Apparently in politics you can say anything then claim you misspoke, were kidding, were misquoted or just simply the best alternative to the other party and get elected. What happened to people looking out for the national interest, their posterity or their financial stability? Today it's all about how much money can my elected official help me get from the federal taxagator. Greed is the number one driver and being a bold liar with connections seals the deal.

Remember the old pennies on the eyes of the dead? Were they reincarnated crooked because of it? LOL

Yon, I am proud to stand by your side against this tyrannical regime. Lets ROLL !

Thank you sir. It is about time some answers came forth even if they are more lies. The issue is a major one and will not settle itself and must be addressed at some point before the entire legislative and judicial body are condemned for the cover up. It is a start, lets hope it gets finished before the 2010 election so we can put a legitimate set of leaders in DC by ballot rather than out of strategic necessity.

They closed the comments section already.

Cafferty will need to find a new job over at FOX if he questions one more thing this administration is up to. Sorry Jack but these days you either suck up or get banned, harassed, fired, you name it nothing fair or decent. Answers never come from schemers until they can get all the same response agreed to. Talk about crooks, these people are indefensible.

This is the result of having a radical lead radicals. It can only get worse since when they discover there can be no backlash they begin to feel omnipotent. Claiming to be doing ones job is a cop out since one must look at the evidence and perform a level of due diligence before acting on anyones behalf. I find it interesting that the secret service, FBI and DHS are all in posession of the facts and have ample opportunity to read the law, check for precedent and act accordingly. They obviously are following a pattern which signifies allegiance to an individual not the law of the land they swear to uphold and defend.

Mr Beck, you are entitled to YOUR opinion and I can understand your choice to believe you are the wisest man in your home but Mr Beck, unless you are going to claim that breaking a law is fine when you think it ought to be then you should not speak as a representative of the people. The constitution clearly states the requirements to be eligible to the office of the president. The founders were very clear on why we must have a constitution and stick to it. Unless you have proof the law has been satisfied you had better ask if it has and not opine that it has. Please, feel free to ask or feel freer to butt out of the law.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):

"It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one."

Since lawmakers can violate the supreme law with impunity as evinced by Obamas education has given him the idea of doing so simply because no court can charge them with a crime , while going to or during or returning from a session of congress. He then uses his powers to intimidate the federal and local courts into refusing cases because they would be required to find the entire government acting illegally. Thats the nerve of these people and a clear statement as to the need to remove the tyrants before they consolidate enough power that they can use force to solidify their grip on power.

The American Grand Jury has also taken its' aim on the same court. The Judge is Royce Lamberth and has quite a record of being truly independent of the other branches of government. Should this case be refused by the court for some technicality and dismissed with prejudice the foundation will have been laid for the alternate method of securing justice.

The FBI has no authority to prosecute. You folks had better get this straight, NO ONE can just be heard in a court unless they are deemed to have standing no matter the charge and against whom. If you haven't realized by now that the DOJ is protecting the usurper by causing every suit challenging it to be dismissed for completely bogus reasons you will never understand how tyrants accrue power.

Just because you know an act is illegal and acts following it in succession are illegal and designed to augment the power of government will do nothing to stop it from going as far as it desires. The oath of office was a warning to elected officials to be careful not to violate constitutional law and tread on the rights of people to seek redress peacefully. When the oath no longer means a thing, which as you can easily see today, the second amendment kicks in. Not as an immediate course of action until the right to be heard, access the courts for legal remedy and financial deterrents all fail. I do not know how much failure is required because the Declaration of Independence only alludes to a train of events leading to one purpose.