Tyranny, Then Anarchy?

DOES ANY STATE OFFICIAL HAVE THE COURAGE TO EVALUATE OBAMA’S CREDENTIALS?

October 11, 2012

Along with many other Secretaries of State, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp has refused to vet Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the presidency even though the state attorney general has said that it is one of Kemp’s duties

Dear Editor:

The following letter was sent to Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens on Tuesday:

October 9, 2012

Attorney General Olens, by FAX:

Secretary Kemp has placed putative candidate Obama on the Georgia general ballot for president.

This is, allegedly, in violation of Georgia election laws and the responsibility of the Attorney General’s office to investigate.

The mission statement of the AG office reads in part “. . . conducting special investigations into questionable activity concerning any state agency . . . “.  The AG office did so most recently with Senator Balfour (ajc 9/11/12).  The Georgia Constitution mandates that: “The Governor shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed . . .” and “The Attorney General shall act as the legal advisor of the executive department, . . “  Governor Deal is on record as stating that: “The rule of law is sacred” ((11 Alive (tv news) 8/3/12)).  Furthermore, OCGA 45-15-10 states: “The Attorney General . . .  is authorized to prosecute in the criminal courts . . . any official . . . department . . . “.

The AG office has alluded to the ballot challenge issue as not being in their venue and should, instead, be addressed by the Grand Jury.  And, in fact, it was presented to the Union County Grand Jury (3/8/12) with full concurrence and support of the Grand Jury foreman.  The deliberation was made in the presence of DA Langley and was, therefore, “mysteriously” turned down.  The complaint was then filed with DA Langley according to OCGA 45-15-11 and never processed (5/7/12).  DA Langley had previously stated that he would not allow “state” issues to be processed in county Grand Juries.

The issue has to do with OCGA 25-2-5 (a) & (c).  Section (a) states quite clearly that candidates must meet constitutional requirements.  Open records requests have never yielded the documents that were used to qualify the candidate.  Rhetoric from the attorneys assigned to the SOS office alludes to the “fact” that the Democrat Party qualifies the candidate and therefore the SOS has no records.  Regardless, no records have ever been returned pertaining to the candidate’s bono fides from open records requests.  In a telephone conversation with Attorney Cam-Anh Le, Attorney Le stated: “The secretary (SOS Kemp) does not qualify candidates” and “The political parties qualify the candidates”.  This was so bizarre that I asked her to repeat what she said.  Attorney Russo in a letter dated 10/2/12 stared that: “The Secretary of State does not place candidates on the ballot pursuant to OCGA 21-2-5”.

One wonders, then, what OCGA 21-2-5 is for?  Section (c) states quite clearly: “The Secretary of State shall determine if the candidate is qualified . . .”.  Section (c) has not been modified or rescinded, yet; therefore it still stands as law.  If SOS Kemp has not placed putative candidate Obama on the Georgia ballot pursuant to this OCGA section he has broken the law.  He has not come forth with either the candidate’s certified, if any, or forged documents so it would appear that SOS Kemp has broken the law.

Furthermore, the provisions of section (a) whereby: “Every candidate  . . . who is certified by the state executive committee . . .” is not being complied with.  According to a document furnished by Attorney Russo, Obama was “certified” by the Mayor of Los Angeles acting in his temporary capacity as Chair of the Democrat National Committee.  This does not sound like the “state executive committee” of Georgia.  Attorney Jablonski, general counsel of the Democrat Party of Georgia was quite clear in his Argument and Citation of Authority in a motion before the OSHA court concerning M. J. Blanchard, Plaintiff v. Barack Obama, Defendant dated 12/15/11 that: “The Democrat Party of Georgia determines names to include on its Presidential  . . .Ballot . .”.  Attorney Jablonski went further in his motion to state: “OCGA 21-2-5 does not apply to the Presidential Preference Primary . . .”.  Attorney Jablonski has asserted the authority of OCGA 21-2-5 that the state party places candidates up for office but does he also imply that OCGA applies to general elections since in his mind it does not apply to primaries?  Is the general counsel for the party not stating that OCGA 21-2-5 pertains to the general election and implying that it should be complied with?  Why would the Attorney General not take heed of Attorney Jablonski’s comments?

Two things must happen in order for this election process to comply with Georgia’s election laws: A filing of candidacy must be submitted by the state party and the qualifications of that candidate must be examined for validity by the Secretary of State.  The “buck” has gone round and round on this issue, it has stopped at the Attorney Generals’ office, and now it is the responsibility of the Attorney General to see that the law of OCGA 21-2-5 is complied with.

We are falling deeper and deeper into tyranny as we continue to ignore the law and constitutional processes.  Anarchy follows tyranny like night follows day.  Soon we will be able to file Bubba’s Blue Tick coon dog for federal office without challenge, and Georgia seems to be leading the way.

For the Republic,

M. J. Blanchard

cc:  SOS Kemp, Governor Deal

Representatives Allison, Senator Gooch

media, grassroots

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“When law ends, tyranny begins.”  John Locke.  The Second Treatise of Civil Government

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.