

MS. ROGERS: Simple.  It’s fascist.  The health care legislation, first and foremost, should be repealed. It is a health care policy modeled on a cost-effective basis and what was termed during the Nazi 1939 Hitler regime as “unworthy of life.”  The health care policy essentially says that we’re going to put a price tag on human life.  In 1946, you had Nazi doctors and others tried at Nuremberg for this very same policy that Obama is pushing.  The problem is that no one, neither Republican nor Democrat, has the guts to say that.  They will say, “I oppose it,” or “I’m for it,” but they don’t have the guts to say that it’s a fascist policy and it’s a policy that is a cost-effective, put-a-price-tag-on-human-life policy where you would have independent boards making the decision of whether or not people should receive certain care based on whether or not their life is worth saving.

The solution that I put forth is that in the HMO system, in the profits of all the insurance companies and so forth, we can go back to what’s called a Hill-Burton standard where you actually have so many doctors, so many hospitals, and so many nurses.  You actually have the infrastructure and every hospital system focusing on the need to value life before profit, and that’s what this HMO system doesn’t do.  That’s why it has to be stopped immediately.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you feel that government should have a hand in health care, or is there some other way it should be reformed?

MS. ROGERS: With the Hill-Burton system, you would have government health care policy which would be single-payer.  Yes, government has to take responsibility for the lives of the population, and it has to come before, above and beyond putting the financial interests or the profits of financiers first, such as bailing out Wall Street.  So we would not bail our Wall Street and say that we’re going to put a price tag on human life.

MRS. RONDEAU: On your website, you had mentioned a “classical education” including the arts, sciences, and literature.  Do you feel that the education our children are receiving in this country today is substandard?

MS. ROGERS: It’s absolutely not what it should be.  Our education system doesn’t actually pivot around or thrive on the conception of the creative powers of the human mind.  You have an education system that, since the introduction of the counter-culture in the 1960s, the assassination of President Kennedy, the drug, sex, and rock-and-roll counter-culture, hasn’t been focused on real creative output.  Most of our education is standardized testing; it’s not actually taking our children through a rediscovery of a scientific or classical artistic process.  That’s what’s missing, because you have to have classical art and science and real physical geometry as the basis of your education system. We have to return to that.  We’ve gone into this trajectory of a real physical economic breakdown where true education is not the basis of our school systems.

MRS. RONDEAU: What do you think our children are being taught today, if not a good basic education?

MS. ROGERS: They’re being taught how to pass a test.  The teachers are being taught how not to teach the students and guide them through a discovery, but how to go through a test mechanism and how to get schools credit based on how many people they can get through a test.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think the teachers’ unions have had anything to do with the downhill slide in education?

MS. ROGERS: I don’t think that they’ve had the power that they need.  I would say that the teachers are our greatest tools for developing the minds of our students.  The problem is that they are just not given the opportunity to do so.  You look at this Obama education policy:  it’s says, “Race to the Top.”  It’s more like schools which don’t comply with what he puts forward for education are going to have teachers who will be laid off; you’re going to have schools denied funding and principals who are actually fired.  We’ve seen a lot of this.  So teachers’ unions don’t have the power, and they don’t have the backing of our government, because we have a president who is out to destroy the country with these policies, and he’s not looking out for the interests of our teachers and various other social services workers.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think that a competent president could empower teachers more?

MS. ROGERS: Well, absolutely, and our school systems would be able to do that, also, by demanding an education for our students where teachers are given the tools they need to actually teach and not be put under the thumb or the pressure of having to be more concerned about whether or not they’re going to get certain funding.  We can change that, and a real president and a real Congress would recognize it.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think more money needs to be spent on education, less, or about the same as what is spent now?  Should it be more localized?

MS. ROGERS: More money on education.  I think that our education system should be an infrastructure project that should be a part of what our government funds in terms of how you look at the real production in society.  How do you look at wealth in society?  People determine wealth in our economy by gross domestic product and all of these various financial instruments, but the first thing in determining wealth in society should be the creative progress of your society by your education system.  So we should have education for all; we should have programs whereby the government actually funds education before it bails out Wall Street.

We should have education for all college students so that they can go to trade school or four-year university, and that should be the basis of how we determine real economic growth.  It would be the same thing as how you would fund your space program. You wouldn’t fund your space program by privatizing it; you would fund it by government credit; invest in it, fully funding the space program such that you would place the emphasis on its being a revolution in science.  That’s what I represent, not taking the space program as we’ve seen with Obama and abolishing it, setting down our manned space program and allowing for private interests to come in and say that they’re going to treat our space program as some kind of billionaire’s playground.

MRS. RONDEAU: Given everything that you’ve said, is there any conflict in your mind between what you’d like to see Congress and a competent president do and what is in the U.S. Constitution?  Is there anything that authorizes  funding for a space program and education?

MS. ROGERS: Let’s refer most importantly to a very profound portion of our Constitution that people sometimes forget about, which is the Preamble written by our first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton.  It says that “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], create for the general welfare, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The Preamble to our Constitution actually expresses what we’re able to do, that our first priority is looking out for the interests and promoting the general welfare of every citizen of our country.  So the question is, “What does that mean?”  It’s natural law, not man-made law.  There are certain principles that may not be as vividly described or inscribed in the Constitution with, as you said, the space program, but we know that that has been a grand awakening and revolutionary change in the direction of our nation and the world.  But it was based on the principles of our Constitution that Article I, Section 8 says that the Congress has the right to print and coin currency and invest in long-term infrastructure projects.  This is what our Preamble provides for:  that we’re going to look after the interests of every citizen, of the science and physical economic progress of our nation, as Alexander Hamilton understood.  So I don’t see any conflict at all.  The problem is that people look at economics being based on a monetary solution vs. a scientific and physical economic solution, which is that you need physical scientific production, agriculture, industries, factories and so forth.  It doesn’t say that in the Constitution, but FDR knew. Lincoln knew with the Transcontinental Railway system that that’s the way you actually measure real growth and a productive economy.

MRS. RONDEAU: What, if anything, could be done about all of the jobs that have been outsourced overseas?  How can we make America productive again?

MS. ROGERS: The first step would be to get Obama out!  Secondly, we have to reinstate Glass-Steagall banking law, which was put in place by Roosevelt in 1933 and repealed in 1999, led by Phil Gramm.  It was a firewall of protection separating your commercial bank and people’s savings from speculation and investment banks.  Once we do that, then we have the ability to go in and create the credit to bail out our states that are faced with utter bankruptcy and collapse, physical economic collapse; and we would do that by creating credit for long-term infrastructure projects in these states.  Job creation programs are what I’ve called for, starting with programs such as the North American Water & Power Lines.  It’s called NAWAPA.  This was a program put forth in the 1960s by the Parsons Company out of California at the same time that President Kennedy was charting the course for going to the moon.  The program can create 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 jobs immediately with irrigation systems, canals, dams, energy-intense projects such as nuclear desalination plants, nuclear power, and so forth, and you can rebuild the physical economic structure of the nation.  We can put millions of people back to work in projects ten times greater than that which was represented under Franklin Roosevelt and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

MRS. RONDEAU: What part, if any, do you think the private sector would play in putting people back to work?

MS. ROGERS: First of all, we’re faced with hyper-inflationary collapse.  So the private sector would play an important role in actually employing people, but they do not have the constitutional authority to create the jobs and actually print the currency and the credit which is necessary to get the startup projects going.  So these projects would have to be started up by a federal government plan which would collaborate with the private sector, and you would have certain regulations so that the private sector would adhere to what would be necessary to get these projects off the ground.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you feel that a complete economic collapse is inevitable?

MS. ROGERS: It is, in the direction that we’re going, because right now we’re looking at something on the scale of what was faced in 1923 in Germany during the Weimar hyper-inflationary collapse.  If you think about what’s happening right now, trillions of dollars in bailouts to derivatives, phony assets and a banking system which is actually bankrupt, the problem is that you have a Congress that has capitulated and refused to put Glass-Steagall back on the table.  If there is not a change in direction, then the collapse is inevitable, and it will happen in a way that the Lombard & Bardi banking system of Italy during the 13th and 14th centuries which led to the Dark Ages.  That’s the history, because you have to see what happened during the collapse of these banking systems.

What happened during the collapse of the 1929 Great Depression?  It was a collapse of physical economic production, a collapse of the culture, and eventually, there was a collapse of society overall.  That’s what we’re seeing on a grand scale.  We’re seeing the highest rate of homeless and starving children ever.  Even here in the United States, we’re seeing a president who, for the first time in history, doesn’t have a cost-of-living adjustment for those on social security and says that there’s no inflation. We’re seeing the shutdown of our industries and our infrastructure, and when every state in the Union is bankrupt, we’re not waiting for an economic collapse.  I would say that the economic collapse is well under way.

MRS. RONDEAU: If you are elected to Congress, what is the first thing you will do?

MS. ROGERS: The first thing I will do is if the president is not out already, I will call for the invoking of the 25th Amendment to get him out.  Following that, I would call for the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall and to investigate this criminal activity that we’ve seen going on in our banking system and probably put something forward similar to what was done under the Roosevelt administration called the Pecora Commission to investigate the financial interests that have taken our nation into this extreme condition of economic breakdown.  Then I would call for the immediate instituting of the credit take-off projects for fully funding our manned space project, NASA, and then for economic recovery projects to put millions of people back to work in productive jobs.  That has to be packaged, because there’s a lot to be done, but those are the highest priorities.

MRS. RONDEAU: Regarding the Obama eligibility question, if he were found not to have been ineligible to run for president because he didn’t meet Article II, Section 1, clause 5 requirements, what do you think should be done?

MS. ROGERS: Well, he absolutely has to go; he should be impeached if that were the case because it violates the Constitution.

MRS. RONDEAU: Would you consider that to be a crime?

MS. ROGERS: As in “high crimes and misdemeanors?”

MRS. RONDEAU: Yes.  For example, if it were proven that he perpetrated fraud because he knew he didn’t qualify because he was born in a foreign county and had a foreign national for a father, would that qualify as a crime?

MS. ROGERS: That would absolutely be constituted as a crime if that could be proven in a court of law.  I’m not an attorney, so I don’t answer things in terms of legalities, but I can say, as someone who is running for Congress, to be honest and true to our Constitution as I am, that that would be a crime, and he would have to be tried for that.

MRS. RONDEAU: Many of our readers wonder how many in the current Democrat and Republican parties, and even Independents in Congress, knew of Obama’s eligibility question before the election.  They wonder why, if Obama is not eligible to serve, he was put forward as a candidate, and what should happen to the people who knew?

MS. ROGERS: That’s a good question.  The question would be, “Did they know?” and “Did they actually have the courage and the guts to say anything about it?”  I’m not quite sure.  If they did, though, that means that they were violating their constitutional oaths of office.

MRS. RONDEAU: Who is your opponent?

MS. ROGERS: I’m running against the incumbent, Pete Olson.

MRS. RONDEAU: How do you think he’s faring in the campaign?  Do you think people want to re-elect him, or do they want a change?

MS. ROGERS: Looking at the anti-incumbent sentiment, he has a lot to go up against.  I’ve never run for office before; this is my first time running for office, but I can say now that he’s the Republican incumbent who has not and will not call for the president’s impeachment.  He has capitulated to the president at every step. I’m in the NASA Johnson Space Center district, and going back to the counseling of the Constellation space program, underfunding of our space program, he has capitulated on everything Obama has done.  So I don’t think he’s faring too well in the population.  I do think that the problem is that Republicans are doing the same thing that Pelosi did in the Bush administration back in 2006 by saying that “Impeachment is off the table” because the Democrats were going to ride in on the anti-Bush/Cheney sentiment, and the Republicans are doing the same thing today.  They’re saying, “Impeachment is off the table” and we’re going to ride in on the anti-Obama, anti-Democrat sentiment.  So that’s the problem.

MRS. RONDEAU: They both seem to play the same games to the peril of the country.  What can be done about this Republican vs. Democrat paradigm?

MS. ROGERS: First and foremost, we have to go back to the system of what it is to be a true American patriot, because it’s not Democrat vs. Republican. This is not a football team with “red team” vs. “blue team.”  It’s about American citizens, American patriots vs. traitors.  In today’s society, either you’re a traitor to the country, a traitor to the principles of our nation, or you are a true patriot, and that’s why when we look at what the country is facing, people have to come to terms with the need for a bipartisan movement of Democrats and Republicans who are actually putting forth solutions to deal with the economic collapse.  And I’m not playing the political party game.  I represent  the tradition of Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy in the Democratic Party, which you don’t have anymore.  Right now, you have Wall Street factions running both parties.  Roosevelt’s idea was that universal principles come above and beyond party.  That’s what we should be looking at.

MRS. RONDEAU: The Founding Fathers did not like political parties.

MS. ROGERS: No, they didn’t have parties.

MRS. RONDEAU: George Washington had warned about the country dissolving into “factions” and Americans being pitted against each other.  Does it seem that that is what has happened to us?

MS. ROGERS: Absolutely.  You look at people like Lincoln and Roosevelt, one a Republican and the other a Democrat, but they both actually had the interest of the Founding Fathers in mind, and our current parties don’t.  They have the interest of the financiers and Wall Street.

Print Friendly

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: Interviews

37 Responses to U.S. Congressional Candidate Kesha Rogers: Remove Obama by invoking the 25th Amendment

  1. Spaulding

    Saturday, November 6, 2010 at 3:06 AM

    Thanks for asking Texoma (I recall Texahoma from my Ft. Sill days, but suspect that is not the origin of your chosen name). Thanks to Barry some of us are reading what we never learned in school The biography by Ron Chernow on Alexander Hamilton mentioned those who influenced Hamilton during his King’s College years (Columbia) and this comment was bound to catch my attention:

    “But Vatel, perhaps the most accurate and approved of the writers on the laws of nations, preserves a mean between these1 different opinions. This is the sum of what he advances: That an innocent passage is due to all nations with whom a state is at peace, for troops equally with individuals, and to annoy as well as to avoid an enemy. That the party asking and the party asked are both, in different degrees, judges of the question when innocent? That where the party asked has good reasons for refusing, he is not under any obligation to grant, and in doubtful cases his judgment ought to be definitive; but in evident ones, or those in which the harmlessness of the passage is manifest, the party asking may, in the last resort, judge for himself, and after demand and refusal may force his way. That nevertheless, as it is very difficult for the passage of a powerful army to be absolutely innocent, and still more difficult for its innocence to be apparent, a refusal ought to be submitted to, except in those very rare cases when it can be shown in the most palpable manner that the passage required is absolutely without danger or inconvenience. And lastly, that this right of passage is only due in a war not materially unjust.”

    I included more of the text than was necessary to show the extent to which our founders depended upon Vattel to guide their creation of our common law. Hamilton was “winging it” because the structure of a government of laws had never been tried before, but Vattel, never a practitioner, had done an amazing job of collating the law of nations which had so occupied the legal philosphers of what is called “The Enlightenment” – Grotius, Pufendorf, Barbeyrac, Bynkershoek, Wolff, Leibniz, …

    The reference in Chernoff was to a twenty seven volume collection of Hamilton’s writings which is frightfully expensive, and nowhere to be found on the Internet. But since this was official correspondence it seemed reasonable the a collection of Washington’s letters might have the document, and here is the pointer.


    Your are correct. I read Perkins v. Elg after reading Sharon Rondeau’s revelation about Charles Evans Hughes and the Breckenridge Long essay from 1916 which thoroughly supports what we have been saying. Long was a Democrat and it seems possible that this thorough legal analysis was a shot across the bow, similar to Gabriel Chin’s thorough analysis of McCain’s ineligibility saying “Go ahead but I’ll see you in court!” I’m sure there is a fascinating back story about Hughes, who was a Supreme Court Justice before running against Woodrow Wilson. It is hard to believe he didn’t know about Bingham or Morrison Waite. In fact it seems likely he did. Hughes, like McCain, probably felt that the Constitution’s protections needn’t have applied to him. It seems likely that he would have made a better president than Wilson. What becomes of the government of laws if some claim the arbitrary right to ignore constitutional provisions?

    I, for example, agree with Mario Apuzzo, Tribe and Olson, and even Clair McCaskill and Barack, that restricting children of military from the presidency if their parents are serving in a foreign country should be addressed, as suggested in Vattel. But I believe it should be changed very carefully, by amendment, since the Congress clearly thought about the issue in 1790 with their Nationality act, and in 1795, when they removed natural born citizen from the 1790 Act. It pertained to foreign born children of natural born citizens, probably because some citizens after the revolution but before the Consititution happened to be based in foreign countries (conjecture from Apuzzo which seems reasonable). I can create scenarios today illustrating that the Framers were protecting the nation with their restriction on who were natural born citizens: Susan Powers gives birth in Quatar from marriage to another Arabist, and the child is raised through eighteen years in Ryhad. He or she returns to college, say Columbia, and law school, say Harvard, and is resident for fourteen years before running for president. Would this child have assimilated the allegiance of his parents? Probably so, and just like Barry, that is the genius of the natural born citizen provision. Susan could have born the child in the place she trusted, and may have. We wouldn’t know. Here Power’s mate is presumed also to be a natural born citizen, unlike Stanley Ann’s. Today, neither would be eligible, and obviously, Barry isn’t.

    Charles Hughes’ parents never immigrated. Why not? They raised Charles in New York. Why did they prefer monarchy to a democratic republic. Why weren’t they willing to profess allegiance to the country they raised their very successful son in? He was also Governor of New York. By British law Hughes was a natural born subject of the British Commonwealth, just like Chester Arthur and Barack. Perhaps Sharon Rondeau, who broke the story, will dig deeper and write a book?
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Actually, the article was sent to me by CDR Kerchner. I had never heard of Charles Evans Hughes before that. Because it wasn’t on the internet, I retyped the article so people could read Hughes’s entire argument about what a natural born Citizen was and wasn’t.

    Regarding a book, there are many much more knowledgeable than I, and would that there were 96 hours in a day!

  2. Susan Grassroots

    Wednesday, November 3, 2010 at 10:47 AM

    Ms. Rogers,
    I have followed your campaign with great interest. Your boldness and courage to stand up in the face of your own party and declare that Obama should be impeached was a refreshing change from all the cowards in congress and the judiciary! It is no secret he is not only ineligible but sick in the head and must be removed from the oval office!
    Your voice along with many many other women from both parties, have exposed a lot of men as cowards. The sit silently by and say nothing. While like many here, I do not agree with your position on teachers unions, they were after all highly instrumental in putting this madman into office, I do greatly respect your courage to stand up in the face of silence, and declare what all in gov’t know to be true and are just afraid to voice it!
    I suspect we will be seeing you around! Godspeed.

  3. dong_ha68

    Tuesday, November 2, 2010 at 5:10 PM

    Yes they can 12THGENAMERICAN OCT.31.2010@ 11:17 AM

  4. Uncle Miltie

    Tuesday, November 2, 2010 at 12:44 PM

    A few of the trolls above are missing the actual point with their multitude of “legal” proofs on either O, or LaRouche friend, Kesha. In this case,
    1) The enemy of my enemy IS my friend
    2) The Founding Fathers had wide disagreements, but at the moment of truth, they ACTED not based on the Magna Carta, or some law, but on a principle that there was a real enemy (Kesha’s same British Empire) and the Christian idea that man is basically good, but needs perfecting, Empasis— acted, not commented.
    3) Kesa has found a way to unify normal people, regardless of their ideology. (some of you guys are so ideological–like there is no reasonable difference, methodologically, between Rush and Olberman, just rant)
    4) If we had a moral government, then it wouldn’t matter if we had public health (which originated in that bastion of liberalness, the US Military), or public education (the ugly head of liberal Ben Franklin thought that up), or NASA, or any of what she brought up.

    Its quite noble what she proposed, uniquely American and very optimistic. It could go somewhere. As far as O’s mental issues, top Phd’s agree with Kesha : http://www.globalpolitician.com/26628-obama-elctions-narcissism-usa

    I wish I could vote for such a fighter.

  5. 1776reloaded

    Monday, November 1, 2010 at 9:30 PM

    Take the time and View for Free on YouTube and Google Video The Obama Deception and America Freedom to Fascism.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw The Obama Deception

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NpTVXitOQk America Freedom to Fascism

  6. Isiahjon

    Monday, November 1, 2010 at 8:08 PM

    George W. would have been prouder to have Ms Rogers in the neighborhood of valid American patriots. Charming and with guts Ms. Rogers is the sign of times in the making for change of ideology in both colluding political parties thereof. In likelyhood the lady patriot is doing a great favor for the Wonce and its handler by advocating impeachment rule procedure thereat. She knows for a fact that the Usurper-Wonce was a total fraud hence is not impeacheable by any extent.

  7. Texoma

    Monday, November 1, 2010 at 7:06 PM

    Interesting information in your first paragraph.

    What was it that Hamilton said to Washington about Vattel in that Sept 15, 1790 letter? Do you have a link that would show the contents of this letter?

    In which court case did Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes quote Vattel in 1939? Was it by chance the 1939 case of Perkins v. Elg, when the Supreme Court affirmed Elg (born in NY to naturalized US citizens) to be a “natural born citizen”?

    It is also interesting to note that when Charles Evans Hughes ran unsuccessfully for President in 1916, his natural born citizen status was questioned (by Breckenridge Long — there was article in the Post & Email about this) since Hughes’ parents were both not US citizens when he was born.

  8. AuntieMadder

    Monday, November 1, 2010 at 6:48 PM

    Most of you here your eyes are glossing over again. Stand strong and vigilant.

    Well said, 1776reloaded, and not a moment too soon. Americans seem to be looking for a hero to fix this mess we’re in and, in their longing, seeing a Great American Hero in many people who just aren’t. It seems that whichever political or military figure who says the right things during his/her moment under the spotlight is assigned attributes and virtues of the Great American Hero, regardless of what that person’s track record and past statements reveal about who s/he really is.

    In January of this year, I saw “Scott Brown in 2012″ in at least a hundred posted comments all over the conservative blogosphere. Then, in the spring, it was “Gen MacChrystal 2012.” This summer it was “Palin/Brewer 2012.” Even “Christian O’Donnell 2012″ and “Palin/O’Donnell 2012″ started popping up last month. So many people were willing to make these people their Great American Hero without:
    - waiting to see how Brown would vote in the Senate (he’s proven himself to be a RINO)
    - finding out anything about MacChrystal other than his having talked smack about The Wonce to Rolling Stoner mag (he’s a far leftie, so much so that he forbade the TVs in his staff office to be turned to Fox News)
    - checking for other political organizations or committees to which Brewer may belong (she’s on The Wonce’s Council of Governors [playing both ends against the middle?]) http://arizona.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/jan-brewer-appointed-to-obamas-imperial-council-of-governors/
    - O’Donnell, like most any other sentient creature, is a better choice for Congress than the Marxist Coons, but during her brief time as a candidate, she’s already proven she’s no Great American Hero (not familiar enough with each ammendment of the Constitution, showed strong RINO characteristic when she caved in to pressure and ridicule of Salon.com and removed Pamela Geller from her list of endorsements).

    Here at P&E News, it seems that anyone who wants The Wonce removed from office, and especially those who want him removed due to his ineligibility, becomes the Great American Hero, even if only for a day. We need to remember that the enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend. This is especially true of The Wonce because he’s a really bad egg and every day more and more people are coming to realize that. So, just as we wouldn’t automatically assume that anyone who says, for example, that Genghis Kahn was an evil man, or that Charles Manson is criminally insane, is insightful, wise, virtuous and possessing of leadership qualities, we shouldn’t make those assumptions about anyone and everyone who opposes The Wonce. That goes for both those who oppose him due to his ineligibility as well as his destructiveness and those who sees his destructiveness while believing him to be eligible or don’t comment one way or the other on the eligibility issue. The Wonce is making it plainly visible to even those who rarely pay attention to politics that he hates America and should be removed from office. There’s nothing remarkable about knowing the obvious.

  9. PJPony

    Monday, November 1, 2010 at 2:08 PM

    Why are you blocking my comments?

  10. PJ

    Monday, November 1, 2010 at 1:41 PM

    If you really want to take them ALL down, investigate THIS:


  11. PJ

    Monday, November 1, 2010 at 1:05 PM

    She lost me at more money to teacher unions and single payer. Sorry.

  12. Harry H

    Monday, November 1, 2010 at 12:52 PM

    Kesha Rogers’ use of the 25th Amendment is misguided. Besides, it’s the 20th Amendment, Section 3 that could most easily and appropriately remove Obama. Trying to remove BO via the 25th by proving him a “failed personality” is unlikely to succeed. If the 25th is used, it should be because Obama has a constitutional disability (not a personality disorder) due to his ineligibility as a result of his foreign father and foreign birth.

    The 2Oth Amendment would be more efficacious since Obama is only a president-elect. Article 2, Section 1 mandates an American father for a prez, which Obama admits he does not have. Since he fails the mandated requirement, he cannot be and is not the president, merely a prez-elect. All Congress has to do is to declare that he is unqualified and then name an acting president.

  13. Bob1939

    Monday, November 1, 2010 at 11:09 AM

    I now make a small addendum to my earlier comments, not having ever seen Ms. Rogers voting records. Not to diminish her wonderful courage in her stating obama’s unfitness to serve in America; however arrest, not impeachment is the remedy because of the fraud and usurpation of the office makes obama nothing but a terrorist thug, not someone to be impeached. Now to her voting record, and her basic thinking, as outlined above by many fine contributors: Johnny, A Pen, 1776reloaded, Spaulding, Dan, and especially the common sense words of Publius Hulda, all make me realize that I may have been a wee-bit premature in giving this fine lady full accolades at this point. She is certainly on the right track about healing the Nation by getting rid of obama, and God bless her for standing up for that, and abiding by her oath of office!!!

  14. A pen

    Monday, November 1, 2010 at 7:27 AM

    The problem we have is that we now know that it is congress that is keeping the ineligible usurper in office. Congress has been served petition upon petition and refused to open a hearing to redress the issue. Unless and until a method of purging congress of those complicit in the violation, while maintaining a functioning government, there is no point in allowing them to choose a successor. We may well end up worse off, if that’s possible. It is an interesting scenario they have crafted, darned if we do and darned if we don’t. We must remain resolute in upholding the constitution.

  15. A pen

    Monday, November 1, 2010 at 7:11 AM

    Her tac is plausible only because it gives cover to those who would otherwise be guilty of aiding the ineligible usurpation of the position. It is obvious that art.2 of the constitution has been violated by congress. It is also obvious that the network of hacks entrenched in DC are beginning to fear the public as they learn about those principles enshrined in our foundation. The vast amout of power that has been usurped by the courts is within sight of the average man now. It is only a matter of time before a general understanding of the current culmination of defects is understood to be directly the result of government growing power unconstitutionally. The direction we need is educational first, planning second and reestablishing lawful order under constitutional provision.

    Publius Hulda has offered up yet another tool of enlightenment to help people see the truth. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/29383 The key to dealing with Obama, congress and the courts is in understanding our rights and enforcing the law as intended not as offered, insisted and so far accepted by default.

  16. 1776reloaded

    Monday, November 1, 2010 at 3:29 AM

    Most of you here your eyes are glossing over again stand Strong and Vigilant.

    1) Did not speak about teaching the children the Constitution only putting more money into the UNIONS. There is no more money to give. Where is the money going to come from? more taxes when we are already working for less then 50% of our salaries plus no jobs.

    2) Wants to give the teacher Unions MORE POWER. [[ Are you serious?]]

    3) Roosevelt was a huge PROGRESSIVE. He was for the “money changers” not against them. Lincoln was against them that is why he was murdered. They wanted to charge up to 30plus% interest to fund the civil war Lincoln said no and printed green-backs without interest and burden on the backs of the American People under Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5.

    (a)The Second Bill of Rights was a list of rights declared by Franklin D. Roosevelt, the then President of the United States, during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944. In his address Roosevelt suggested that the nation had come to recognize, and should now implement, a second “bill of rights”. Roosevelt’s argument was that the “political rights” guaranteed by the constitution and the Bill of Rights had “proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.” Roosevelt’s remedy was to declare an “economic bill of rights” which would guarantee:

    Employment, with a living wage,
    Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies,
    Medical care,
    Education, and,
    Social security


    One more thing about Ms. Rogers Hero Mr. Roosevelt

    New Deal failed because the government’s actions suppressed competition, slowing the economy’s ability to rebound. A central culprit was the National Recovery Administration (NRA), from 1933. The goal of the NRA was to lift wages for workers. But to do this, it encouraged industry leaders to meet and establish minimum prices and wages, effectively creating cartels. The result was wholesale prices rising 23 percent in two years.

    Ms. Rogers said: ” I represent the tradition of Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy in the Democratic Party”.

    Ms. Rogers I don’t think the founding fathers would appreciate you writing a new Bill of Rights and ether would the TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOTS OF THIS GREAT NATION.

    4) Said the health care “should” be repealed but then states she is for a single payer health care plan.

    5) Bailing out banks and private businesses IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. She is for these.

    6) Said “if the teachers had the tools”.
    They have everything from the tax payers but their kitchen sinks. There is no more to take. We need the People to take back control of the schools NOT THE INDOCTRINATING GOVERNMENT. Let us keep our money in our State instead of having the Government demand it and then they decide who will get it.

    7) Total Convoluted Rherteric about the preamble

    8) “Article 1 Section 8″? Does she not know that Congress passed that Power UNCONSTITUIONALLY and gave it to the NONGOVERNMENTAL BANKING CARTEL THE FEDERAL RESERVE IN 1913. Congress does not have that power. However
    Congress did NOT and does NOT have the Power to pass it’s Powers (Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5 to be exact to this particular) to a foreign entity. That in itself NULLIFIES the federal reserve.

    (a) Marbury v Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176; 2 LE
    60 (1803) “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”

    (b) Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 491; 86 S Ct 1602; 16 L Ed
    2d 694 (1966)”Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.”

    (c) Norton v Shelby County, Tennessee, 118 US 425, 442; 6 S Ct 1121; 30 L Ed 178 (1886) reveals that “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; creates no office. It is as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

    9) “So the private sector would play an important role in actually employing people, but they do not have the constitutional authority to create the jobs and actually print the currency and the credit which is necessary to get the startup projects going. So these projects would have to be started up by a federal government plan which would collaborate with the private sector, and you would have certain regulations so that the private sector would adhere to what would be necessary to get these projects off the ground” Didn’t we just print a trillion in bailouts for shuvit ready jobs? There must be a better way then just printing another trillion or 2 maybe 3 and paying interest on it to the UNCONSTITUTIONAL federal reserve.

    10) Ignores the definition of a Natural Born Citizen

    Ms.Rogers you are part of the problem. You show that your OATH would not be honored.

    You are not an American Citizen by your own definition.

  17. Spaulding

    Monday, November 1, 2010 at 1:21 AM

    While Ms. Rogers is an attractive young woman, and probably sincere, she wants single payer health care, wants more power for teacher’s unions, and doesn’t understand the Constitution. Among all the attempts to confuse the public no alternative to “born on the soil of citizen parents,” the citation by Chief Justice Marshall in The Venus, 12 U.S. 253, has survived. All the handwaving about dealing with Obama is ignorant, or insincere, if the framers and founders are not cited. Pick one, or two, or five. For Hamilton and Washington there is no more authoritative source than Vattel (Hamilton’s Sept 15 1790 letter to Washington). Jefferson built our first law school curriculum around Vattel in 1779. 14th Amendment principal author John Bingham repeated the definition in his 1866 House address arguing for his amendment. In 1939 Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes cited earlier Chief Justice Morrison Waite’s decision in Minor v. Happersett “…it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,…” Our problem is a recalcitrant judicial branch. If they will not honor the Constitution it is all a charade.
    “It was never doubted.” It was never doubted but it is now being ignored by our legal system and both major parties. That is why there are “tea parties.” The press doesn’t understand that Tea Parties represent citizens who understand that neither Democrats or Republicans are representing citizens who want allegiance to The Constitution. Allegiance is exactly the reason our framers required that our president be born of parents with sole allegiance to our Constitution. Obama was born a British subject to a father with allegiance to the Crown, Marxism, and Allah. Obama himself told us of his foreign origins and never said he was a natural born citizen. Clarity about these truths is essential. Ms. Rogers may learn, but certainly doesn’t currently grasp the facts. Claims to impeach Obama make no sense until his eligibility for office is examined.

    Larouch, who goes on and on about Leibniz and those he influenced including Hamilton, Pufendorf, and Vattel, and seems rational, goes off the deep end on The Queen, the Rothschilds, and several other villains. His unrealistic claims for nuclear fusion should cost him any reservations someone might hold that he may be worth trying to understand. Ms. Rogers needs to find a more rational mentor. This reader hadn’t heard about his antisemitism, but it doesn’t surprise.

  18. Texoma

    Monday, November 1, 2010 at 12:24 AM

    Thought-provoking indeed.

  19. Dan

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 at 11:45 PM

    Obama should be “charged” as a common crimminal based on fraud, forgery, and conspiracy to name a few in any State Supreme Court.

    MS. ROGERS: I can tell you that my thoughts are that he’s not an American citizen because he’s a traitor to the nation, not because of his paperwork and whether or not it says he has a birth certificate…… WRONG (if his BC said born in Cuba, father Fidel
    would that make him eligible under Article II, of course not)

    I’m not buying Ms. Rogers answer to Article II, section 1 either. The Law is the Law.
    Obama’s first cover up in Office was to sign Presidential Executive Order 13489
    to keep his “records” secret.

    Every Politician in Office were sent certified letters and affidavits concerning the issue
    by several parties. American Grand Jury, Manning, Lucas Smith, etc..
    It is their sworn duty to protect Our Constitution and uphold Our Laws.

    How about Obama using a S.S. # from CT .

    No need for Impeachment (besides, how can you impeach a false president, we
    never saw Obama sworn in the second time which was behind closed doors after he
    flubbed the first one)

    Courts can remove him.

    I guess we will see how honest she is in a few days. Even if she loses maybe
    she can claim “injury” by Barack.

    Rogers said, teacher Unions don’t have enough power. Yikes, What’s up with that.

  20. heather

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 at 10:48 PM

    Miki–I am with you on this education deal–I come from NJ where we had massive teachers unions who dictated to the governor how much they wanted from every tax payer and we in NJ had the highest property tax in the entire country–and 3/4′s of our taxes went to school tax and what do the kids get–better yet, as a parent who raised my kids in NJ what did I get?

    Teachers unions are nortoris for criminal activity–I know!

    Other than that I have to admit she does have some true grit on Barry!

  21. Ro

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 at 8:01 PM

    I hope she wins.

  22. Johnson

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 at 7:41 PM

    Demand Immediate Investigation and Prosecution to remove theCommunist Muslim Usurper so he can be removed to PRISON for treason & fraud

  23. Sam Sewell

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 at 7:24 PM

    Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

  24. AuntieMadder

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 at 7:02 PM

    What did they think this past spring, when they walked across the lot of Capitol Hill, following the wickedly smiling, gavel-brandishing Pelousy after signing the health scare bill? After being told by Americans representing the larger majority of voters that they’d not be re-elected if they signed the monstrous, corruption-laden horror of a bill into law, what, on that day, did they think would happen on the first Tuesday of November? What did The Wonce think would happen to his protectors? Why would he or they think that they’d still be around to protect him during the second half of his term?

    These questions are, of course, rhetorical. Still, they are thought-provoking.

  25. AuntieMadder

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 at 6:56 PM

    The way The Wonce has slapped them in the face, starting with his return of the bust of Churchill in the first days after his coronation to his remarks this summer about the British powers that be at BP, I highly doubt his puppetmasters are British.

    Be that as it may, Lyndon LaRouche, “whom [she] work[s] for,” is a chameleon who can and has, for example, denied the Holocaust and blamed Jews for the slave trade and numerous financial crises, among other global woes, and then, to a different audience or interviewer, went in the other direction to defend Jews and point the finger at anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers. A second example of how his views and beliefs change like wind direction is that he is, in one breath, a Marxist or an admirer of Lenin, and then, in the next, a Capitalist. It appears to me that LaRouche shares some of the traits of The Wonce as well as some of those of Soros.

    I don’t usually cite these wiki-like sources because they aren’t always reliable. This time, however, I don’t care to go find the sources that I initially read from about him. So, I’ll leave it to those interested to click the sources cited by sourcewatch for verification.

  26. plain jane

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 at 6:54 PM

    tell me it’s true…i want to belive it..going to the site now….

  27. Ro

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 at 6:44 PM

    This is bunk. He hid his records the day after he got into office. What are you talking about? I don’t care if he is CIA or DEA. It has to be taken out of office now.

  28. johnny says

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 at 6:38 PM

    o. k. Sky—- i will do that. i hope you and everybody else will do the same. make copies and spread them every where: vehicles, cars, restaurants, doctor and dentist offices, stores, dept. stores, hospitals, libraries, all offices and buildings, etc. etc. Great idea, Sky. thank you.

  29. sky

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 at 5:11 PM

    I AGREE, JOHNNY. Make copies of this and put every where: cars, doctor offices, hospitals, etc.

  30. johnny says

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 at 3:30 PM

    to ms. kesha rogers—- obama cannot be impeached because he was illegally elected. he is not a legal sitting president. when people call for impeachment of obama they are implying that he was legally elected. the only way to deal with obama is to arrest him and bring him to trial. i agree with rev. james w. manning. he held the c. i. a. columbia obama sedition and treason trial last may. obama and columbia university were found guilty on 17 counts.

  31. Bob1939

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 at 3:21 PM

    What a wonderful, courageous, and true patriot Ms. Rogers is !!! and what a refreshing surprise to see someone in the Democrat party dare to be so honest. The Democrat party should rebuild their party around this woman of integrity, or better yet Ms. Rogers should become a Republican and help the Republicans rebuild their party, and our Nation. With her brand of honesty and righteous vision, I ask God to please bless and keep this wonderful, and precious human being. Such wisdom from such a young and beautiful person; America had better LISTEN WELL, and LEARN. We thank you greatly Ms. Rogers.

  32. m02

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 at 3:11 PM

    “Roosevelt.. had the interest of the Founding Fathers in mind.”

    What has she been drinking? This is so outrageous that it is almost funny… oh heck, it is funny, I’m in a good mood..

  33. Sam Sewell

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 at 2:47 PM

    “President Obama is lost. Absolutely lost.” White House Insider

    Right now the White House is scrambling, and they don’t know enemies from friends anymore. The party is attempting to localize the damage so it doesn’t spread. Make it just about Chicago, and worst case, Obama – but not the party. And so you look back to Chicago, you look at the Justice Department, connect the dots. One investigation will potentially reveal the other. And it’s all setting up to happen now if the November elections go down with a Republican landslide. Obama will be left without protection. His inner circle is scared to death. I mean truly frightened by the prospects of what could be coming at them in the coming months. They have enemies both in the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. President Obama is lost. Absolutely lost.”


  34. Miki Booth

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 at 2:39 PM

    I could almost embrace this lady but I’m holding back because of her take on education. Instead of empowering the unions more I believe our children’s education should be in the hands of parents and local government – not a one size fits all from the feds. However, I will stand next to Ms. Rogers throwing the usurper out of office. I don’t know how she stands on hanging him for treason but I know I won’t be alone cheering at the gallows.


    Sunday, October 31, 2010 at 2:03 PM


  36. Stock

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 at 1:21 PM

    Very Impressive.

  37. 12thGenerationAMERICAN

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 at 11:17 AM

    What a breath of fresh air!?!? The Democrats can’t call this lady a racist!??!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>