Follow-up Letter to NM Governor Martinez Regarding The Removal of President Obama From The NM 2012 Presidential Election Ballot!

Dear Fellow Patriots:

What follows is a copy of my fifteenth letter that I forwarded to our NM Governor Susana Martinez today requesting the removal of President Obama from the NM 2012 Presidential Election Ballot, which I again am taking the liberty of sharing with you for informational purposes.

Please note that I have included excerpts from the letter that I forwarded to our NM U.S. Senator Tom Udall earlier today, which I believe relate to and/or further support my numerous requests for the removal of President Obama from the NM 2012 Presidential Election Ballot.

My letter to Senator Udall included the following recent revelations:

On October 25, 2012, an article and/or blog post revealed an eye-opening letter that revealed that the question of President Obama’s legitimacy will not go away with a change of office because of the uncertainty our country has experienced over the last several years as to who are its natural born citizens, and thereby constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President and Commander-In-Chief, which is apparent to many. 


On October 26, 2012, the editor of The Post & Email sent a thought provoking letter to Ms. Greta van Susteren, Author of “On The Record”, which airs weeknights at 10:00 p.m. on the Fox News Channel, asking why no main stream media outlets are covering the Obama eligibility and/or identity story.


For your information, I will also be sending a similar letter to NM U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman and Congressman Martin Heinrich.

Letter to Governor Martinez:

October 26, 2012

Dear Governor Martinez:

On October 18, 2012, I wrote to you and shared excerpts with you from a letter that I had forwarded to Senator Udall on that same day, which I believed supported my numerous requests (fourteen in total) for the removal of President Obama from the New Mexico 2012 Presidential Election Ballot because he is Constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of President and Commander-In-Chief of our armed forces.

I again would be remiss if I didn’t share excerpts from a letter that I sent to Senator Udall today in support of my request for said investigation by both houses of Congress, which I am taking the liberty of sharing with you because I believe they relate to and/or further support my numerous requests to have President Obama removed from the NM 2012 Presidential Election Ballot:

Excerpts From Senator Udall’s Letter:

“…On October 18, 2012, I wrote my fourteenth letter to you respectfully requesting that a full-scale investigation be conducted by both houses of Congress into the allegations made, on March 1, 2012 and July 17, 2012, by Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse.

For your information and again much to my dismay, to date I have not received a response from your office, but be that as it may, what follows are revelations that I believe further support said requests:

On October 25, 2012, an article and/or blog post revealed an eye-opening letter that revealed that the question of President Obama’s legitimacy will not go away with a change of office because of the uncertainty our country has experienced over the last several years as to who are its natural born citizens, and thereby constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President and Commander-In-Chief, which is apparent to many.  What follows is said article and/or blog post in its entirety:


Has Obama’s occupation of the White House been constitutional and/or legal?

Dear Editor:

I’ve just emailed a letter to all the Republican members of the U.S. Senate, which I wanted to share. It points out why the matter of presidential eligibility will not simply disappear with a change of office. A copy is posted below.


Dear Senator,

I am writing concerning the issue of presidential eligibility. The uncertainty our country has demonstrated over the last several years as to who are its natural born citizens, and so eligible to the presidency, is apparent to many. The reluctance of our country’s officers and representatives to deal directly with the matter leads the onlooker to an inevitable conclusion:

It is presumed that when the presidency next changes hands, the matter will fade away.

If the matter were really about Mr. Obama after all, this would probably be true, but to suppose that it is just about him, or that it will fade away, is to misunderstand the issue our country faces.

The matter of presidential eligibility involves the natural right of citizenship, which necessarily affects:

  • Immigration….. the right of the nation to establish and enforce a reasonable immigration policy.
  • Dual citizenship….. the right of the nation to refuse dual allegiances, (or dual citizenship, so called).
  • The right to vote….. full participation only in one’s own government; that right to self-government which naturally attaches to the legal citizens of the nation.
  • Future presidencies….. the right of the nation to require that its highest offices be held only by those whose connection and allegiance to the country has remained undivided.

How will our government be able to act honestly on any of these issues without potentially declaring the Obama presidency a farce? If the rule of law and the oath to support the Constitution is to be maintained in pretense only, the charade will need to be continued for a much longer time and over a much wider range of issues than was perhaps suspected!

Must we really continue to treat our laws with contempt in order to avoid self-reproof? Should our nation remain ensnared to avoid an uncomfortable situation? Absolutely not! We should free ourselves from the snare. There is no real loss when a person or nation stops doing wrong in order to do what is right. Partiality in the administration of the law is not a benefit to any nation, but justice brings stability.

Around the country, numerous eligibility cases have been filed which have been tossed out on “lack of standing”, while “official” opinions have been offered in an attempt to dispel the issue. However, the rule of law is not preserved by evasiveness, judicial oaths are not maintained in pretense, and the Constitution cannot be construed so as to be ineffectual.

Even today our government seems unable to address immigration in a reasonable and legal fashion, and by a doubtful construction of birthright citizenship, it causes all foreigners born within our borders to be dual nationals. Can we expect improvement if we are not forthright about such matters?

There is yet another possible consequence of failing to deal with the issue of presidential eligibility.

Uncertainty as to the legality of a presidency causes all legislation passed under that administration to be uncertain. If there are, in fact, any such laws, which are invalid, they remain unenforceable even after a change in office.

Should our state governors, representatives, and judicial officers be placed continually in the position of enforcing and punishing “offences” against federal legislation, which is itself of questionable validity? We have already seen the result of a case involving Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, (a six month prison sentence, and his questions as to the legitimacy of the Obama presidency unanswered).

It is a treacherous path for all. Such a matter as involves the presidency and affects the entire nation can never really be brushed aside as a mere technicality.

“…No Person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of President…”

“…This Constitution… shall be the supreme Law of the Land… The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”

  • The United States Constitution, Articles 2 and 6”


On October 26, 2012, the editor of The Post & Email sent a thought provoking letter to Ms. Greta van Susteren, Author of “On The Record”, which airs weeknights at 10:00 p.m. on the Fox News Channel, asking why no main stream media outlets are covering the Obama eligibility and/or identity story.  What follows is the article and/or blog that contained the letter in its entirety:  


[Editor’s Note:  The following letter has been mailed to Greta van Susteren, anchor of “On the Record,” which airs weeknights on the Fox News Channel at 10:00 p.m. Eastern.  This article is open access and may be reproduced in full with a link back toThe Post & Email and the author’s name kept intact.]

October 25, 2012

Ms. Greta van Susteren

“On the Record”

1211 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY  10036-8701

Dear Ms. van Susteren:

In your interview with Donald Trump on October 24, you appeared uncomfortable discussing Donald Trump’s public offer to Barack Obama to give $5,000,000 to a charity of Obama’s choosing if he released his college applications and records as well as passport applications and records to Trump’s satisfaction.

You attempted to make the case that Trump’s offer of $5,000,000 was inadequate because Trump is “a very wealthy man.”   Regardless of how wealthy Trump is, to most people, the amount he offered is more than magnanimous for any cause.

On the webpage featuring your show, Fox News asks “Why are so few news/media organizations covering the Libya/Benghazi/US Consulate Story?”

My question to you and all of the handsomely-paid anchors at Fox News is:  “Why is no news/media organization covering the Obama eligibility/identity story?”

A law enforcement investigation conducted by the Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff’s Office and Cold Case Posse has determinedand announced formally, on two occasions, that the “long-form birth certificate” to which you referred in your interview with Trump is a “computer-generated forgery,” yet you indicated that you are “satisfied” with its release.

To its credit, Fox News reported on the first and second Arpaio press conference online, but still failed to report the revelations on television and claimed that questions about Obama’s birthplace had been “debunked.”  Exactly who debunked them, Ms. van Susteren, when Obama himself claimed that he was born in Kenya before he was born in Hawaii?

Members of the Kenyan Parliament have stated “on the record” that Obama was born in their country.

The posse also found that Obama’s Selective Service registration card is a forgery.  Selective Service Director Lawrence Romo, who reports directly to Obama, will not allow access to the “original” application, if one exists.  Instead, he referred Mike Zullo, the lead investigator, to the FBI, which has also failed to take action on the charges of forgery and fraud put forth by the investigative team.  Numerous graphics and computer experts have gone “on the record,” some staking their reputations, in declaring the “birth certificate” a poor forgery.  Even an “expert” quoted by Fox News at the time said that he was misquotedand could not vouch for the authenticity of the document.

A licensed private investigator has staked her reputation and filed a lawsuit in Ohio on her claim that Obama is using a stolen Social Security number.

So what is Fox News hiding?  Why would you not want to be the first and only mainstream media outlet to report on these findings in the same way in which you are covering the Benghazi cover-up?

While it is unfortunate that most attorneys are not familiar with our founding documents, particularly the U.S. Constitution, to make the assumption that a digital image of a birth certificate already deemed to be a forgery by many qualifies Barack Hussein Obama for the presidency is ludicrous.  Simply being born in the country is not what our Founders intended when they included Section 1, clause 5 in Article II of the Constitution.  They wanted the person holding the office of president and commander-in-chief to have sole allegiance to the United States, which involves the citizenship of the parents, or at least the father. Were you aware that in 1916, Democrat Breckinridge Long, who served under President Woodrow Wilson as Third Assistant Secretary of State, correctly questioned the eligibility of Mr. Charles Evans Hughes because he was born in the United States but to a British-citizen father?

Obama claims to have been born to a foreign-born, non-naturalized father; therefore, it makes no difference where in the world he was born, nor did it make any difference for Mr. Hughes.

Obama’s own statements have conflicted with accepted “facts” about his childhood.  While he originally claimed that his parents were married when he was born, he now says that he was “born to a single mother.”  Moreover, Investigator Zullo has expressed doubt that the life story Obama has made public is accurate, including his birth date.  During an interview in early September, Zullo said that Obama’s memoirDreams From My Father, was written “to give him a cover story for a life that never happened.”  Is this matter not newsworthy?

Is it not worth investigating when a researcher who has published a myriad of articles about Obama states that “There is no Stanley Ann Dunham?”  Why would no one within a large news corporation such as Fox be even the slightest bit curious about such a claim?

hearing took place on October 22 in Indianapolis, IN initiated by Atty. Orly Taitz, of whom I am sure you have heard, during which a Superior Court judge heard testimony from two witnesses specializing in website development and typesetting, respectively, regarding Obama’s alleged long-form birth certificate.  One possesses 57 years of experience, and both declared the image a forgery.

By failing to report on what could be the worst fraud ever perpetrated on the American people, you, too, are complicit in the conspiracy which has kept an unvetted, unqualified person in the White House who now is responsible for the deaths of four State Department employees, including an ambassador, and hundreds, if not thousands, of military members who have been maimed and killed under his watch.  Everything about Obama’s past has been obscured and “fraught with problems,” yet the media is silent or derisive toward the messenger.

Glenn Beck, who some believe Fox wished to “control,” has now uttered the word “treason” in regard to Obama because of reports that the U.S. is arming Islamic insurgents in the Middle East.  Beck is not the first to accuse Obama of treason; it was done by a retired member of the military on March 17, 2009.  Since then, thousands of people have signed petitions, written letters and filed formal complaints of treason against Obama and Eric Holder, but Fox says nothing.

If Obama has presented forged documentation to the American people in order to deceive, is he guilty of treason?

It is not the amount which Trump offered that should gain your attention; it is the obfuscation which Obama has committed and the lack of vetting by “media/news organizations” that is to blame.  You must surely know that the large media companies control the information which reaches the people.  Since 2007, Fox News has failed to verify the “facts” Obama has issued about his life which he himself has now contradicted.  Other networks have also gone out of their way to provide cover for Obama’s questionable birthplace and life story.

As a trained attorney, like Trump, I am surprised that you would not be more circumspect about the image which Obama purported to be his birth certificate.  As a journalist, one would expect you to want to investigate the matter, but instead you have demonized the messenger.  Could it be that you are uncomfortable that the truth is about to become public and Fox News will lose all of its credibility?

While no major “media/news organizations” have followed this story, those of us in the internet community who have worked hard to pursue it will be the ones to break wide open the biggest fraud in all of American history.

Very truly yours,

Sharon Rondeau,

The Post & Email

P.O. Box 195

Stafford Springs, CT  06076


Continue Reading More About This Disturbing Issue:

Accordingly, I again am hereby respectfully requesting that a full-scale investigation be conducted by both houses of Congress into the allegations made, on March 1, 2012 and July 17, 2012, by Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse for the sake of the preservation of our United States of America that I love and for which so many brave and courageous Americans have and continue to make the ultimate sacrifice for.

For your information, I will also be forwarding the same information to our other NM U.S. Representatives..….”

End of Excerpts.

Please feel free to contact me at my email or home address should you have any questions and/or need any additional information from me regarding this matter.

Thank you. 

God Bless You and God Bless America!

Respectfully yours,

Jake L. Martinez


Automatic Electronic Response Received From Governor Martinez’s Office Regarding My Email Above:

Thank you for taking the time to share your comments and concerns with my office. A constituent service representative will be in contact with you regarding your issue.


Susana Martinez”

Note: The following is an important book in PDF format that contains a general view of the origin and nature of the U.S. Constitution and Government of The United States, along with other eye-opening articles and/or blog posts that reveal that our Constitution currently faces a 'Progressive' threat and that we now live in a post-constitutional country-You Decide:

A General View Of The Origin And Nature Of The Constitution and Government of the United States!-Posted on Citizens For A Constitutional Republic-By Henry Baldwin, Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (January 18, 1830 – April 21, 1844):

George Soros assault on U.S. Constitution: ‘White House officials involved in rewriting nation’s founding document’!-Posted on Aaron Klein-On March 27, 2011: 

Obama Versus the Constitution!-Posted on American Thinker-By James Lewis-On April 25, 2011:

American Constitution faces ‘progressive’ threat!-Posted on Aaron Klein-On July 3, 2011:

The Elite Are Not Even Trying To Hide How Much They Hate The U.S. Constitution Anymore!-Posted on The American Dream-On July 5, 2011:


Obama Administration’s War On the Constitution!-Posted on ThruthOut-By John Cusack-On September 1, 2012:

EXCLUSIVE—Mark Levin on ‘Ameritopia:’ ‘We Now Live in a Post-Constitutional Country!’-Posted on P. Jeffrey-On January 16, 2012:

Continue Reading My Following Blog Posts That Relate To This Disturbing Issue:


The Question of Obama’s Legitimacy Will NOT Go Away With a Change of Office!

The Greatest Fraud Perpetrated in American History!

Was there a conspiracy to put Obama in the White House?

Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility!

Did Saudis Buy Obama 2008 Election?

A Vote for Every Murderer and a Ballot for Every Rapist!

Massive Voter Fraud-Again!

Was Obama rattled by developing donor scandal story?

Active complaint to the FEC over President Obama’s 2008 campaign finances!

Recipient of Foreign Donations Accuses Others of Taking Foreign Donations!

CIA Columbia Obama Cover Up!

Why did a black preacher from Harlem have a “hit” placed on his life?

Just Happened!

Nearly 80 percent don’t trust the government!’t-tr...

Where Is America Today?

The Russian View of What Has Been Happening In America!

Is History Repeating Itself?


Note: The following videos seem extremely appropriate today:


A Republic, If You Can Keep It!

Declaration to Restore the Republic!

Note:  If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts, please copy website and paste it on your browser.  Sure seems like any subject matter that may be considered controversial by this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

Semper Fi!


Views: 85


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center



Clinton Donor And Tax Cheat Tied To Russia

“Do as we say, not as we do.”

That seems to be the slogan for Hillary Clinton and her political allies, and it’s especially apt in light of new information about one of Clinton’s largest campaign donors.

While the left is still trying to attack President Trump and his family over unproven business dealings and largely debunked connections to Russia, a new report indicates that it was Hillary Clinton’s team who were doing those exact things.

“Fox News has learned that one of the top donors to the ‘Hillary Victory Fund’ (HVF) in 2016 was a Los Angeles-based attorney who is alleged to have misused company funds to create his own $22 million real estate portfolio,” that outlet reported on Thursday.

“He has also been considered by California to be one of the state’s biggest tax cheats, and allegedly has ties to the (Russian) Kremlin,” Fox continued.

The man’s name is Edgar Sargsyan. His deep pockets greatly benefited Clinton’s campaign, with contributions of at least $250,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund in 2016.

He was also in charge of an elite fundraising dinner to benefit Clinton, where donors paid $100,000 per couple just to attend the ritzy event. But in true Clinton fashion, the money apparently went missing.

Sargsyan is now “being sued by his former company for allegedly diverting those funds to start his own real estate company,” according to Fox.

Now, people are asking hard questions about Clinton’s buddy Sargsyan, including whether his contributions were part of a pay-to-play scheme and if he had shady connections to foreign governments.

“Nobody gave to the Hillary Victory Fund out of the goodness of their heart or some generalized desire to help 33 random state parties,” pointed out attorney Dan Backer from the Committee to Defend the President.

“They did so to buy access and curry influence — something the Clintons have been selling for nearly three decades in and out of government,” he continued.

Trying to buy political influence is sadly common, especially when it comes to the Clintons. What is raising more red flags than normal, however, is the evidence that Sargsyan is no run-of-the-mill campaign donor.

“The really scary question is, what did this particular donor with this strange web of connections hope to buy for his quarter-million dollars?” Backer asked Fox News.

That web of connections is strange indeed.

The Committee to Defend the President is now alleging that SBK, a major Sargsyan-linked company “is an investment firm that is affiliated with United Arab Emirates president, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, and its international affiliate has business interests in Russia,” according to Fox.

“Among its dealings was a bid to finance $850 million for a major bridge project to connect Crimea with Russia,” the group claims.

“He worked for SBK, and SBK appears to have bid on some Crimean/Russian bridge project,” Backer said. “That’s usually an indicator of political favor and connections.”

It raises several chilling questions: Was Sargsyan paying a quarter million dollars to Clinton for political favors, and — more disturbingly — was that money actually from sources in Russia in order to smooth the way for its construction plans?

Nobody knows for sure. What is clear, however, is that there is a pattern of dirty money surrounding the Clintons, with the “Uranium One” and “Clinton Foundation” scandals just two of the most well-known examples.

“It reinforces how fast and loose the Clinton machine was when it came to ‘Hoovering up’ these megadonor checks, not just from questionable Hollywood and Wall Street elites but potentially from foreign influence peddlers using who knows what money,” Backer told Fox News.

“It reinforces the need to take a long hard look at not just the unlawful money laundering process, but the way in which they were solicited as well,” he continued. “The Clintons have never shown a great deal of concern for whomever it was cutting the checks — whether it’s foreign influence peddlers or Hollywood smut peddlers like Harvey Weinstein.”

If those claims are even partially true, then America dodged a bullet in November of 2016 — and it’s worth keeping the pile of foreign-connected Clinton scandals in mind the next time the left tries desperately to tie Donald Trump to Russia. Perhaps they should look in the mirror.


Washington Post Compares
Jeff Sessions To Slaveholder’

The Washington Post compared Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “slaveholders” after he quoted the Bible on Thursday while discussing his department’s policy of prosecuting all illegal immigrants who cross the border.

Sessions made the statement during a speech to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

WaPo ran a story entitled “Sessions cites Bible passage used to defend slavery in defense of separating immigrant families” by general assignment editor Keith McMillan and religion reporter Julie Zauzmer on Friday.

Rather than detailing the statistics Sessions cited in the speech that explain the immigration policy, the story quoted John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.

“This is the same argument that Southern slaveholders and the advocates of a Southern way of life made,” Fea said.

Sessions spent much of the speech discussing the numbers behind current immigration policy, including separating families at the Southwest border.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes,” Sessions said.

“Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful.”

“The previous administration wouldn’t prosecute aliens if they came with children,” Sessions said.

“It was de-facto open borders if you came with children. The results were unsurprising. More and more illegal aliens started showing up at the border with children.”

Sessions laid out the numbers in the speech.

“In 2013, fewer than 15,000 family units were apprehended crossing our border illegally between ports of entry in dangerous areas of the country,” he said.

“Five years later, it was more than 75,000, a five-fold increase in five years. It didn’t even have to be their child that was brought, it could be anyone. You can imagine that this created a lot of danger.”

The U.S. has the “opportunity” to fix its broken immigration system now, Sessions said.

“I believe that’s it’s moral, right, just and decent that we have a lawful system of immigration,” he said. “The American people have been asking for it.”

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service