Viernes, 25 de septiembre de 2009
 
Schock Releases Report Contradicting State Department on Honduras

Schock offers plan for compromise resolution of the standoff

 
 

Washington, Sep 24 -


DOCUMENT
 PDF



Congressman Aaron Schock (R-IL) today released a report written by the Library of Congress which concludes that the removal of former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was legal and Constitutional.

“The bottom line is one of the most basic foundations of the world community is the rule of law,” said Schock.  “The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded that the removal of former President Zelaya was Constitutional, and we must respect that.  It’s unconscionable that our Administration would attempt to force Honduras to violate its own Constitution by cutting off foreign aid.”

Schock is offering a compromise to resolve the situation by:

1. Resuming US aid, international aid and ending the VISA sanctions.

2. Cooperating with the Honduran government by sending normal election observers to ensure the fairness of the regularly scheduled November election and recognizing the legitimacy of that election, so long as it is conducted in a fair and accurate manner.

3. While the Library of Congress report found the removal from power of former President Zelaya legal and constitutional, they also found Zelaya’s removal from the country to be explicitly unconstitutional.  Schock is calling for the Honduran government to allow Zelaya out of the Brazilian Embassy, recognize that his punishment for what led to his removal from power IS his removal from power, drop plans to prosecute him and issue a general amnesty for everyone involved in his removal from power.   As a private citizen, Zelaya would have the right to campaign for his choice in the upcoming presidential election. However if he resorts to the incitement of violence, or advocates the violent overthrow of the Honduran government, then he should be arrested and put on trial as the government would do with any other citizen.

The report was written by Norma C. Gutierrez, a Senior Foreign Law Specialist in Central America.  Among its conclusions is that: "The Supreme Court of Honduras has constitutional and statutory authority to hear cases against the President of the Republic and many other high officers of the State, to adjudicate and enforce judgments, and to request the assistance of the public forces to enforce its rulings."
 

 

Tags: OBAMA HONDURAS

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:12
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
http://frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=36423  

Obama’s Dangerous UN Agenda By:
Ben Johnson

FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, September 25, 2009  





 Much commentary about Barack Obama’s speech to the United Nations Wednesday has focused on his description of pre-Obama America as a deadbeat, lawless, foot-dragging country that tortures innocent Muslims, or did until his glorious ascension to the right hand of power. The predictable emphasis on the speech’s most offensive aspects overlooks more dangerous points yet: the president placed unilateral nuclear disarmament, the environmentalist agenda, and increased pressure on U.S. allies at the forefront of a globalist agenda, while relegating terrorism to a footnote – one that regards it as a “law enforcement” matter. (Yes, he used those words.)

 The “I”s Have It

 Obama has been accused of having a messianic view of his presidency. In 41 major presidential speeches before the UN address, Obama made reference to himself nearly 1,200 times, more than twice as often as every member of Congress combined. His UN address was similarly Obama-centric.

 

To highlight the glimmering hope his presidency embodies, he demonized America, B.B.O. (Before Barack Obama). He noted the international “belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally,” a belief he has made clear in other venues he shares; he said “America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy”;  and he declared the dark “days when America dragged its feet on [climate change] are over” – a less caustic version of his remark Tuesday at the Climate Change Summit that, under a certain unnamed predecessor, America suffered “too many years of inaction and denial.”

 

He then presented himself as the savior of international relations, touting “the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world.” He hastened to add these “expectations are not about me” but rather are “rooted in hope – the hope that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change.”

 

Obama then equated “the character and cause of my nation,” with “the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months.” During this time, he boasted, he “prohibited… the use of torture by the United States of America,” ordered “the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed,” determined “combat extremism within the rule of law,” joined the UN Human Rights Council, and “paid our bill” to the United Nations.

 

This leaves the impression the United States was a cheapskate nation that had turned its back on global human rights, and implicitly admits torturing and otherwise conducting a lawless anti-terrorism program. In reality, Gitmo is not closed, as Obama has acknowledged it contains a number of prisoners who can neither be released nor transferred, and he has no plan to deal with them. It is true that the Republican Congress voted to withhold a portion of UN dues twice B.B.O. (in 2001 and 2005) – over President Bush’s strenuous objections. Congress recognized the U.S. pays nearly a quarter of the UN’s budget, while 128 of its 192 member nations pay one percent, and it demanded reforms. This demand was in part motivated by the fact that Cuba, China, and Saudi Arabia sit on the UN Human Rights Council. Upon taking office, Obama paid nearly a billion dollars to the UN and rejoined the UNHRC – once again, without securing, or even asking for, anything in return. In general, his administration’s view is best elucidated by Susan Rice, who said “others will likely shoulder a greater share of the global burden if the United States leads by example, acknowledges mistakes…and treats others with respect.” Like generations of leftists, the Obama administration believes the U.S. is guilty of straining international relations for years, and our collective guilt explains the world's “reflexive anti-Americanism,” which can now be put to an end because of…him. He does not believe, as did John Bolton, that the UN has been too accommodating to terrorism.

 

And his “counterterrorism” proposal reflects it........Continue

        http://frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=36423                


Tags: Obama?s UN Agenda

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:09
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 23 de septiembre de 2009

Coup d’etat at the United Nations:

DELIVERED!

 

 

 

 By Judi McLeod  Wednesday, September 23, 2009

imageAn American president in office less than nine months delivered the United States of America over to control of the United Nations today.  In his brutal betrayal, there were no shots fired, insults to his own country from the silver tongue of Barack Obama.

Not since Judas Iscariot sold out the real Messiah for 30 pieces of silver has a betrayal been so piercing to the human heart.

Correction, radio giant Rush Limbaugh, Obama is not President of the World but self-crowned King of the World.

America’s enemies worldwide will be shooting off their guns in celebration today.

Nine months into his presidency George W. Bush faced the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Nine months into his presidency Obama has thrown the country that provided him, his wife Michelle and inner circle of friends a charmed life, to the ravening wolves.

For those still dreaming the big dream in technicolor, Obama is the shepherd of global One World Government: “Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone”,  he said in his first and only address to the U.N. General Assembly.

“Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”

“The time has come for the world to move in a new direction,” Obama said before a U.N. chamber packed with more than 100 of his global elite counterparts.

Obama said past policies and a perception of unilateralism by the United States had fed “an almost reflexive anti-Americanism” that too often was used as an excuse for inaction.

Not mentioned in Obama’s script was his leading role since election in fueling that perception.

First to follow Obama on the podium was one of his hugest fans, despot Muammar Gaddafi, who led the cheering from the UN bullpen.

Gaddafi claims Africans are proud that a “son of Africa” is President of the United States, and even suggested that he would support Mr. Obama in following the common African practice of clinging to power indefinitely.  “We are content and happy if Obama stays forever as President,” Gaddafi said.

In calling the American president a “son of Africa”, Gaddafi may have been closer to the truth than he thought.

The coup d’etat delivered to the UN by Obama this morning is demoralizing to freedom lovers the world over who know he has contributed nothing but misery to American life.

Obama invented himself as an unlikely hero in a book of fairytale dimensions called Dreams of My Father, which tells in part a not very unique story in modern day society:  He was abandoned along with his mother by his father at age 2.

Passing himself off as a saviour of the poor and the black, his own relatives still live in huts with water delivered by donkey.

For all of those who voted for Obama thinking he would ease the poverty of their lives, you have now been rendered a “global citizen” by nothing more than a smooth talking,  power-tripping politician.

America you were badly betrayed by your own president today.  But this is not the time to weep.  It is the time to reclaim your country.

The darkness has come.


(7) Reader Feedback | Subscribe

Copyright © Canada Free Press
Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.

Judi can be emailed at: judi@canadafreepress.com

Older articles by Judi McLeod


Tags: OBAMA UN

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:25
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
  • The Wall Street Journal 
    The Honduras Mess A dangerous standoff that the U.S. helped to create.
    • http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574427403985118892.html
    • SEPTEMBER 23, 2009
      After nearly three months in exile, Manuel Zelaya, the deposed president of Honduras, made a stealth return to Tegucigalpa on Monday, taking sanctuary in the Brazilian embassy. He is now using this diplomatic sanctuary to demand reinstatement and stir up his supporters in the streets. This is a dangerous moment, and if violence breaks out the U.S. will bear no small part of the blame.

    Mr. Zelaya was deposed and deported this summer after he agitated street protests to support a rewrite of the Honduran constitution so he could serve a second term. The constitution strictly prohibits a change in the term-limits provision. On multiple occasions he was warned to desist, and on June 28 the Supreme Court ordered his arrest.

    Every major Honduran institution supported the move, even members in Congress of his own political party, the Catholic Church and the country's human rights ombudsman. To avoid violence the Honduran military escorted Mr. Zelaya out of the country. In other words, his removal from office was legal and constitutional, though his ejection from the country gave the false appearance of an old-fashioned Latin American coup.

    The U.S. has since come down solidly on the side of—Mr. Zelaya. While it has supported negotiations and called for calm, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have both insisted that Honduras must ignore Mr. Zelaya's transgressions and their own legal processes and restore him as president. The U.S. has gone so far as to cut off aid, threaten Honduran assets in the U.S. and pull visas to enter the U.S. from the independent judiciary. The U.S. has even threatened not to recognize presidential elections previously scheduled for November unless Mr. Zelaya is first brought back to power—even though he couldn't run again.

    This remarkable diplomatic pressure against a small Central American ally has only reinforced Mr. Zelaya's refusal to compromise short of a return to the presidency, with all of the instability and potential for violence that could involve. It also probably encouraged him to gamble on returning to Honduras on Monday, figuring even that provocation won't endanger U.S. support. And so far it hasn't.

    Now that he is back, Mr. Zelaya and his allies aren't calling for calm. His supporters have flocked to Brazil's embassy with cinder blocks, sticks and Molotov cocktails. "The fatherland, restitution or death," he shouted to demonstrators outside the embassy. In anticipation of trouble and with concern for public safety, President Roberto Micheletti announced a curfew. But when police tried to enforce the curfew, the zelayistas resisted and there is now a Honduran standoff.

    On Monday Mr. Zelaya said he owed his return and political survival to "the support of the international community." He's getting support from Nicaragua's Sandinista President Daniel Ortega, the former guerrilla group FMLN in El Salvador, and especially from Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. But let's face it: None of that support would mean very much without the diplomatic and sanctions muscle of the U.S.

    If the U.S. didn't know about Mr. Zelaya's stealth return, it ought to feel deceived and drop its support. Now that he's back in Honduras, the best solution to avoid violence would be for the U.S. to urge Mr. Zelaya to turn himself over to Honduran authorities for arrest and trial.

    Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A24

    Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
    ------------------------
    NOTE: UNDER WHICH STATUS IS ZELAYA AT THE BRAZILIAN EMBASSY?

    WAS HE GRANTED A DIPLOMATIC, EXILE OR TERRITORIAL STATUS?

     

    CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC ASYLUM


    The governments of the Member States of the Organization of American States, desirous of concluding a Convention on Diplomatic Asylum, have agreed to the following articles:

    Article I

    Asylum granted in legations, war vessels, and military camps or aircraft, to persons being sought for political reasons or for political offenses shall be respected by the territorial State In accordance with the provisions of this Convention.

    For the purposes of this Convention, a legation is any seat of a regular diplomatic mission, the residence of chiefs of mission, and the premises provided by them for the dwelling places of asylees when the number of the latter exceeds the normal capacity of the buildings.

    War vessels or military aircraft that may be temporarily in shipyards, arsenals, or shops for repair may not constitute a place of asylum.

    Article II

    Every State has the right to grant asylum; but it is not obligated to do so or to state its reasons for refusing it.

    Article III

    It is not lawful to grant asylum to persons who, at the time of requesting it, are under Indictment or on trial for common offenses or have been convicted by competent regular courts and have not served the respective sentence, nor to deserters from land, sea, and air forces, save when the acts giving rise to the request for asylum, whatever the case may be, are clearly of a political nature.

    Persons included in the foregoing paragraph who de facto enter a place that is suitable as an asylum shall be Invited to leave or, as the case may be, shall be surrendered to the local authorities, who may not try them for political offenses committed prior to the time of the surrender.

    Article IV

    It shall rest with the State granting asylum to determine the nature of the offense or the motives for the persecution.

    Article V

    Asylum may not be granted except In urgent cases and for the periodic of time strictly necessary for the asylee to depart from the country with the guarantees granted by the Government of the territorial State, to the end that his life, liberty, or personal Integrity may not be endangered, or that the asylee's safety is ensured in some other way.

    Article VI

    Urgent cases are understood to be those, among others, in which the Individual is being sought by persons or mobs over whom the authorities have lost control, or by the authorities themselves, and is in danger of being deprived of his life or liberty because of political persecution and cannot, without risk, ensure his safety in any other way.

    Article VII

    If a case of urgency is involved, it shall rest with the State granting asylum to determine the degree of urgency of the case.

    Article VIII

    The diplomatic representative, commander of a warship, military camp, or military airship, shall, as soon as possible after asylum has been granted, report the fact to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the territorial State, or to the local administrative authority if the case arose outside the Capital.

    Article IX

    The official furnishing asylum shall take into account the information furnished to him by the territorial government in forming his judgment as to the nature of the offense or the existence of related common crimes; but this decision to continue the asylum or to demand a safe-conduct for the asylee shall be respected.

    Article X

    The fact that the Government of the territorial State Is not recognized by the State granting asylum shall not prejudice the application of the present Convention, and no act carried out by virtue of this Convention shall Imply recognition.

    Article XI

    The government of the territorial State may, at any time, demand _ at the asylee be withdrawn from the country, for which purpose the said State shall grant a safe-conduct and the guarantees stipulated in Article V.

    Article XII

    Once asylum has been granted, the State granting asylum may request that the asylee be allowed to depart for foreign territory, and the territorial State is under obligation to grant Immediately, except in case of force majeure, the necessary guarantees, referred to In Article V, as well as the corresponding safe-conduct.

    Article XIII

    In the cases referred to in the preceding articles the State granting asylum may require that the guarantees be given in writing, and may take into account, in determining the rapidity of the journey, the actual conditions of danger Involved in the departure of the asylee.

    The State granting asylum has the right to transfer the asylee out of the country. The territorial State may point out the preferable route for the departure of the asylee, but this does not imply determining the country of destination.

    If the asylum is granted on board a warship or military airship, departure may be made therein, but complying with the previous requisite of obtaining the appropriate safe-conduct.

    Article XIV

    The State granting asylum cannot be held responsible for the prolongation of asylum caused by the need for obtaining the information required to determine whether or not the said asylum is proper, or whether there are circumstances that might endanger the safety of the asylee during the journey to a foreign country.

    Article XV

    When, In order to transfer an asylee to another country it may be necessary to traverse the territory of a State that is a party to this Convention, transit shall be authorized by the latter, the only requisite being the presentation, through diplomatic channels, of & safe-conduct, duly countersigned and bearing a notation of his status as asylee by the diplomatic mission that granted asylum.

    En route, the asylee shall be considered under the protection of the State granting asylum.

    Article XVI

    Asylees may not be landed at any point In the territorial State or at any place near thereto, except for exigencies of transportation.

    Article XVII

    Once the departure of the asylee has been carried out, the State granting asylum is not bound to settle him in its territory; but it may not return him to his country of origin, unless this is the express wish of the asylee.

    If the territorial State informs the official granting asylum of its intention to request the subsequent extradition of the asylee, this shall not prejudice the application of any provision of the present Convention. In that event, the asylee shall remain in the territory of the State granting asylum until such time as the formal request for extradition Is received, in accordance with the Juridical principles governing that Institution In the State granting asylum. Preventive surveillance over the asylee may not exceed thirty days.

    Payment of the expenses Incurred by such transfer and of preventive control shall devolve upon the requesting State.

    Article XVIII

    The official furnishing asylum may not allow the asylee to perform acts contrary to the public peace or to interfere in the® internal politic of the territorial State.

    Article XIX

    If as a consequence of a rupture of diplomatic relations the diplomatic representative who granted asylum must leave the territorial State, he shall abandon it with the asylees.

    If this is not possible for reasons independent of the wish of the asylee or the diplomatic representative, he must surrender them to the diplomatic mission of a third State, which is a party to this Convention, under the guarantees established In the Convention.

    If this is also not possible, he shall surrender them to a State that is not a party to this Convention and that agrees to maintain the asylum. The territorial State is to respect the said asylum.

    Article XX

    Diplomatic asylum shall not be subject to reciprocity. Every person is under its protection, whatever his nationality.

    Article XXI

    The present Convention shall be open for signature by the Member States of the Organization of American States and shall be ratified by the signatory States in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures.

    Article XXII

    The original instrument, whose texts in the English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese languages are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the Pan American Union, which shall send certified copies to the governments for the purpose of ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited in the Pan American Union, and the said organization shall notify the signatory governments of the said deposit.

    Article -XXIII

    The present Convention shall' enter into force among the States that ratify it in the order in which their respective ratifications are deposited.

    Article XXIV

    The present Convention shall remain In force Indefinitely, but may t>e denounced by any of the signatory States by giving advance notice of one year, at the end of which period it shall cease to have effect for the denouncing State, remaining in force, however, among the remaining signatory States. The denunciation shall be transmitted to the Pan American Union, which shall inform the other signatory States thereof.

    RESERVATIONS

    Honduras

    The delegation of Honduras subscribes to the Convention on Diplomatic Asylum with reservations with respect to those articles that are in violation of the Constitution and laws in force in the Republic of Honduras.



    Tags: OBAMA HONDURAS WSJ

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:14
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/  

    From retired criminal Magistrate Steven Neuenschwander to judge Land

    September 22, 2009

     

    The Honorable Judge Clay Land

    120 12th Street

    PO Box 124

    Columbus, Georgia

    31902

     

    Dear Honorable Judge Land,

     

    I have been an officer of the courts for over thirty years.  In that time I have never seen a total disregard to our constitutional laws and a blatant disrespect for the robe you wear as I have seen in your actions in the recent case of Capt Rhodes.

     

    As a justice of the federal courts, you of all persons, should by now recognize the importance of the solemn oath you have taken to protect not only the constitution but the citizenry of which it serves.  You want to threaten and intimidate a counsel for the plaintiff that has spent thousands of tireless hours representing her clients pro bono to include Captain Rhodes with sanctions and fines, while you display a total disregard to the rule of law.  You sir are a disgrace to your office, the privileged robe you wear as a symbol of that office and to the citizens of the United States who by delegation of their sacred vote have allowed your appointment to that court. 

     

    You have not only a legal, moral, and ethical responsibility to uphold the office of your appointment but to the Constitution as well as the origin of its existence.  Any layman can read Article 1 of the Constitution and quickly ascertain the relevance and intent of the founders of that treasured document.  An intent so adamantly addressed to ensure that this republic can stand regardless of the tyranny it may face in the future.  Based on your actions I am left with only two logical conclusions.

     

    Perhaps your political will is so far left and off stream of the intent and will of the Constitution you simply are not able to effectively administer the position of your appointment.  If that be the case, then you have a moral and legal obligation to remove yourself and let the citizens delegate appointment to a more worthy candidate.

     

    Perhaps you are under political duress by threats or intimidation upon yourself or your family.  If that be the case, while we sympathize with your dilemma, it is time to stand up and be counted.

     

    Captain Rhodes and tens of thousands other Americans stand in arms way as they serve to protect and defend this country against all enemies foreign and domestic.  They sacrifice with little regard to their own personal safety so that others, like you, may continue to enjoy the protection granted by the Constitution.  You sir, if you are unable to stand up against those that threaten you are simply a coward.  A person, when called by both God and Country has decided to hide behind an artificial symbol, your robe, and desecrate the flag, the Constitution and the public you serve.

     

    I know not which scenario you apply.  However, regardless, you are directed by your oath of office to adjudicate, provide due process and ensure right of grievance as protected rights under the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America.

     

    I await, your honor, for you to stand tall and brave and have the “right stuff” and dismiss your show cause against Attorney Taitz and permit her plaintiff the due process and right to address grievance as provided under American law.

     

    Respectfully,

     

     

     

    Steven K. Neuenschwander

    Retired Criminal Magistrate

    United States of America

     


    Tags: OBAMA JUDGE LAND TAITZ

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:42
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Lunes, 21 de septiembre de 2009

    CONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT OF HONDURAS MICHELETTI TALKS TO THE COUNTRY ON  09/21/09


    Tags: MICHELETTI HONDURAS

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 22:26
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     
    ZELAYA ARRIVED IN HONDURAS, NOTICE PHOTO OF MURDERER
     CHE.
     
     
     
     
     
    ALSO IT WAS ANOUNCED THE OAS WAS GOING TO MEET AT 8.30 PM ABOUT HONDURAS, NO LIVE
    TRANSMITION  AT THE OAS SITE BUT AT THIS  TIME CHAVEZ'S TELESUR WAS BROADCASTING LIVE
     FROM OAS.
     
     
     
    OAS JUST APROVED A RESOLUTION AGAINST HONDURAS CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT.
     
     
     
     
     
     

    Tags: OBAMA ZELAYA OAS

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 19:04
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     


    WND Exclusive

    Reported return of Honduran leader sparks protests
    Obama supporting ousted Zelaya despite fears he would turn country sharply left

    Posted: September 21, 2009
    4:53 pm Eastern

    By Ashley Rindsberg
    © 2009 WorldNetDaily

    TEGUCIGALPA – The Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa has erupted into demonstrations amid reports ousted president Manuel Zelaya has returned.

    The interim government, led by Roberto Micheletti, issued denials that Zelaya is in the country, but the U.S. State Department has confirmed Zelaya is in Honduras.

    The Obama administration has shown strong support for Zelaya despite widespread criticism that the former president was leading the country down a path eerily similar to that of Venezuela under its leftist president, Hugo Chavez.

    Zelaya himself said he was in the capital during a broadcast today on Venezuela' government-owned Telesur network.

    "I'm here in the Honduran capital, in the first place carrying out the people' will, which has insisted on my restoration," Zelaya said.

    Demonstrations are centered around Colonia Palmira, the upscale Tegucigalpaneighborhood where diplomatic missions and some of the city's native and foreign elite reside behind towering walls topped with razor wire and electric fencing.

    Crowds here have been marching and driving down Palmira's streets, which have been choked off to traffic, chanting pro-Zelaya slogans and waving the red and white flag of the former president's Liberal party in celebration of his return.

    Some reports claimed Zelaya was harbored inside the American embassy, in Palmira, drawing the demonstrators to that part of the city.

    Obama siding with Chavez-like politician?

    Chavez's recent support for Zelaya, including congratulations issued today by the Venezuelan president, underscore belief that Zelaya was attempting to move the country sharply to the left, and using unconstitutional methods to achieve this political turn. Many in Honduras are puzzled and frustrated by White House 

    While today's demonstrations have not been violent, police helicopters have started circling the area, and the loud bangs of fireworks are punctuating the shouts, horn honking and drone of the hovering choppers.

    According to local sources, demonstrations of this kind have been fairly common since the summer coup that ousted Zelaya, however reports of the former president's return to the city despite warnings of arrest from the Micheletti government have intensified the reaction.

    All this comes on the heels of very serious political and social polarization in Honduras, particularly in the capital. Both opponents and advocates of Zelaya say the divide has been exacerbated by Washington's decision to cut aid and revoke the visas of Honduras' diplomatic mission and even some of its federal judges.

    Despite Honduras' noticeable history of peace in the context of near-constant Central American political violence, today's demonstrations and Zelaya's return indicate the country's current instability is not abating.

    involvement in what they consider to be an internal Honduran matter, particularly since Zelaya was removed not by the military, as the Obama administration has publicly claimed, but by the Honduran congress and courts. 
     

     
     
    WND Exclusive

    Reported return of Honduran leader sparks protests
    Obama supporting ousted Zelaya despite fears he would turn country sharply left

    Posted: September 21, 2009
    4:53 pm Eastern

    By Ashley Rindsberg
    © 2009 WorldNetDaily



    TEGUCIGALPA – The Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa has erupted into demonstrations amid reports ousted president Manuel Zelaya has returned.

    The interim government, led by Roberto Micheletti, issued denials that Zelaya is in the country, but the U.S. State Department has confirmed Zelaya is in Honduras.

    The Obama administration has shown strong support for Zelaya despite widespread criticism that the former president was leading the country down a path eerily similar to that of Venezuela under its leftist president, Hugo Chavez.

    Zelaya himself said he was in the capital during a broadcast today on Venezuela' government-owned Telesur network.

    "I'm here in the Honduran capital, in the first place carrying out the people' will, which has insisted on my restoration," Zelaya said.

    Demonstrations are centered around Colonia Palmira, the upscale Tegucigalpaneighborhood where diplomatic missions and some of the city's native and foreign elite reside behind towering walls topped with razor wire and electric fencing.

    Crowds here have been marching and driving down Palmira's streets, which have been choked off to traffic, chanting pro-Zelaya slogans and waving the red and white flag of the former president's Liberal party in celebration of his return.

    Some reports claimed Zelaya was harbored inside the American embassy, in Palmira, drawing the demonstrators to that part of the city.

    Obama siding with Chavez-like politician?

    Chavez's recent support for Zelaya, including congratulations issued today by the Venezuelan president, underscore belief that Zelaya was attempting to move the country sharply to the left, and using unconstitutional methods to achieve this political turn. Many in Honduras are puzzled and frustrated by White House involvement in what they consider to be an internal Honduran matter, particularly since Zelaya was removed not by the military, as the Obama administration has publicly claimed, but by the Honduran congress and courts.

    While today's demonstrations have not been violent, police helicopters have started circling the area, and the loud bangs of fireworks are punctuating the shouts, horn honking and drone of the hovering choppers.

    According to local sources, demonstrations of this kind have been fairly common since the summer coup that ousted Zelaya, however reports of the former president's return to the city despite warnings of arrest from the Micheletti government have intensified the reaction.

    All this comes on the heels of very serious political and social polarization in Honduras, particularly in the capital. Both opponents and advocates of Zelaya say the divide has been exacerbated by Washington's decision to cut aid and revoke the visas of Honduras' diplomatic mission and even some of its federal judges.

    Despite Honduras' noticeable history of peace in the context of near-constant Central American political violence, today's demonstrations and Zelaya's return indicate the country's current instability is not abating.


    Tags: OBAMA ZELAYA

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:15
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     

    My Open Letter to Judge Land

    by DefendUSx September 20, 2009 20:28

    Judge Land, i'm sure you're aware of illegals using various methods for forging birth certificates. If fact, the company hired to fix the Sprinkler systems 3 days before 9/11 had all faked their birth certificates! The company is called Berlew Plumbing and Heating out of New Jersey.

    You also might be interested to know that in September of 2006, Kelly J. McCrum sold 1525 S Sangamon St. Unit 707, Chicago IL to a person named Osama Barakat. Kelly J. McCrum is the wife of Craig M. Robinson. Craig Robinson is Michelle Obama's brother. The creditor to the purchaser of the Unit (Osama Barakat) was Berlew Plumbing and Heating. 

    In other words, a known Al Qaeda front investigated by the FBI also paid for a housing Unit connected to the Obamas. These things can be proven in a court of law, yet no Judge has had the Cahunas to do this.

    As for vetting? Money buys loyalty, or maybe you know this first-hand, or maybe you don't. In any case, this "hi-jacking" of America's most vulnerable political party wasn't planned over-night. The key to making it all happen was through bribery, and paid loyalty at some of the highest positions of our government. The Democrat party is rapidly becoming America's "New Party". The "New Party" was the old Communist Party USA 1960s Circa. 

    You can't just take my word for it, you have to do the research. You sure won't find it on the main-stream media. The answer to that should be a no-brainer. 

    You cited Factcheck.org .. that is pathetic. Factcheck.org is hardly "bi-partisan", as Obama and Bill Ayers were on the board of the company who own and operate Factcheck.org (Annanberg Foundation). Obama piped millions of US tax$ as Senator to Factcheck.org and took some kickbacks. Again, all this can be proven with an investigation.

    Did you have any family that served this country? Would they be proud of you? Or, would they simply believe that you are not doing your duty as in your Oath to the Constitution.

    Going back to the birth certificate your alluding to that Obama has shown on the Internet - first, it is one of three forgeries. The first forgery didn't even have the Seal, Fold lines, or a Registrar's stamp. The second version of the forgery added the Seal, and the third added the Registrar's stamp and fold lines.

    Obama's Certificate was created with computer software - not a true document. In fact, i implore you to see this 5 minute video. It will actually produce Obama's fake birth certificate in just 5 minutes using the same Internet template! The video goes through creating an identical one to that of Obama's - even with a Seal (unlike Obama's first version), in just 5 minutes.

    See that video here: Reproduce Obama's Certificate of Live Birth in 5 minutes 

    Do you feel stupid? You should. Obama insulted your intelligence, and you let him. I just gave you about 5% of all the evidence found that indicates Obama is a complete fraud.

    Anyone can be ignornant once, but if they are ignorant again and again on these issues, they are either clueless about the overall picture and the consequences to their individual liberties, and are being played "like a Fiddle".  

    Are you being "played like a Fiddle" - ask yourself this .. think about that. If i pulled one over on your court and was laughing about with my friends and called you a "useful idiot", would that make you upset? Would you feel "jaded"? You should.

    America's sovereignty is being sold to the highest foreign bidders .. and you do nothing. Do you feel ashamed? You should. If you have any integrity at all, why don't you rectify yourself?  


    Tags: OBAMA JUDGE LAND

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:33
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    S?bado, 19 de septiembre de 2009
     

    CITIZEN JOURNALIST AND OBAMA FOE OUTS THE SCAM

    by John Charlton

    (Sept. 19, 200) — In a stunning series of events, the Federal Court in Columbus, GA has been the target of criminals engaging in fraud and forgery, in the matter of the so-called Letter of Connie Rhodes, asking Judge Land not to accept any motions in her favor, submitted by her counsel Dr. Orly Taitz.

    The Post & Email held off on this story until the letter could be authenticated or reasonably disproven as a forgery.

    Now Larry Sinclair, a long time foe of Barack Obama, has outed the scam at his blog.

    His simple tools of investigation:  the Internet, and picking up the phone.

    What he discovered can be read at his blog in detail.  Basically, Office Max denies that the fax was ever sent from the their store, which actually does have a fax with that number.  Second, the signature on the alleged letter is not that of Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D., US Army, according to Sinclair. 

    To forge a false phone number on a fax is wire fraud.  To submit a forgery to a Federal Court is a felony.  For forge such a letter and sign it is the crime of fraud in all states.

    The clerk of Judge Land’s court is going to look foolish now, esp. since the letter attributes to him giving counsel to the author of the letter.  If the author was the forger, then the clerk unwittingly allowed himself to be manipulated, at the very least; esp. since the letter has been entered into the official docket of the case.

    How this letter was entered into the docket by the clerk, without the signature of a notary attesting to Rhodes’ signature, seems inexplicable.  It is a matter of court procedure that without a notarized signature, no such letter can be accepted on face value.

    Posted in Interviews, Law Cases, People in the News | Tagged , , , | Leave a Comment »

     

    DEMANDS DR. TAITZ TO EXPLAIN WHY HE SHOULD NOT IMPOSE SANCTIONS

    by John Charlton

    (Sept. 19, 2009) — Yesterday Judge Clay D. Land, in the U.S. District Court-Middle Division of Georgia, issued his order rejecting the request for Emergency Stay pending a Motion for reconsideration, in Rhodes vs. Mc Donald.

    In her filing for the new Emergency stay, Dr. Orly Taitz had rebutted Judge Land’s widely condemned ruling, dismissing the case, by pointing out all the judicial and legal errors it contained.

    In Judge Land’s new ruling, he dismisses the new Motion with similar invective and ad hominem’s as his previous ruling.  He begins his court order thus, quoting Yogi Bear, no less:

     ”It was de ja vu all over again.”

    In her most recent tirade, Plaintiff’s counsel seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing this action. (p. 1) 

    Whereupon the Judge launches into a tirade against Attorney Taitz and her legal arguments, in an attempt to excuse her charge of his own violation of court rules:

    The Court finds that the claims and legal contentions asserted in the present motion are not warranted by existing law and that no reasonable basis exists to conclude that Plaintiff’s arguments would be accepted as an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. Simply, put the motion is frivolous. (p. 2)

    And demands reasons why he should not sanction her $10,000:

    Counsel’s conduct violates Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and sanctions are warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 15) is denied, and counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why the Court should not impose a monetary penalty of $10,000.00 upon Plaintiff’s counsel for her misconduct. Counsel shall file her response to this show cause order within 14 days of today’s order. (p. 2)

    Judge Land then gives reasons for threatening with her with sanctions, namely that she filed a new motion, using several “frivolous” arguments:

    First, counsel contends that the Court dismissed her Complaint without giving her an opportunity to respond adequately as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Local Rules. Counsel ignores that she sought to have the case heard in an expedited fashion in the first place because of Plaintiff’s imminent deployment. (p. 3)

    Land contends that he has not violated court rules, because his ruling regarded the Court’s finding that it did not have jurisdiction, rather than the Defense’s Motion to Dismiss, for which Taitz requested time to respond: 

    As thoroughly explained in the Court’s order of dismissal, the Court found that under well established legal precedent related to abstention principles, it did not have authority to interfere with the United States Army’s deployment order. Therefore, the Court determined that the case must be dismissed in its entirety. The Court did not grant the Defendant’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), although the Court did note that any such motion if considered would be granted based upon the implausibility of Plaintiff’s claims. If counsel had carefully read the Court’s order, she would have understood that the Court dismissed the Complaint based upon abstention principles.

    However, Judge Land seems to forget that in his ruling on Sept. 9th, he explicitly referred to the Motion to Dismiss, and thus did consider it in his judgement, even if he did not formally grant it:

    Defendants do argue, however, that the dispute presented by Plaintiff’s complaint is not justiciable in the courts. (p. 6)

    Nevertheless, Judge Land concludes his first “frivolous” charge thus:

    Counsel’s contention that the Court denied Plaintiff her due process rights under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution by dismissing her Complaint on abstention grounds without giving her more time to respond is frivolous. Counsel sought expedited review of the motion for temporary restraining order. To consider that motion, the Court had the obligation to satisfy itself that it had legal authority to hear the case. It therefore, at Plaintiff’s counsel’s urging, made an expedited decision on that issue. Now that it did not go her way, counsel has fabricated a specious argument that she needed more time to address the issue. (p. 5).

    Judge Clay D. Land then moves on to his second charge of “frivolity”, whereby Taitz claimed that he did not address the substance of the Plaintiff’s claims.  To this Judge Land excuses himself, saying that according to abstention principles, he did not have to, and that not to consider his arguments is “frivolous”:

    A motion for reconsideration that does not even address the legal basis for the Court’s previous order is frivolous. (p. 5) 

    Third, Land launches into high level invective, to establish another claim of “frivolity”:

    Finally, it is clear that Plaintiff’s counsel seeks to continue to use the federal judiciary as a platform to further her political “birther agenda.” She has provided no legal or factual basis for the Court to interfere with deployment orders of the United States Army. She supports her claims with subjective belief, speculation and conjecture, which have never been sufficient to maintain a legal cause of action.

    Then, in a notably self-contradictory passage, Land engages in impertinent political rhetoric to accuse Taitz of the same:

    She continues to file motions that do not address legal issues but that describe the President as a “prevaricator,” allege that the President’s father was “disloyal and possibly treacherous” to the “British Crown,” accuse the undersigned of treason, and suggest that the United States District Courts in this Circuit are “subservient” to the “illegitimate” “de facto President.”

    At this time it is not clear where Judge Land hear these just cited statements, which have nothing to do with the pleadings filed in the case; the citation of which seem to indicate Judge Land’s personal political views and misunderstandings of the filings, which according to court rules, he should have read.

    Judge Land then concludes his ruling:

     The Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Deployment (Doc. 15) to be frivolous. Therefore, it is denied. The Court notifies Plaintiff’s counsel, Orly Taitz, that it is contemplating a monetary penalty of $10,000.00 to be imposed upon her, as a sanction for her misconduct. Ms. Taitz shall file her response within fourteen days of today’s order showing why this sanction should not be imposed.

    Judge Land did not include a response to several points raised in Attorney Taitz’s request for an Emergency Stay pending a Motion to Reconsider:

    1) His acceptance of some evidence contrary  to court Rules (e.g. the Hawaiian COLB), and his rejection of the same kind of evidence contrary to court rules which require him to accept Plaintiff’s statement of the facts as true for the time being.

    2) Taitz argument regarding Obama evidently not being a Natural Born Citizenship, on the grounds that he has publicly admitted a foreign father.

    Finally, it seems to even a casual observer, that Judge Clay D. Land has engaged himself personally in the case, and has no more solid charge against Taitz than “frivolity”, even though Rhodes’ case regards the crime of usurpation, which is not a frivolous matter. 

    Indeed, in the context of usurpation of the Presidency, Judge Land argues the Courts cannot intervene in military discipline, citing cases which regard issues of much lesser import than usurpation of that or any office in the chain of command.  And this seems to be the principal defect of his argumentation in his ruling last week and in this recent order.

    Posted in Law Cases, People in the News, Politics | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments »

     


    Tags: OBAMA LAND RHODES TAITZ

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 18:24
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     
    Friday, September 18, 2009

    On September 16, 2009, the Hon. Clay D. Land of the United States District Court in Georgia dismissed Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D.’s action against Obama and the military, finding that the court had to abstain (when a court declines to hear a matter because of comity and respect for the unique military decision-making process) from deciding the case because for the court to exercise its jurisdiction would be an inappropriate intrusion into military matters. In his opinion, Judge Land said that Obama’s “ ‘short-form’ birth certificate has been made publicly available which indicates that the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. . . .” In deciding the abstention issue, even though there has not yet been any discovery allowed in the case, the Court commented on the underlying merits of the evidence presented by the plaintiffs on the question of Obama’s place of birth. In discussing what evidence the plaintiffs rely upon to show that Obama was not born in Hawaii as he claims, Judge Land address the Lucas Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate and said the following in Footnote 5:

    “One piece of evidence Plaintiff’s counsel relies upon deserves further discussion. Counsel has produced a document that she claims shows the President was born in Kenya, yet she has not authenticated that document. She has produced an affidavit from someone who allegedly obtained the document from a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya by paying ‘a cash ‘consideration’ to a Kenyan military officer on duty to look the other way, while [he] obtained the copy’ of the document. (Smith Decl. Para. 7, Sept. 3, 2009). Counsel has not, however, produced an original certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly has official custody of the document. Therefore, the Court finds that the alleged document is unreliable due to counsel’s failure to properly authenticate the document. See Fed. R. Evid. 901.”

    Obama wants to be President and Commander in Chief. He therefore has to show that he is eligible for the position. This means he has to conclusively prove, among other things, that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Given that his father was not a U.S. citizen and his U.S. citizen mother was too young when Obama was born and therefore could not transmit U.S. citizenship to him should Obama be born out of the United States, Obama must first conclusively prove that he was born in the United States and was subject to its jurisdiction when born, thereby making him a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen.” Once he conclusively proves that fact, he must then conclusively show that he is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, a showing that he cannot make because his father was a British subject/citizen when Obama was born and Obama himself was born a British subject/citizen.

    On the threshold question of place of birth, Obama has posted on the internet a computer image of an alleged Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) (not a Hawaiian long-form Birth Certificate). Regarding the place of birth issue, Judge Land said that he could not accept the Lucas Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate as reliable because plaintiffs’ counsel did not “produced an original certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly has official custody of the document.” But let us consider what Obama has produced to show that he was born in Hawaii. We know that he posted on his web site the image of a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) as proof that he was born in Hawaii. But we also know that numerous people have questioned the authenticity of this computer image. There have been allegations by some “experts” that the electronic image is a forgery. Many people have demanded that Obama produce to some official government authority for inspection an actual piece of paper which was used to produce the on-line image of the COLB. Many people have demanded to see the real long-form birth certificate so that conflicting information (including but not limited to statements made by Obama’s own family, Kenyan government officials, and African newspapers) regarding his place of birth can be put to rest. Numerous people have demanded that Obama release to the public the many other documents (education, travel, and employment) which can corroborate his birth place claim but he has refused to do so. Neither Obama nor the State of Hawaii nor any governmental entity or official has provided this information to the American public.

    Judge Land found that because Obama overcame a “grueling” primary campaign and a “formidable opponent” [McCain] in the general election, “ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought.” But what Judge Land described is a political process that works well when a candidate does not hide virtually all his important papers (including his real birth certificate). Indeed, we must also remember that there is also a legal process to any election which must be respected for that election to have any legitimacy in a Constitutional Republic. Given our standard of what the rule of law means, are we to simply accept an internet image of a document that, given the existing contradictory evidence, does not in itself conclusively prove that Obama was born in Hawaii and which in no way erases the many doubts that still exist regarding the place of Obama’s birth?

    I understand that when a party presents a document to a court of law as evidence, that party must satisfy the rules of evidence for that court to receive that document into evidence. A judge confronted with such a document is bound by the law to apply the rules of evidence when deciding whether or not to accept that document into evidence. I therefore cannot fault Judge Land for his decision to refuse to consider the Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate. I am also not suggesting that this birth certificate has been shown to be authentic. But what Judge Land ruled regarding the Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate raises a much more important point. Judge Land was not willing to accept the Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate because as he said counsel did not “produced an original certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly has official custody of the document.” But he automatically and without question in effect accepted Obama’s on-line image of an alleged “short-form” birth certificate (the COLB) without Obama or anyone on his behalf producing the same “original certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly has official custody of the document.” Why did Judge Land not apply the same evidence standard to Obama’s on-line COLB as he did to the Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate? I understand that Obama was not attempting to introduce the internet image of his COLB or the paper version thereof into evidence and so Judge Land did not have to rule on the admissibility of that evidence. Nevertheless, if we are committed to learning what is the truth regarding Obama’s place of birth, should we not expect Judge Land in his comments to treat all documents equally until each document’s reliability can be sufficiently confirmed?

    Should not the Court have been much more concerned with the question of whether a person occupying the Office of the President and Commander in Chief is truly born where he says he was than it was with the question of whether the Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate was authentic and therefore admissible into evidence? Something is wrong when a Court does not accept the Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate because there is no government agency certification as to its authenticity but it accepts an unconfirmed, on-line electronic image of a document that is not even a birth certificate as the only piece of hard evidence that allegedly shows that the President was born in Hawaii. Just like Judge Land rejected the Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate because no one presented “an original certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly has official custody of the document,” should he not also have reject Obama’s internet-posted COLB since he also never provided any such authentication document to the American people or to any competent government agency? Should we not be more concerned with making sure that the computer image of the COLB which Obama presented to the public and the actual paper version thereof and the long-form birth certificate are authentic than with making sure that the Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate presented in a court proceeding is authentic? I believe the answer is obvious. In short, is Obama’s evidence as to where he was born any better or even worse than that of Captain Rhodes’ evidence?

    Why have some allowed such a double standard to exist? Why should anyone protect Obama to the point that he or she is willing to risk the nation’s very survival? What is so wrong in confirming whether something is true, especially when one can suffer devastating consequences if it is false? Is the price for knowing the truth about Obama's birth place and whether he is an Article II "natural born Citizen" so heavy that we just have to accept things the way we are told they are? Let us hold Obama to the same Alice in Wonderland standard Judge Land used in the Rhodes case-“simply saying something is so does not make it so.” And let us also remember that the emperor could have no clothes.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    185 Gatzmer Avenue
    Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831
    9-18-09
    Posted by Puzo1 at 12:01 PM 9 comments

    Tags: OBAMA JUDGE LAND APUZZO

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:46
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    Today, Judge Carter issued a limited discovery order Barnett v. Obama.  Judge Carter’s order stated:

    All discovery herein shall be stayed pending resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, except for any discovery as to which Plaintiffs can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Magistrate Judge Nakazato, is necessary for the purpose of opposing the Motion to Dismiss.

    Regarding that order, one of my astute readers (Joe The Blogger) asked the following question which led me to write this post:

    Leo,

    What do you think about taking advantage of Judge Carter’s Order for limited discovery…Surely there is SOME scope here for forcing SOME information out of the DOJ?

    While reading Judge Carter’s limited discovery order, the following passage caught my eye:

    In this case, Defendants have alleged that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction for various reasons, including that the case presents a non-justiciable political question that is properly addressed by the legislative branch of government, not the judicial branch. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss at 11.

    As you know, Judge Carter agreed to stay discovery until the motion to dismiss was resolved regarding whether the district court has subject matter jurisdiction.

    With Judge Carter’s reasoning guiding my analysis, I carefully examined the DOJ motion to dismiss paying special attention to the arguments made starting on page 11.  When I got to page 13, I found something interesting:

    Under 3 U.S.C. § 15, Congress is directed to be in session on the appropriate date to count the electoral votes for President, with the President of the Senate presiding.  The statute further directs that the electoral votes be counted, and then the results be presented to the President of the Senate, who shall then “announce the state of the vote.”  The statute then provides a mechanism for objections to be registered and resolved in the following language:

    “[e]very objection shall be made in writing,and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.  When all objections so made . . . shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision.”

    That’s an interesting quote… interesting for what the DOJ left out.

    They conveniently cut the statute off when they bring it into the brief.  The uncensored passage from 3 U.S.C. § 15 states:

    Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.  Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof…

    The DOJ clipped the statute so as to leave out the part which places a burden on the Vice President, acting in his role as President of the Senate, to call for objections after the count of votes.

    Vice President Cheney failed to call for objections as the statute requires.

    (See the You Tube video of the 2009 electoral vote count at about the 27:00 minute mark.)

    The DOJ motion to dismiss relies upon separation of powers and the political question doctrine alleging the district court has no authority to entertain the case.  In doing so, the DOJ cites specifically 3 U.S.C. § 15 as proof that challenges to the President’s eligibility are provided for by Congress.

    This is true, but those provisions were not properly followed on January 8, 2009 when the votes for Obama were counted.  And the district court therefore does have jurisdiction to review a failure of the Government to follow the laws enacted to protect the integrity of the electoral process.

    There are, as usual, many opinions as to why the specific letter of the law was not carried out and a call for objections made.  But I see noofficial explanation available to the public.

    Therefore, since the issue was specifically raised by the DOJ motion to dismiss in a quotation which fails to provide the court with the full context of the law cited, I see no reason why the court should deny the plaintiffs discovery on this particular issue.

    Since the DOJ raised the statute and relied upon it for the motion to dismiss, and since Judge Carter has allowed immediate discovery necessary for purposes of opposing the motion to dismiss, Orly should demand discovery of the following:

    1. Since no call for objections was made, each member of Congress and the Senate should be served with interrogatories requesting deposed as to whether they would object on the basis of Obama’s eligibility.

    NOT ON THE BASIS OF HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

    Got that? Make it broad, not specific.

    - Some may have objections to his admission of British birth.

    - Some may have objections regarding his place of birth.

    Don’t limit the interrogatories deposition to any specific objection.  Just ask each Representative or Senator whether they would object to Obama’s eligibility.

    The Constitution does not require a birth certificate be offered.  The Constitution does require that the President be a natural born citizen.  The interrogatories should be simple.  For example:

    Dear Congressman Ron Paul – Had Vice President Cheney called for objections after the counting of electoral votes as is required by 3 U.S.C. § 15, would you have objected?

    That’s sufficient as written.  Send that to each Senator and Representative.

    Usually depositions are limited to a certain amount, but the court may order depositions as well if the court is convinced they are necessary.  In this case, the deposititons would be very short, just a few minutes each.

    2. Interrogatories should be issued which question Cheney should be deposed as to why he didn’t call for objections as was required by the statute.

    Depending on the answers in those interrogatories depostions, the court might order the Senate and Representatives to meet for the purpose of hearing a call for objections.

    After all, if the Government is going to cite 3 U.S.C. § 15 as evidence that the process of approving the President’s eligibility belongs to Congress, then the plaintiffs ought to be entitled to the protection of the statute by an enforcement of the duties specifically prescribed therein.

    District courts do have the power to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a ministerial duty owed.  Calling for objections was a ministerial duty owed – that was not performed.

    In my opinion, this is the best chance of getting any meaningful discovery approved.

    ---------------------------

    125 Comments »

    pertaining to the case of 

    Tags: OBAMA JUDGE CARTER

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:40
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     
    WND Exclusive
     has told lawyers whose clients are challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president they cannot start digging into the president's historical records right now, and he'll adjust a scheduled Jan. 26, 2010, trial date if they end up needing more time for their research.

    BORN IN THE USA?
    Judge stalls access to Obama birth data
    Says he'll adjust trial date if plaintiffs need time for researching prez records

    Posted: September 19, 2009
    12:40 am Eastern

    By Bob Unruh
    © 2009 WorldNetDaily

    judge 

    The ruling comes from U.S. District Judge David Carter in a California lawsuit brought by several political candidates and party officials, including former U.S. ambassador Alan Keyes and Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson of the American Independent Party.

    They are suing Obama alleging that he was not and is not eligible to be president under the U.S. Constitution's demand for a "natural born" citizen in the Oval Office. They are represented by Orly Taitz, who has worked on a multitude of lawsuits over Obama's eligibility, and Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.

    Kreep had responded to the government's College records.

    The plaintiffs' suspicion is that those records would, in fact, undermine the president's statements that he is a "natural born" citizen, which could disqualify him. For example, an original birth certificate could indicate that it was a "delayed" filing, which could open the door for a birth location outside the United States.

    Likewise, the Occidental College records could be significant if Obama attended on a program for foreign students, or represented himself as a foreign student at the time.

    See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery.

    Carter has been handling motions in the case, including the government's motion to dismiss, in which Justice Department lawyers representing Obama claimed that the courts have no jurisdiction over any parts of the question.

    The government's motions have been opposed by Kreep, who expressed concern the plaintiffs would be prejudiced by having their search of the evidence delayed, and the possible shortened time period for that process between the Oct. 5 hearing and the January trial.

    Carter granted Obama's motion for limited stay of discovery, saying the court, not the defendants, will determine what evidence would be pertinent to the case and if the plaintiffs are hampered by the time frame imposed by the court, he will hear "any proposed new trial dates" during the Oct. 5 hearing.

    Rumors had circulated on the Internet that the discovery process already had begun, because of Carter's earlier ruling that encouraged cooperation and as much movement forward as the two sides could agree to.

    WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

    Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

    Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

    Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated over $1 million to avoid releasing an original long-form state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions.

    WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, ColumbiaUniversity records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

    In the U.S. Justice Department's motion to dismiss, attorneys didn't address the concerns directly but instead focused their efforts on technical procedures, stating the matter can't be decided in court and that the dozens of plaintiffs cannot demonstrate they have been injured by having Obama in the Oval Office.

    Kreep has explained that existing court precedent includes the right for a candidate or a political party "to challenge the inclusion of an allegedly ineligible rival on the ballot, on theory that doing so hurts the candidate's or party's own chances."

    "Dr. Drake has an interest in having a fair competition," Kreep's USJF brief has argued. "This interest is akin to the interest of an Olympic competition, where one of the competitors in an athletic competition is found to be using performance enhancing drugs, but is not removed despite a violation of the rules, and all of the athletes who had trained for the event legitimately are harmed if that disqualified contestant remains. …

    "Obama entered this race without having met the eligibility requirements for the office of President of the United States and, as a result, Dr. Wiley Drake has been injured because he did not have fair competition for the office of Vice President of the United States."

    Kreep also explained the motion to dismiss is incorrect "in a number of ways" regarding the Constitution's assignment of presidential eligibility verification.

    "Even if the people of the United States voted to elect as president a candidate who did not qualify for the position, that vote would not be sufficient to overcome the constitutional requirements," he wrote.

    "Here, the issue is one arising under the Constitution, whether Barack Obama meets the eligibility requirements for the office of president of the United States, as required under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. As established above, PLAINTIFFS have standing to bring this action as they have suffered a concrete injury in fact, caused by Barack Obama, for which the court has a remedy. Because PLAINTIFFS have established the requirements for standing, and because this case presents an issue regarding a federal question arising out of the Constitution, this court has subject matter jurisdiction over the issues raised in this case," he wrote.

    Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"


    Tags: OBAMA CARTER TAITZ

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:29
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Jueves, 17 de septiembre de 2009
     

    Judge Clay D Land ruling, September 16, 2009, Captain Connie Rhodes, Orly Taitz, Motion for temporary restraining order, Motion denied, US District Court, Thomas D. MacDonald, Colonel, Garrison Commander Fort Benning, Judge Land uninformed, Biased?, US Constitution, Oath of office, Treason?

    September 16, 2009 · 498 Comments

    “I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
    defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
    foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
    the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
    reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
    discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
    So help me God.”
    US Military officer’s oath of office


    Officers in the service of the United States are
    bound by this oath to disobey any order that
    violates the Constitution of the United States.

     

    To:

    Judge Clay D. Land, US District Judge

    Thomas D. MacDonald, Colonel, Garrison Commander Fort Benning

    Is there any reason that I and the American public should not consider you cowards, un American or guilty of treason?

    You both have taken oaths to defend the US Constitition against enemies, both foreign and domestic.

    The motion made by Connie Rhodes, Captain, is not about the beliefs of her legal counsel, Orly Taitz, it is about the refusal of the usurper, Barack Obama, to prove that he is eligible to be president. The very fact that Obama has gone to such lengths to avoid proving he is a natural born citizen, should be enough to raise many large red flags.

    The motion of Captain Connie Rhodes, an active military officer, who apparently takes her oath to defend the US Constitution, very seriously, was flawed. Of course, every motion, every pleading before any court in this nation is flawed. This is not a perfect world. Judge Land has made a ruling not based on merits, not based on facts and apparently, with malice aforethought, for reasons unknown. Judge Clay D. Land, a US District Court judge, has denied Captain Rhodes’ motion on September 16, 2009. The motion was for a temporary restraining order to prevent her pending deployment to Iraq based on the fact that the orders and any future orders come from an illegal, usurper Commander in Chief, Obama.

    Judge Land has referred to this motion as frivolous. Based on the following, Judge Land should minimally be subject to judicial review.

    I can state with certainty that the following is true:

    • We are in the middle of the Constitutional crisis foretold by attorney Philip J Berg in 2008.
    • Barack Hussein Obama is not President of the United States.
    • Obama is by any reasonable definition a usurper.
    • Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States.
    • Obama’s father was a citizen of Kenya and therefore a British citizen.
    • There is absolutely no evidence that Obama was born in the US.
    • There is much compelling evidence that Obama does not have a long form birth certificate proving eligibility.
    • Obama has expended enormous resources to hide his past and associated documents that would clear up eligibility.
    • Barack Obama signed a form in Arizona before the primaries stating that he was a natural born citizen.
    • Barack Obama has kept hidden all documents recording his past except for a few notable exceptions such as his IL bar application. Obama lied on his bar application regarding his numerous traffic tickets and aliases.
    • Commander Walter Fitzpatrick (Ret.) and other military officers have charged Obama with treason.
    • By all indications, Captain Connie Rhodes is following her oath to defend the US Constituton.

    Consider the following exerpts from Judge Land’s ruling:

    “Plaintiff alleges that her deployment orders are unconstitutional and unenforceable because President Barack Obama is not constitutionally eligible to act as Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces. After conducting a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous.”

    Judge Land, you are either uninformed, complicit in treason or incompetent.

    “Plaintiff’s counsel speculates that President Obama was not born in the United States based upon the President’s alleged refusal to disclose publicly an “official birth certificate” that is satisfactory to Plaintiff’s counsel and her followers. She therefore seeks to have the judiciary compel the President to produce “satisfactory” proof that he was born in the United States. Counsel makes these allegations although a “short-form” birth certificate has been made publicly available which indicates that the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.3“
    “3 The court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in
    a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than
    eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. See
    Federal Election Commission, Presidential Pre-Nomination Campaign
    Disbursements Dec. 31, 2008,
    http://www.fec.gov/press/press2009/
    20090608Pres/3_2008PresPrimaryCmpgnDis.pdf (last visited Sept. 15, 2009).
    Then the President faced a formidable opponent in the general election who
    received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the
    President. Press Release, Federal Election Commission, 2008 Presidential
    Campaign Financial Activity Summarized (June 8, 2009), available at
    http://www.fec.gov/press/press2009/20090608PresStat.shtml. It would
    appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would
    support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office
    he sought.
    Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is
    qualified to serve. Congress has not instituted impeachment proceedings,
    and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has
    rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office.
    See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Cong. (2009) (commemorating, by vote of 378-0,
    the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating, “the 44th
    President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August
    4, 1961&rdquoGui?o.”

    There is no alleged refusal to disclose an “official birth certificate.” Obama has gone to great lengths to avoid this. Judge Land, if you have a legitimate copy, please share it.
    A short form birth certificate has not been produced. Even Lou Dobbs of CNN was able to discern that the document produced by the Obama camp, a COLB, Certification of live birth, is just a document referring to another document and we have no proof that the COLB is genuine.

    Judge Land, and/or his assistants, reveal ignorance about the vetting process and are complicit with Congress in this coverup.

    “Moreover, mere allegations of a constitutional violation unsupported by a reasonable factual foundation are insufficient to warrant judicial review. To hold otherwise would be to create chaos within the military decision-making process and chain of command. As explained below, the Court must balance several factors to determine whether judicial review of a military decision is authorized.”

    Judge Land, all we have are allegations that Obama is qualified to be president. We have a constitutional crisis caused by the deceit of Obama and non vetting by the Democrat party.

    “She has presented no credible evidence and has made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated,
    conclusory allegations and conjecture that President Obama is ineligible to serve as President of the United States.

    Instead, she uses her Complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric, such as her claims that the President is “an illegal usurper, an unlawful pretender, [and] an unqualified imposter.” (Compl. ¶ 21.) She continues with bare, conclusory allegations that the President is “an alien, possibly even an unnaturalized or even an unadmitted illegal alien . . . without so much as lawful residency in the United States.” (Id. ¶ 26.) Then, implying that the President is either a wandering nomad or a prolific identity fraud crook, she alleges that the President “might have used as many as 149 addresses and 39 social security numbers prior to assuming the office of President.” (Id. ¶ 110 (emphasis added).

    Acknowledging the existence of a document that shows the President was born in Hawaii, Plaintiff alleges that the document “cannot be verified as genuine, and should be presumed fraudulent.””

    Once again, Judge Land exhibits ignorance of the facts. The only document that the Obama camp has produced is a COLB that has not been proven to be legitimate.

    “As explained previously, Plaintiff has demonstrated no likelihood of success on the merits. Her claims are based on sheer
    conjecture and speculation.”

    Conjecture?

    Judge Land, you are the one guilty of conjecture.
    Judge Land, you have taken a similar oath one or more times. Do you take this oath seriously?

    Her likelihood for success is only limited by your bias and lack of knowledge.

    Colonel Thomas D MacDonald, are we to believe that you take your oath to defend the US Constitution seriously?

    I understand that the court must weigh interfering with the Military. But this goes to the core of military rule and order, having a  Commander in Chief who is legitimate.

    I do not criticize Judge Land for his comments on how the case was plead, however, given the serious nature of the motion, I do criticize Judge Land for calling this a frivolous motion and accusing the plaintiff of conjecture when most of his basis for attacking Captain Rhodes’ position was based on conjecture and misinformation.

    Judge Land referring to concerned American patriots as “birthers” is condescending, uninformed and unacceptable.

    It is apparent that of the three major players in this motion, Captain Rhodes, Judge Land and Colonel MacDonald, Captain Rhodes is the only one that lives out her oath to defend the US Constitution.

    I am shocked and infuriated by the attitude of Judge Clay D Land and believe that his actions should be investigated.

    Citizen Wells


    Tags: OBAMA TAITZ

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:43
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     

    by John Charlton

    It’s been little more than 10 months since the 2008 Presidential Elections, and for even the casual observer a lot has changed in America.

    When you arrive at middle-age, you are naturally inclined to look back at your life and consider where you’ve been headed.

    When I look back at America, I see that a lot has changed in the last year:  much more than perhaps we realize, if we concentrate on the issues of the present 24hrs in which we live.

    To this extent it is very useful to enumerate what’s been lost and what’s been gained.

    What died in 2008?

    1. The first thing that died in 2008, was the Free Press.  This is so obvious it would be mundane to give examples.  But it seems to be that the Free Press committed suicide; there was no question of a homicide.

    Why did the Free Press commit suicide?  I think there are 2 main issues:  the first, the latent and diffusive marxist ideologues in the journalism profession, put there and nurtured there through the state policy of the U.S.S.R. to infiltrate the schools of journalism in America, and to promote societal collapse from within, by promoting the break down of morals — an objective shared by Freemasonry internationally.  Someone with Marxist credentials, before all else, would serve the agenda of these ideologues.

    Second, in particular, we cannot forget the war that has been waged in America in the last decade, in particular, against marriage; the successes and failures to defend it; and the frustration of the progressivists and anti-christian forces in this country to get their agenda advanced.  I believe they became convinced that they needed one of theirs in the White House no matter what; someone who would steam-roll over constitutional rights, to pervert the nation.

    For these 2 reasons, once the Press saw their man in Barack Obama, they wilfully stripped themselves of the name “Free” and pledged their unswerving fealty to him, even to the point of running rough-shod over Hilary Clinton’s aspirations.

    2. The second thing that died in 2008 was common sense.  No matter what your objections to the policies or deeds of the Bush administration, no amount of disagreement could reasonably lead to abandoning common sense and electing a nobody, who hides his past, and calls for radical change, yet refuses to define this openly; and who is tied to radical Islam, Marxism, the Chicago mob, and internationalists with at best dubious credentials.

    3. The third thing that died in 2008, was the sense of civic duty.  Too many Americans stayed home and did not vote; they believed that if there were no choices pleasing entirely to them, better not to vote and risk someone less pleasing get into office; they forgot, willfully, that their duty is to protect the nation at the ballot box.  They put personal preferences before civic duty.

    4. The fourth thing that died in 2008, was the integrity of public officialdom.  The Secretaries of State did not do their job to put eligible candidates on the ballot and exclude the in-eligible:  in many states a Nicaraguan citizen, who is not even a dual American citizen, was allowed on the ballots.  Judges in state and federal courts around the nation, when apprised of election irregularities, tossed cases out the door, out of sheer cowardice. Electors and Congressmen showed no interest at all in upholding the simplest terms of the Constitution.

    5. The fourth thing that died in 2008, was patriotism in the Democratic and Republican Parties.  Their patriotism died when they knowingly and with forethought chose candidates who were not natural born citizens according to the standard law-dictionary definitions.  If you are going to run for office at the Federal level you have to be prepared to swear an oath of office to uphold the Constitution — if you are not even eligible for the office, you obviously have no patriotic sense left in you; and those who support you have none either.

    6. The sixth thing that died in 2008, was the unity of the nation.  I say, “the unity of the nation”, because with the rise of Obamaism, and his tacit supporters in the Republican and independent parties, there is now a new center of allegiance for these folks, and it ain’t America.  For them the status quo, the dictates of Obama, the de facto power grab and usurpation, these are the foundations of law and principle, and nothing, I repeat, nothing else matters to them.  They will say anything, do anything, urge anything, and claim anything to support this new loyalty; they will ignore everything and utter the most vile things against anyone who does have their sense of divisiveness.  If a civil war breaks out, it is they who have started it, in their minds and hearts, by such a rejection of America, of truth, and of justice.

    These are my personal reflections on the last year.  Note, that I have not numbered “America” or the “United States of America” among those things which have died.

    America lives, and indeed, is being reborn in the midst of this crisis, as we can see in the nearly 2.5 million Tea Party patriots who poured out into D.C. and in more than 800 places round the country over the weekend.

    Long live America! May She ever be free!


    Tags: OBAMA DELETING LIBERTIES

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:30
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Mi?rcoles, 16 de septiembre de 2009
     

    Judge Land rules against Rhodes

    September 16, 2009 by John Charlton

     

    IMPOSES PENALTIES AGAINST HEROINE & THREATENS DR. TAITZ

    by John Charlton

    (Sept. 16, 2009) — In an outrageous miscarriage of justice, Federal Judge Clay D. Land ruled in favor of the defense’s Motion to Dismiss, in Rhodes vs. Mac Donald, ordering the heroine to pay all the legal costs of the defense’s lawyers.

    The Post & Email has previously summarized Rhodes’ pleadings and the Defense’s Motion to Dismiss.

    With incendiary language and pharasaical reasoning, Judge Land dismissed the suit, claiming that Rhodes’ claims that Obama had not proven his eligibility, and that there was no recourse in the Army regs to question the lawfulness of orders, were “patently frivolous.” He also included in his official ruling, a threat of sanctions against Attorney Orly Taitz, if she should file any “similarly frivolous” actions before his court!

    His ruling notable for its invective and ad hominem attacks, for example:

    Plaintiffs’s counsel is a self-proclaimed leader in what has become know as the “birther movement.” (p. 1)

    Plaintiff’s complain is not plausible on its face . . . Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so. (p. 9)

    and is otherwise remarkable for its viciousness of argument; especially when Judge Land uses a double standard, in that he discounts the Kenyan BC produced by Dr. Taitz on the grounds that it has not been authenticated, but astoundingly admits the jpg image of the COLB of Obama which has never even been proved to exist, let alone be authenticated, is to be accepted as true and factual! (p. 10)

    He also construes Attorney Taitz arguments as referring only to place of birth, and entirely ignores the requirements of Article II, Section 2, paragraph 5, of the U.S. Constitution, where it indicates “natural born” citizen, and not merely a “citizen”, which requirement Obama cannot fulfil due to being born of a British father (Specifically mentioned in Rhodes’ pleadings, on p. 37).

    He then mocks Captain Rhodes for not refusing all commands, and thereby argues her motives are political.

    Finally, he orders Rhodes to pay the costs  of the government attorneys which defended the plaintiffs.

    In summary, it appears that Judge Clay D. Land never had an intention to address the merits of the case, but merely sought to characterize Rhodes’ pleadings in the most negative light possible.

     ----------------------------------

     
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
    COLUMBUS DIVISION
    CONNIE RHODES,
    Plaintiff,
    vs.
    THOMAS D. MACDONALD, Colonel,
    Garrison Commander, Fort
    Benning; et al.,
    Defendants.
    *

    CASE NO. 4:09-CV-106 (CDL)
    O R D E R
    Plaintiff, a Captain in the United States Army, seeks a
    temporary restraining order to prevent the Army from deploying her to
    Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Plaintiff
    alleges that
    her deployment orders are unconstitutional and unenforceable because
    President Barack Obama is not constitutionally eligible to act as
    Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces.
    After
    conducting a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that
    Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous. Accordingly, her application for
    a temporary restraining order (Doc. 3) is denied, and her Complaint
    is dismissed in its entirety. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel is
    hereby notified that the filing of any future actions in this Court,
    which are similarly frivolous, shall subject counsel to sanctions
    .
    See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c).
    BACKGROUND
    Plaintiff’s counsel is a self-proclaimed leader in what has
    become known as “the birther movement.” She maintains that President
    Case 4:09-cv-00106-CDL Document 13 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 1 of 14
    Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution 1
    provides in relevant part that
    “No Person except a natural born Citizen
    . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
    This Court dismissed an earlier action filed by Plaintiff’s counsel 2
    on behalf of a military reservist based upon that plaintiff’s lack of
    standing. See Cook v. Good, No. 4:09-CV-82 (CDL), 2009 WL 2163535 (M.D.
    Ga. Jul. 16, 2009).
    2
    Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and, therefore, he is
    not eligible to be President of the United States. See Dr. Orly 1
    Taitz, Esquire,
    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com (last visited Sept. 15,
    2009). Counsel has filed numerous lawsuits in various parts of the
    country seeking a judicial determination as to the President’s
    legitimacy to hold the office of President. The present action is
    the second such action filed in this Court in which counsel pursues
    her “birther claim.” Her modus operandi is to use military officers
    as parties and have them allege that they should not be required to
    follow deployment orders because President Obama is not
    constitutionally qualified to be President. Although counsel has
    managed to fuel this “birther movement” with her litigation and press
    conferences, she does not appear to have prevailed on a single claim.2
    In fact, Plaintiff previously filed the present action in the United
    States District Court for the Western District of Texas. That Court
    summarily dismissed her complaint upon finding that Plaintiff “has no
    substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
    ” Rhodes v. Gates,
    5:09-CV-00703-XR, Order Den. Mot. for TRO 3 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 28,
    2009). Counsel then re-filed the same action in this Court.
    Case 4:09-cv-00106-CDL Document 13 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 2 of 14
    The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in 3
    a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than
    eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. See
    Federal Election Commission, Presidential Pre-Nomination Campaign
    Disbursements Dec. 31, 2008,
    http://www.fec.gov/press/press2009/
    20090608Pres/3_2008PresPrimaryCmpgnDis.pdf (last visited Sept. 15, 2009).
    Then the President faced a formidable opponent in the general election who
    received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the
    President. Press Release, Federal Election Commission, 2008 Presidential
    Campaign Financial Activity Summarized (June 8, 2009), available at
    http://www.fec.gov/press/press2009/20090608PresStat.shtml. It would
    appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would
    support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office
    he sought.
    Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is
    qualified to serve. Congress has not instituted impeachment proceedings,
    and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has
    rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office.
    See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Cong. (2009) (commemorating, by vote of 378-0,
    the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating, “the 44th
    President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August
    4, 1961&rdquoGui?o.
    3
    Plaintiff’s counsel speculates that President Obama was not born
    in the United States based upon the President’s alleged refusal to
    disclose publicly an “official birth certificate” that is
    satisfactory to Plaintiff’s counsel and her followers. She therefore
    seeks to have the judiciary compel the President to produce
    “satisfactory” proof that he was born in the United States. Counsel
    makes these allegations although a “short-form” birth certificate has
    been made publicly available which indicates that the President was
    born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.3
    To press her “birther agenda,” Plaintiff’s counsel has filed the
    present action on behalf of Captain Rhodes. Captain Rhodes entered
    the Army in March of 2005 and presently serves as a medical doctor.
    The American taxpayers paid for her third and fourth years of medical
    Case 4:09-cv-00106-CDL Document 13 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 3 of 14
    4
    school and financially supported her during her subsequent medical
    internship and residency program. In exchange for this valuable free
    medical education, Captain Rhodes agreed to serve two years in active
    service in the Army. She began that term of active service in July
    of 2008 and had no concerns about fulfilling her military obligation
    until she received orders notifying her that she would be deployed to
    Iraq in September of 2009.
    Captain Rhodes does not seek a discharge from the Army; nor does
    she wish to be relieved entirely from her two year active service
    obligation. She has not previously made any official complaints
    regarding any orders or assignments that she has received, including
    orders that have been issued since President Obama became Commander
    in Chief. But she does not want to go to Iraq (or to any other
    destination where she may be in harm’s way, for that matter). Her
    “conscientious objections” to serving under the current Commander in
    Chief apparently can be accommodated as long as she is permitted to
    remain on American soil.
    Captain Rhodes is presently stationed at Ft. Benning, Georgia
    awaiting deployment to Iraq. This deployment is imminent and will
    likely occur absent an order from this Court granting Plaintiff’s
    motion for a temporary restraining order.
    Case 4:09-cv-00106-CDL Document 13 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 4 of 14
    5
    DISCUSSION
    I. Jurisdiction and Abstention
    Plaintiff seeks to have this Court declare a deployment order
    issued by the United States Army void and unenforceable. It is well
    settled that judicial interference in internal military affairs is
    disfavored. As the Supreme Court has explained:
    [J]udges are not given the task of running the Army. The
    responsibility for setting up channels through which such
    grievances can be considered and fairly settled rests upon
    the Congress and upon the President of the United States
    and his subordinates. The military constitutes a
    specialized community governed by a separate discipline
    from that of the civilian. Orderly government requires that
    the judiciary be as scrupulous not to interfere with
    legitimate Army matters as the Army must be scrupulous not
    to intervene in judicial matters.
    Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 93-94 (1953), quoted with approval
    in Winck v. England, 327 F.3d 1296, 1302-03 (11th Cir. 2003). The
    limitation on the judiciary’s involvement in military affairs does
    not mean that such interference is never appropriate. However, “‘a
    court should not review internal military affairs in the absence of
    (a) an allegation of the deprivation of a constitutional right, or an
    allegation that the military has acted in violation of applicable
    statutes or its own regulations, and (b) exhaustion of available
    intraservice corrective measures.’” Winck, 327 F.3d at 1303 (quoting
    Mindes v. Seaman, 453 F.2d 197, 201 (5th Cir. 1971)). Moreover, mere
    allegations of a constitutional violation unsupported by a reasonable
    factual foundation are insufficient to warrant judicial review. To
    hold otherwise would be to create chaos within the military decision-
    Case 4:09-cv-00106-CDL Document 13 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 5 of 14
    6
    making process and chain of command. As explained below, the Court
    must balance several factors to determine whether judicial review of
    a military decision is authorized.
    Typically, the first issue to be resolved in cases seeking
    judicial review of a military decision is whether the soldier has
    exhausted all intraservice administrative remedies. See Winck, 327
    F.3d at 1304. In the present case, Defendants do not contend that
    Plaintiff was required to exhaust her intraservice administrative
    remedies, presumably because no procedure is in place for a soldier
    to contest the qualifications of the Commander in Chief. Defendants
    do argue, however, that the dispute presented by Plaintiff’s
    complaint is not justiciable in the courts.
    Even if a soldier has exhausted her intraservice administrative
    remedies, the Court must decline to review the military decision if
    the review would constitute an inappropriate intrusion into military
    matters. Id. at 1303 & n.4 (citing Mindes, 453 F.2d at 201). It has
    long been the law in this Circuit that in determining whether
    judicial review of a military decision should be undertaken, the
    reviewing court
    ‘must examine the substance of that allegation in light of
    the policy reasons behind nonreview of military matters,’
    balancing four factors: (1) ‘The nature and strength of the
    plaintiff’s challenge to the military determination’; (2)
    ‘The potential injury to the plaintiff if review is
    refused’; (3) ‘The type and degree of anticipated
    interference with the military function’; and (4) ‘The
    extent to which the exercise of military expertise or
    discretion is involved.’
    Case 4:09-cv-00106-CDL Document 13 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 6 of 14
    It is not always clear whether the analysis of the appropriateness 4
    of judicial review of military decisions involves subject matter
    jurisdiction or abstention principles based on comity and respect for the
    unique military decision-making process. The Court finds that the proper
    analysis in this case requires an evaluation of the deployment order using
    principles of abstention. See Winck, 327 F.3d at 1299-1300
    (distinguishing subject matter jurisdiction from abstention principles).
    7
    Winck, 327 F.3d at 1303 n.4 (quoting Mindes, 453 F.2d at 201).
    Although certain aspects of the Mindes decision have been eroded
    through the years, the Eleventh Circuit has relatively recently
    reaffirmed the “unflagging strength of the principles of comity and
    judicial noninterference with, and respect for, military operations
    that informed” the analysis in Mindes. Winck, 327 F.3d at 1304. 4
    Using the Mindes factors as an analytical framework, the Court
    finds that it is not authorized to interfere with Plaintiff’s
    deployment orders. First, Plaintiff’s challenge to her deployment
    order is frivolous.
    She has presented no credible evidence and has
    made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated,
    conclusory allegations and conjecture that President Obama is
    ineligible to serve as President of the United States. Instead, she
    uses her Complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric,
    such as her claims that the President is “an illegal usurper, an
    unlawful pretender, [and] an unqualified imposter.” (Compl. ¶ 21.)
    She continues with bare, conclusory allegations that the President is
    “an alien, possibly even an unnaturalized or even an unadmitted
    illegal alien . . . without so much as lawful residency in the United
    States.” (Id. ¶ 26.) Then, implying that the President is either a
    Case 4:09-cv-00106-CDL Document 13 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 7 of 14
    8
    wandering nomad or a prolific identity fraud crook, she alleges that
    the President “might have used as many as 149 addresses and 39 social
    security numbers prior to assuming the office of President.” (Id. ¶
    110 (emphasis added).) Acknowledging the existence of a document
    that shows the President was born in Hawaii, Plaintiff alleges that
    the document “cannot be verified as genuine, and should be presumed
    fraudulent.” (Id. ¶ 113 (emphasis added).) In further support of
    her claim, Plaintiff relies upon “the general opinion in the rest of
    the world” that “Barack Hussein Obama has, in essence, slipped
    through the guardrails to become President.” (Id. ¶ 128.) Moreover,
    as though the “general opinion in the rest of the world” were not
    enough, Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that according to an “AOL
    poll 85% of Americans believe that Obama was not vetted, needs to be
    vetted and his vital records need to be produced.” (Id. ¶ 154.)
    Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of
    proof, Plaintiff unashamedly alleges that Defendant has the burden to
    prove his “natural born” status. (Id. ¶¶ 136-138, 148.) Thus,
    Plaintiff’s counsel, who champions herself as a defender of liberty
    and freedom, seeks to use the power of the judiciary to compel a
    citizen, albeit the President of the United States, to “prove his
    innocence” to “charges” that are based upon conjecture and
    speculation. Any middle school civics student would readily
    recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which
    Case 4:09-cv-00106-CDL Document 13 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 8 of 14
    9
    our Country was founded in order to purportedly “protect and
    preserve” those very principles.
    Although the Court has determined that the appropriate analysis
    here involves principles of abstention and not an examination of
    whether Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim under Federal
    Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court does find the Rule
    12(b)(6) analysis helpful in confirming the Court’s conclusion that
    Plaintiff’s claim has no merit. To state a claim upon which relief
    may be granted, Plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a
    claim to relief that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
    129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). For
    a complaint to be facially plausible, the Court must be able “to draw
    the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
    misconduct alleged” based upon a review of the factual content pled
    by the Plaintiff. Id. The factual allegations must be sufficient
    “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl.
    Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Plaintiff’s complaint is
    not plausible on its face. To the extent that it alleges any
    “facts,” the Complaint does not connect those facts to any actual
    violation of Plaintiff’s individual constitutional rights. Unlike in
    Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it
    so. The weakness of Plaintiff’s claim certainly weighs heavily
    against judicial review of the deployment order, and in fact, would
    Case 4:09-cv-00106-CDL Document 13 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 9 of 14
    One piece of “evidence” Plaintiff’s counsel relies upon deserves 5
    further discussion. Counsel has produced a document that she claims shows
    the President was born in Kenya, yet she has not authenticated that
    document. She has produced an affidavit from someone who allegedly
    obtained the document from a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya by paying “a cash
    ‘consideration’ to a Kenyan military officer on duty to look the other
    way, while [he] obtained the copy” of the document. (Smith Decl. ¶ 7,
    Sept. 3, 2009.) Counsel has not, however, produced an original
    certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly
    has official custody of the document. Therefore, the Court finds that the
    alleged document is unreliable due to counsel’s failure to properly
    authenticate the document. See Fed. R. Evid. 901.
    10
    authorize dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a
    claim.5
    Examining the second Mindes factor, the Court further finds that
    the risk of potential irreparable injury to Plaintiff as a result of
    the Court’s refusal to review the deployment order is minimal.
    Plaintiff has not sought to be excused from all military service.
    She does not seek a discharge from the Army. She does not even seek
    to avoid taking military orders under President Obama’s watch. She
    simply seeks to avoid being deployed to Iraq. As observed by the
    Eleventh Circuit, one “cannot say that military deployment, in and of
    itself, necessarily entails [irreparable harm], even if to volatile
    regions.” Winck, 327 F.3d at 1305 n.9. “Holding otherwise could
    unduly hamper urgent military operations during times of crisis.”
    Id. Thus, the lack of potential irreparable harm to Plaintiff weighs
    against judicial review.
    Finally, the “type and degree of anticipated interference with
    the military function” that judicial review would cause is
    significantly burdensome. Any interference with a deployment order
    Case 4:09-cv-00106-CDL Document 13 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 10 of 14
    11
    injects the Court directly into the internal affairs of the military.
    This type of interference has serious implications. For example, it
    would encourage other soldiers who are not satisfied with their
    deployment destination to seek review in the courts. It also will
    have an adverse effect on other soldiers who honorably perform their
    duties. Presumably, some other military doctor, who does not resort
    to frivolous litigation to question the President’s legitimacy as
    Commander in Chief, would be required to go to Iraq in Plaintiff’s
    place. Similarly, the doctor who Plaintiff is being sent to relieve
    and who has likely been there for months would be delayed in
    receiving his well deserved leave because his replacement seeks
    special treatment due to her political views or reservations about
    being placed in harm’s way. “It is not difficult to see that the
    exercise of such jurisdiction as is here urged would be a disruptive
    force as to affairs peculiarly within the jurisdiction of the
    military authorities.” Orloff, 345 U.S. at 94-95.
    Based on an evaluation of all of these factors, the Court
    concludes that it must abstain from interfering with the Army’s
    deployment orders. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary
    restraining order is denied, and her complaint is dismissed in its
    entirety.
    II. Failure to Satisfy Elements for Temporary Restraining Order
    Even if the Court did not abstain from deciding the merits of
    Plaintiff’s claim, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to
    Case 4:09-cv-00106-CDL Document 13 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 11 of 14
    12
    establish her entitlement to a temporary restraining order.
    Plaintiff must establish the following to obtain a temporary
    restraining order:
    (1) [Plaintiff] has a substantial likelihood of success on
    the merits;
    (2) irreparable injury will be suffered unless the
    injunction issues;
    (3) the threatened injury to [Plaintiff] outweighs whatever
    damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing
    party; and
    (4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the
    public interest.
    Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1231 (11th Cir.
    2005).
    As explained previously, Plaintiff has demonstrated no
    likelihood of success on the merits. Her claims are based on sheer
    conjecture and speculation. She alleges no factual basis for her
    “hunch” or “feeling” or subjective belief that the President was not
    born in the United States. Moreover, she cites no legal authority
    supporting her bold contention that the alleged “cloud” over the
    President’s birthplace amounts to a violation of her individual
    constitutional rights. Thus, for these reasons alone, she is not
    entitled to a temporary restraining order.
    Second, as previously noted, the Court’s refusal to interfere
    with Plaintiff’s deployment orders does not pose a substantial threat
    of irreparable injury to her. Plaintiff does not seek to be
    discharged and apparently is willing to follow all orders from her
    Case 4:09-cv-00106-CDL Document 13 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 12 of 14
    13
    military command except for any order that deploys her to Iraq.
    Although close proximity to any combat zone certainly involves
    personal danger, Plaintiff, somewhat disingenuously, claims that fear
    is not her motivation for avoiding her military duty. She insists
    that she would have no qualms about fulfilling her duties if
    President George W. Bush was still in office. The Court cannot find
    from the present record that deployment to Iraq under the current
    administration will subject Plaintiff to any threat of harm that is
    different than the harm to which she would be exposed if another
    candidate had won the election. A substantial threat of irreparable
    harm related to her desire not to serve in Iraq under the current
    President simply does not exist.
    Third, any potential threatened injury that may be caused to
    Plaintiff by the denial of the temporary restraining order certainly
    does not outweigh the harm that will result if the injunction is
    granted. As mentioned previously, the threatened injury to Plaintiff
    is not substantial; yet if the temporary restraining order was
    granted, the harmful interference with military operations would be
    significant.
    Finally, Plaintiff has failed to establish that the granting of
    the temporary restraining order will not be adverse to the public
    interest. A spurious claim questioning the President’s
    constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment,
    but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so
    Case 4:09-cv-00106-CDL Document 13 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 13 of 14
    14
    lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly
    disserve the public interest.
    For all of these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s
    motion for a temporary restraining order should be denied.
    CONCLUSION
    For the reasons previously stated, Plaintiff’s motion for a
    temporary restraining order is denied and Plaintiff’s complaint is
    dismissed in its entirety. Defendants shall recover their costs from
    Plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d).
    IT IS SO ORDERED, this 16th day of September, 2009.
    S/Clay D. Land
    CLAY D. LAND
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
    Case 4:09-cv-00106-CDL Document 13 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 14 of 14


    Tags: OBAMA TAITZ RHODES

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:30
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     
    PATRIOTS: TIME FOR MAJOR PUSH ON USURPER'S CITIZENSHIP ISSUE

     

     

    By: Devvy
    September 15, 2009
    © 2009 - NewsWithViews.com

    On September 12, 2009, Americans descended on Washington, DC., in one of the largest displays of citizen disgust towards government in the history of this republic. While this patriotic day of fed up Americans was happening, the usurper (Obama/Soetoro) made sure he was out of town. As usual. Obama aka Soetoro has taken a real fondness to flying around on Air Force One with his inventory of teleprompters and stable of fawning sycophants.

    Let's back up one day to September 11, 2009. The flim flam man was at the Pentagon with his militant, Marxist wife and bag lady of fashion, Michelle. The annual ceremony for those murdered on 9/11. At the same time in a court room in Georgia, Obama's lackeys were playing more games in an important case. Americans keeping up on current events know there have been dozens of lawsuits challenging the citizenship eligibility of this guy in the White House who has used five different names (Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, aka Barry Obama, aka Barack Dunham, aka Barry Dunham) and concealed every single record of his life except what he wants you to see.

    The ignorant, biased media continues to ridicule those of us who believe the Constitution matters. Know what? I could care less. They don't pay my mortgage and I understand how the game is played. I say those who will not stand up for the truth are cowards. These useful fools who call any American vile labels for challenging the eligibility of Obama/Soetoro are either intellectually lazy and refuse to do the real research, their paychecks mean more to them than the truth, or they believe in Obama/Soetoro's Marxist agenda. This usurper must be removed from office. Not because Obama/Soetoro is a communist and is destroying this country (true), but because he never had the legal right to run for the presidency or take the oath of office on January 20, 2009.

    Let's get caught up on recent events which seem to be causing 'The One' some stress. If you'll notice, the usurper doesn't seem to be walking to our helicopter with his usual jaunty stride. There is a tension there that is palpable. Stress from trying to sell his unconstitutional health care "reform" mess? I don't think so. On September 8, 2009, there was another hearing in the Barnett v Obama case in a federal court house in Santa Ana, California. I was most disturbed about what I have learned went by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation. As this can get a little confusing, I'll try to summarize here as clearly as I can.

    That hearing (Barnett v Obama) was scheduled for weeks. The attorney's for the defendants, that would be the usurper and his minions, filed an eleventh hour motion on Friday, September 4, 2009. Monday the 7th was a holiday. The hearing was Tuesday, Sept. 8, 2009. How coincidental that Obama/Soetoro decided to pump some more of his propaganda to America's school children at the same time a hearing was underway that could eventually remove his lying backside from office.

    There are a number of plaintiffs, but from what I can determine, things got nasty during the hearing. Here are two posts from actual plaintiffs in the case for you to read:

    Plaintiff MSgt USMC Jeff Schwilk
    Plaintiff Pamela Barnett

    Orly has filed a notice of motion to disqualify 

    This uphill battle should not be a damn bully contest, but that's exactly what it appears to me by Kreep. Now, all that aside,Judge Carter has set October 5, 2009, as the next hearing to consider the motion by the Defendants; they want this to go away. A trial date, should this matter move forward, is set for January. Too far away because everyday the usurper remains office, the more complicated this constitutional crisis gets because of bills Obama/Soetoro is signing into law. Not to mention deploying soldiers as Commander-in-Chief. Although I've been told Judge Carter has further issued an expedited hearing, I am not certain as I write this. However, you can read this explanation of the judge's order here:

    Judge Carter orders Motion for Rogatory Discovery to be heard

    September 11, 2009 by John Charlton
    Referral Order gives rise to speculation that expedited discovery is to commence

    (Sept. 11, 2009) — "Yesterday U.S. Federal District Judge David Carter (Central District of California, Souther Division) ordered the Amended Motion for expedited Rogatory Discovery, filed by Attorney Taitz in the action 

    "Attorney Taitz had submitted in July a Kenyan Birth Certificate (hereafter the Lavendar Document) to be authenticated by means of a mandamus to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to move her to formally request the Kenyan Government to authenticate the document. This motion was denied by Judge Nakazato, whereupon Taitz filed a motion refusing to proceed before him, and a subsequent amendment to the initial Rogatory motion, on Aug. 20th.

    "Attorney's for Barack Hussein Obama, led by Mr. George S. Cardona, acting U.S. Attorney, almost immediately replied to Carter's order, with an ex-parte Application (accompanied by a proposed order), requesting immediate halt to any discovery which might be granted by the Magistrate Judge."

    One other comment here about the Defendant's motion to dismiss and I cover this in my letter to Judge Carter: Their entire argument is based after the barn door was left open. There was zero vetting at the state level to ensure Obama aka and so forth, was constitutionally eligible. That glaring error (or cover up) caused everything to snow ball from there into the mess underway.

    Meanwhile, Orly was in Georgia (September 11, 2009) on another eligibility case, Rhodes v McDonald, et al. Orly was notified by the clerk that an expedited hearing had been granted, so she caught a red eye flight to Georgia for a hearing last Friday. Here is the antics of our government that should make everyone sick; posted by Orly:

    "We had a hearing on 11th. Defendants were represented by 3 attorneys: US attorney, Pentagon attorney and Fort Benning attorney. they claimed that my client, flight surgeon Cpt Rhodes MD didn't show up for no reason, she just didn't feel like coming.

    "I presented to the judge a notarized statement, showing that Col Jeffrey Johnson, her commander from Fort Riley, KS has forbidden Connie from leaving Fort Riley a day early and she was threatened that if she does, she will be court martialed and can be thrown into military prison. In this fashion the gov. prevented Connie from being at her own hearing and 5 minutes before the hearing they served me with the motion to dismiss.

    "Judge Land did not appreciate this strong hand tactic of the government and he ordered the government to make sure Connie is able to leave the base to be at her hearing, which was scheduled for Monday at 12 noon. This time it is their responsibility to do whatever is necessary for Connie to be in court. It is a tough week for me as in 5 days I am making 5 red eye flights and long trips between OC, LA, Atlanta, Columbus and WA DC."

    Here is the Notarized statement from Plaintiff, Cpt Connie rhodes MD, attesting to the fact that she was forbidden to leave the base and appear in court. Because of the shenanigans by these lawyers, a US attorney, Pentagon attorney and Fort Benning attorney, another hearing was scheduled for Monday, September 14, 2009, at noon. I spoke with Orly by phone at about 5:45 pm EST (Sept. 14, 2009). She sounded exhausted, but said the hearing was concluded; she was able to speak for about two hours. Judge Land will issue a decision tomorrow.

    While all this is going on, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and CNN have remained silent. Not a single minute of coverage. Yo! That includes the 'fair and balanced' FOX News Network.

    On September 10, 2009, an exposure of documents hit the Internet courtesy of JB Williams. Two different Official Certification of Nomination letters submitted by Nancy Pelosi and a woman named Alice Travis Germond. Read the posting and copy of the documents here.

    This now brings me to my work over the weekend because time is of the essence.

    This is a letter I sent to Judge David O. Carter in the Barnett case. It is permissible for citizens to send polite correspondence to judges regarding a case he/she is presiding over. If you will notice, no where in my letter do I refer to the usurper's party, politics or policies. Judge Carter is ruling on the law and that must be the only point you bring out if you decide to send him a letter. I hope everyone can take a few minutes (especially vets and active duty military) to pen a polite letter to Judge Carter asap.

    Next, this is a request to my Secretary of State for a copy of the Official Certification of Nomination sent for Obama/Biden by Pelosi. I want to see what was submitted as a result of the revelations mentioned above by JB Williams.

    Next, another letter to two U.S. Attorneys requesting a full investigation into those documents.

    Next, no not fun in the sun. One of Orly's plaintiffs is New Hampshire State Representative Laurence M. Rappaport. According to his post (here), Mr. Rappaport had a meeting with his Secretary of State (SOS), William Gardner, on September 11, 2009. I am quite familiar with Gardner from the recount last year over the vote fraud in NH during the primaries. I am not impressed with Gardner or his staff. However, since Rappaport is a member of the New Hampshire General Court, an elected official, he does have some clout.

    I have sent a letter and the following documents in a nice, neat folder to Rep. Rappaport:

    Letters to Janet Brown, Committees on Presidential Debates
    Dr. Edwin Vieira on Standing
    (
    Due to length, I put on a CD)
    Letters to the Secretary of State and Elections Board - State of Illinois
    Letter to my SOS and the JB Williams article

    Due to the length of these, I put them on the CD: Leo Donofrio's legal and historical research on the issue of natural born citizen at birth; another legal analysis on McCain's ineligibility; adocument on how certain members of Congress tried to legislate Obama/Soetoro's citizenship by trying to sneak in McCain's and my letter to two U.S. Attorneys.

    I think that about covers things for now on Orly's cases. Let me go over to Leo Donofrio's web site. For those who have been following this the past almost one year, Leo's was the first case to the U.S. Supreme Court and kicked without a hearing. Leo has been posting more of his research; hopefully you can book mark and read when you can because it's important. Be sure to visit Leo's site and scroll down for this: FACTCHECK.ORG CAPITULATES – Admits Error In Obama Kenyan Citizenship Analysis. Why is this important? Because that web site has been the water carrier for the usurper from day one.

    Next, is another very important case, Kerchner v Obama. I have interviewed both Charles Kerchner and his attorney, Mario Apuzzo. The issue of these certifications filed with the SOS and the one Pelosi signed from the convention is already part of that lawsuit. Please see this link; scroll down to Item 89 - 91. Thedocket for Charles' case is here; you can follow the progress of that case.

    For almost a year, those who care absolutely nothing for the U.S. Constitution, Obama/Soetoro's supporters, newspaper pundits and popular cable news network anchors, have been screeching, calling people like you and me "wing nuts," Kool Aid drinkers, racists and conspiracy wackos. Ignore them. Don't let them sap your strength and energy. Stay focused. Below is a list of state legislators (there may be more at this time, but I don't have the full list) who are Orly's plaintiffs. Ask them to do the same as Rep. Rappaport. Now, that he has taken this first step with his Secretary of State, I believe these other stand up Americans will follow.

    Mr. Eric Swafford, in his capacity of the State representative from the State of Tennessee; Mr. Timothy Jones, ESQ, in his capacity of a State Representative from the state ofMissouri; Mr. Timothy Comerford, in his capacity of a State Representative from the State of New Hampshire; Mr. Frank Niceley in his capacity of the state representative from the state of Tennessee; Ms. Cynthia Davis, in her capacity of a State representative from the State of Missouri; Mr. Larry Rappaport in his capacity of a State Representative from the State of New Hampshire; Mr. Stacey Campfield in his capacity of a State representative from the state of Tennessee; Mr. Casey Guernsey in his capacity of a State Representative from the state of Missouri; Mr. Glen Casada, in his capacity of a State Representative from the state of Tennessee

    Please feel free to send this column or any of the material in it to your state rep or senator with a polite snail mail letter asking for them to come forward as has Rep. Rappaport. If one of the above is your rep, be sure to thank them in a polite letter for already being plaintiffs in Orly's legal challenges and ask them to join Rep. Rappaport by petitioning your SOS. They need to know you will stand with them.

    Let us keep the momentum going and show both Washington, DC and our state legislatures that we the people will no longer be ignored and we will not stop until the whole truth about the usurper is exposed and he is removed from office. Yes, Obama, we can and we will.

    "But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution." -- John Adams, letter to H. Niles, February 13, 1818

    Links:

    1 - Federal judge calls soldier's Obama challenge 'frivolous' The judge whose backside is protected by soldiers like Major Cook
    2 - 
    Proof of judge Lazzara sealing and hiding his orders from the plaintiff, plaintiff's attorney and public
    3 - 
    Why For McCain But Not For Obama?

    1 - Photos show President Barack Obama as Barry the freshmanHey, let's just change your name! "It was at Occidental where he stopped being called “Barry” and became Barack Obama, Newsweek pointed out.."

    © 2009 - NewsWithViews.com - All Rights Reserved

    Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
    E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale


    Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country as well as her own; ran for Congress and is a highly sought after public speaker.

    She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party. Her web site contains a tremendous amount of information, solutions and a vast Reading Room.

    Devvy's website: www.devvy.com

    It isn't possible to respond to 20,000 emails a month. Before you send Devvy e-mail, please take the time to check the FAQ section on her web site; it has been updated and filled with answers to frequently asked questions and links to reliable research sources

    E-mail is: devvyk@earthlink.net


     

    Home

    Gary Kreep as a co-counsel due to conflict of interest.
    Captain Pamela Barnett et al. vs. Obama et al.
    referred to Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato. This order followed Carter's denial of Taitz’
     request to remove Judge Nakazato from his role overseeing admission of evidence to
     the case, which duty he has according to Federal Court rules of procedure.
     Judge Nakazato is now to review the first Kenyan Birth Certificate
    .

    Tags: OBAMA USURPER

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:15
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Martes, 15 de septiembre de 2009

    Stand for Truth - Stand with Joe Wilson Today!

    Instead of working on the important issues facing our nation, the Democratic leadership has proven once again that they would rather play political games on the taxpayer’s dime than work to create jobs or reform health care.

    The liberal supporters of a government takeover of health care are using my very vocal opposition as an excuse to muzzle the American people who have been outspoken against their risky plan. But I will not give up and I will not back down from our fight. I will continue to speak the truth.

    Will you please make a donation to help me fight back against these unwavering attacks?

    Thank you for standing with me in this fight.

    Sincerely,

    Joe Wilson
    U.S. Representative

    • Paid for by Joe Wilson for Congress
    http://www.joewilsonforcongress.com/

    Tags: WILSON CONGRESS

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 18:54
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    The Unwarranted Rebuke Of Joe Wilson
    posted September 15, 2009

    It is being reported that our Congress, with nothing better to do, will push a resolution to rebuke Joe Wilson for confirming what most of us already now, that Barack Obama is a liar. One of the first things I learned about politics is that all politicians are liars.

    Let’s take this a step farther: where were these same hypocrites, when on September 28, 2008, when Jack Abramoff's buddy Harry Reid called former president George Bush a liar, then refused to apologize for his comments? How about when he called highly regarded General Petraeus a liar as well? Where was our esteemed Congress and resolutions to rebuke the corrupt Harry Reid on that one?

    While we are at it, maybe the Senate should rebuke the seven lame brains that voted against the resolution to take money away from Acorn. I wonder how many of these seven benefit from Acorn contributions? How about calling out Charles Rangel, who as a tax cheat and corrupt congressman has been found to have donated money to the election funds of the same fellow congressman investigating him for his wrongdoings?

    Why is it that the liberals always want to play by a different set of rules than everyone else? Here is a good rule for them, start sending out resumes, because many of the same people who put you into office are getting ready to kick you out.

    Brandon Back

    Tags: OBAMA WILSON CONGRESS

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:13
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     

    Dems to vote on Wilson sanction

     
    By JOHN BRESNAHAN | 9/14/09 8:33 PM EDT
    Updated: 9/15/09 8:46 AM EDT
     
    Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) and Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.)
    Dem leaders will move ahead with a 'resolution of disapproval' against Wilson on Tues. afternoon. Photo: AP photo composite by POLITICO
    House Democratic leaders will move ahead with a "resolution of disapproval" against Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) on Tuesday afternoon, following through on their threat to sanction the conservative lawmaker for heckling President Obama during his speech to Congress last week.

    Democratic leaders will formally introduce the resolution Tuesday afternoon, according to House insiders, and the vast majority of Democrats - as well as some Republicans - are expected to vote for it.

    No decision had been made at press time as to which Democrat would be offering the resolution.

    A number of Democrats, led by Majority Whip James Clyburn (S.C.) and other black lawmakers, were outraged when Wilson yelled out “You lie!” during Obama’s address, and they have pressed Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other top Democrats to sanction Wilson.

    Pelosi initially downplayed the Wilson episode as a distraction from thelarger issue of health care reform, but she has come around now to the position held by Clyburn and the other Democrats – if Wilson didn’t apologize on his own, on the House floor, then Democrats must take action.

    Wilson issued an apology on Wednesday night following his outburst, and he called White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to apologize personally, but he has refused to go to the floor and offer contrition for his comments. Obama said he accepted Wilson’s apology.

    Clyburn personally asked Wilson three times to offer a full apology to the House during a confrontation the two had on the floor the day after Obama’s speech. Since that exchange, Clyburn has led the charge to punish Wilson.

    “Not addressing this issue sets a precedent for bad behavior,” said a senior House Democratic aide following Monday’s leadership meeting. “We’re not the British Parliament, for a reason.”

    Democrats say they will craft the resolution very narrowly, so that it simply addresses Wilson’s behavior while avoiding larger fights over Wilson’ claim that the Obama-backed health care bill will give health insurance to illegal immigrants.

    “It goes directly to the issue of conduct on the House floor,” said the Democratic aide. “It was a breach of decorum and it can’t be accepted.” 

    In public appearances over the last several days, including a brief discussion with reporters on Monday, Wilson has remained adamant that he will not offer any further apology to the chamber.

    “I won’t be offering any more apologies,” Wilson said as he strode into the chamber.

     

    Tags: OBAMA WILSON CONGRESS

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:33
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Lunes, 14 de septiembre de 2009

    STAND WITH JOE

    As you may be aware, the attacks and threats from the liberal Democrats have not let up.

    On Fox News I made one thing clear: I will not apologize to Nancy Pelosi and her allies who threatened to censure me in the U.S. House of Representatives.

    Washington Democrats and their liberal allies want to divert attention away from the questions being raised about the massive government takeover of health care. In fact, they have made me their Number One target -- already raising more than a million dollars to attack me.

    But I will not give up and I will not back down. We will not be muzzled.

    I need your help today.

    Will you please make a donation to help me fight back against these unwavering attacks?

    Thank you for standing with me in this fight

    Sincerely,

    Joe Wilson
    U.S. Representative

     


    Tags: Obama " You Lie "

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:38
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    S?bado, 12 de septiembre de 2009
     

    Up to two million march to US Capitol to protest against Obama's spending in 'tea-party' demonstration

    By Mail Foreign Service
    Last updated at 9:39 PM on 12th September 2009

     

    Up to two million people marched to the U.S. Capitol today, carrying signs with slogans such as "Obamacare makes me sick" as they protested the president's health care plan and what they say is out-of-control spending.

    The line of protesters spread across Pennsylvania Avenue for blocks, all the way to the capitol, according to the Washington Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency.

    People were chanting "enough, enough" and "We the People." Others yelled "You lie, you lie!" and "Pelosi has to go," referring to California congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.

    Tens of thousands of people converged on Capitol Hill on Saturday to protest against government spending

    Tens of thousands of people converged on Capitol Hill on Saturday to protest against government spending

    Demonstrators waved U.S. flags and held signs reading "Go Green Recycle Congress" and "I'm Not Your ATM." Men wore colonial costumes as they listened to speakers who warned of "judgment day" - Election Day 2010.

    Richard Brigle, 57, a Vietnam War veteran and former Teamster, came from Michigan. He said health care needs to be reformed - but not according to President Barack Obama's plan.

    "My grandkids are going to be paying for this. It's going to cost too much money that we don't have," he said while marching, bracing himself with a wooden cane as he walked.

    FreedomWorks Foundation, a conservative organization led by former House of Representatives Majority Leader Dick Armey, organized several groups from across the country for what they billed as a "March on Washington."

    Organizers say they built on momentum from the April "tea party" demonstrations held nationwide to protest tax policies, along with growing resentment over the economic stimulus packages and bank bailouts.

    US President Barack Obama sports a mustache famously worn by German dictator Adolf Hitler

    US President Barack Obama sports a mustache famously worn by German dictator Adolf Hitler

    Demonstrators hold up banners on Capitol Hill in Washington on Saturday

    Demonstrators hold up banners on Capitol Hill in Washington on Saturday

    Many protesters said they paid their own way to the event - an ethic they believe should be applied to the government.

    They say unchecked spending on things like a government-run health insurance option could increase inflation and lead to economic ruin.

    Terri Hall, 45, of Florida, said she felt compelled to become political for the first time this year because she was upset by government spending.

    "Our government has lost sight of the powers they were granted," she said. She added that the deficit spending was out of control, and said she thought it was putting the country at risk.

    Anna Hayes, 58, a nurse from Fairfax County, stood on the Mall in 1981 for Reagan's inauguration. "The same people were celebrating freedom," she said. "The president was fighting for the people then. I remember those years very well and fondly."

    Saying she was worried about "Obamacare," Hayes explained: "This is the first rally I've been to that demonstrates against something, the first in my life. I just couldn't stay home anymore."

    march

     

    The heated demonstrations were organized by a Conservative group called the Tea Party Patriots

    The heated demonstrations were organized by a Conservative group called the Tea Party Patriots

    Like countless others at the rally, Joan Wright, 78, of Ocean Pines, Md., sounded angry. "I'm not taking this crap anymore," said Wright, who came by bus to Washington with 150 like-minded residents of Maryland's Eastern Shore. "I don't like the health-care [plan]. I don't like the czars. And I don't like the elitists telling us what we should do or eat."

    Republican lawmakers also supported the rally.

    "Republicans, Democrats and independents are stepping up and demanding we put our fiscal house in order," Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said.

    "I think the overriding message after years of borrowing, spending and bailouts is enough is enough."

    Other sponsors of the rally include the Heartland Institute, Americans for Tax Reform and the Ayn Rand Center for Individuals Rights.

    Recent polls illustrate how difficult recent weeks have been for a president who, besides tackling health care, has been battling to end a devastatingly deep recession.  

    Fifty percent approve and 49 percent disapprove of the overall job he is doing as president, compared to July, when those approving his performance clearly outnumbered those who were unhappy with it, 55 percent to 42 percent.

    Just 42 percent approve of the president's work on the high-profile health issue.

    The poll was taken over five days just before Obama's speech to Congress. That speech reflected Obama's determination to push ahead despite growing obstacles.

    "I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than to improve it," Obama said on Wednesday night. "I won't stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are.

    "If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we'll call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution."

    Prior to Obama's speech before Congress U.S. Capitol Police arrested a man they say tried to get into a secure area near the Capitol with a gun in his car as President Barack Obama was speaking.

    Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said Thursday that 28-year-old Joshua Bowman of suburban Falls Church, Virginia, was arrested around 8 p.m. Wednesday when Obama was due to speak. 

    'Parasite-in-chief': The title given to the American President during the demonstrations on Saturday

    'Parasite-in-chief': The title given to the American President during the demonstrations on Saturday

    Bowman's intentions were unclear, police said.

    Today's protests imitated the original Boston Tea Party of 1773, when colonists threw three shiploads of taxed tea into Boston Harbour in protest against the British government under the slogan 'No taxation without representation'.

    The group first began rising to prominence in April, when the governor of Texas threatened to secede from the union in protest against government spending. Waves of tea party protests have crossed America since.

    Today's rally, the largest grouping of fiscal conservatives to march on Washington, comes on the heels of heated town halls held during the congressional August recess when some Democratic lawmakers were confronted, disrupted and shouted down by angry protestors who oppose President Obama's plan to overhaul the health care system.






    Tags: OBAMA DC DEMOSTRATION

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 21:13
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     
     

    Tea Party Express Takes Washington By Storm

    FreedomWorks Foundation, a conservative organization led by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, has organized several groups from across the country for the Saturday event, dubbed a "March on Washington."

     

    FOXNews.com

    Saturday, September 12, 2009

    They came. They saw. They protested.

    Yet it remains to be seen whether the demonstration Saturday in the nation's capital, against what protesters view as out-of-control spending by an expanding federal government, will conquer Washington.

    The tens of thousands of protesters marched to the U.S. Capitol chanting various slogans and waving posters that voiced a rather broad array of grievances against big government and the leaders, particularly President Obama, who the protesters blame for its size and scope.

    Some signs, reflecting the growing intensity of the health care debate, depicted President Obama with the signature mustache of Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler. Many made reference to Obama as a socialist or communist, and another imposed his face on that of the villainous Joker from "Batman." Other protesters waved U.S. flags and held signs espousing fiscal conservatism, declaring "I'm Not Your ATM" and "Go Green Recycle Congress."

    The rally, and others like it, have been billed as "tea parties," part of a movement that takes its cue from the Boston Tea Party and other imagery from the days of the founding fathers. On Saturday, men wore colonial costumes as they listened to speakers who warned of "judgment day" -- Election Day 2010.

    FreedomWorks Foundation, a conservative organization led by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, has organized several groups from across the country for the Saturday event, dubbed a "March on Washington."

    Demonstrators chanted "enough, enough" and "We the People." Others yelled "You lie, you lie!" and "Pelosi has to go," referring to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Some carried signs with slogans such as "Obamacare makes me sick"

    The line of protesters clogged several blocks near the capitol, according to the D.C. Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency. 

    The demonstration was part of the so-called Tea Party Movement that gathered steam in April to protest tax policies. And Saturday's event was the culmination of a 34-city, 7,000-mile bus tour that began Aug. 28 in Sacramento, Calif. 

    The "partiers" have cited a host of grievances and demands, such as a call for any health care reform to create more competition and be guided by market principles, not a government-run plan.

    Organizers said they anticipated tens of thousands of proponents of limited government to attend. They said it would be the largest group of fiscal conservatives to ever gather in Washington.

    Lawmakers also supported the rally. Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said Americans want health care reform but they don't want a government takeover.

    "Republicans, Democrats and independents are stepping up and demanding we put our fiscal house in order," Pence, of Indiana, told The Associated Press.

    "I think the overriding message after years of borrowing, spending and bailouts is enough is enough."

    Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., and Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., also spoke at the rally. DeMint said he'd had enough of "Alice in Wonderland" politicians promising more programs at the risk of financial disaster.

    "The president has warned us if we disagree with him he's going to call us out," DeMint said. "Well, Mr. President, we are out."

    Richard Brigle, 57, a Vietnam War veteran and former Teamster, came from Paw Paw, Mich. He said health care needs to be reformed -- but not according to President Barack Obama's plan.

    "My grandkids are going to be paying for this. It's going to cost too much money that we don't have," he said while marching, bracing himself with a wooden cane as he walked.

    The rally comes on the heels of heated town halls held during the congressional August recess when some Democratic lawmakers were confronted, disrupted and shouted down by angry protestors who oppose President Obama's plan to overhaul the health care system.

    "I can't figure out to save me what [Mr. Obama and the Democrats] are trying to accomplish, unless they want socialism,"  73-year-old Joseph Wright, a retired paper-mill worker, told The Wall Street Journal. 

    Wright rode from Tallahassee, Fla., to Washington this week on one of the many chartered buses bringing in demonstrators from states as far-flung as Massachusetts and Arkansas.

    Many protesters said they paid their own way to the event -- an ethic they believe should be applied to the government. They say unchecked spending on things like a government-run health insurance option could increase inflation and lead to economic ruin.

    Terri Hall, 45, of Starke, Fla., said she felt compelled to become political for the first time this year because she was upset by government spending.

    "Our government has lost sight of the powers they were granted," she said. She added that the deficit spending was out of control, and said she thought it was putting the country at risk.

    Other sponsors of the rally include the Heartland Institute, Americans for Tax Reform and the Ayn Rand Center for Individuals Rights.

    Norman Kennedy, 64, of Charleston, S.C., said he wants to send a message to federal lawmakers that America is "deeply in debt." He said though he'd like everyone to have free health care, he said there's no money to pay for it.

    "We want change and we're going to get change," Kennedy said. "I want to see fiscal responsibility and if that means changing Congress that will be a means to that end."

    The White House on Friday claimed it was unaware of the planned rally.

    "I don't know who the group is," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters with a shrug.

    But a House leadership aide warned fellow Democrats that up to 2 million demonstrators could turn out.

    "It looks like Saturday's event is going to be a huge gathering, estimates ranging from hundreds of thousands to 2 million people," Doug Thornell, an aide to Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., wrote in a memo obtained by FOXNews.com.

    But conservatives believe the memo is ploy to inflate expectations for the turnout anticipating that it will fall short.

    "It's an old political tactic to get out in front and make wild projections and when they're not met, claim their opponents don't have the juice," said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union, one of the organizers of the rally.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.


    Tags: OBAMA TEA PARTY

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:12
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Viernes, 11 de septiembre de 2009
     

    The Mistake, The Evidence, Obama is NOT a constitutional president

    The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don’t Lie



     

     




     By JB Williams  Thursday, September 10, 2009


    -Please read update at bottom of article

    Though we live in an era when all undesirable facts are often blindly labeled “conspiracy theories” by political operatives with an agenda at risk, a very real conspiracy unfolds every now and then.

    While it is indeed true that not all theories are actual conspiracies, like when Hillary Clinton developed an imaginary “right-wing conspiracy” out to get her husband, when in fact, the semen stained dress provided all the necessary (but unfriendly) facts and a perfectly logical explanation for all of those nasty rumors – it is also true that some conspiracies are much more than just crackpot theory.

    To be a bonafide conspiracy, two or more individuals must knowingly conspire, plot or plan an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious act. In politics or law, an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act, is a “conspiracy.” Not in theory, but in reality.

    Such is the case today!

    A political national committee, the Chair of the Party convention, the Secretary of the Party, Party offices in each of fifty states, and maybe many – many more, have knowingly and wantonly defrauded the American election system and more than 300 million American citizens.

    They plotted and planned an act of evil, unlawful, treacherous fraud in a blind quest for unbridled political power, and they hoped that you would never catch it. They almost got away with it too…

    They snuck it past fifty state election commissions, congress, the US Supreme Court and Justice Department, the Federal Elections Commission and countless members of the Electoral College nationwide. Not a single member of the, as Limbaugh says, “drive-by media” caught it either, or if they did, they decided to become complicit for their own political reasons.

    But as is always the case with liars, cheats and thieves, they slip up – make a silly mistake – overplay their hand – leave evidence lying around that they had forgotten about. And as with all chronic liars, they eventually get caught in their own web of lies.

    Then, one day, someone stumbles into that evidence, and the house of cards comes crashing down around them. It’s almost poetic…

    The Mistake

    Aware of the fact that Barack Hussein Obama does NOT meet Article II – Section I constitutional requirements for the office of President, what well-seasoned professional politician would be stupid enough to sign their name and stake their personal career upon certifying Obama as eligible?

    Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates are nominated at their respective Party Conventions.

    Believe it or not, each Party is assigned the duty of vetting and certifying the legal eligibility of their own candidates. I know, like asking the fox to guard the henhouse, right. But hey, we are talking about a country which still thinks there is a separation of powers between the High Court and the Executive branch, which seats that court by way of political appointment, confirmed by congress, which wants a piece of the judge and expects a few political favors too.

    The Evidence

    In this case, the Democrat Party was responsible for vetting and certifying Barack Hussein Obama as legally eligible to seek the Oval Office. The U.S. Constitution has only three very specific requirements for the job. The proper legal text used on the DNC Party “Official Certification of Nomination” document reads as follows, and I quote;

    “THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

    Click to enlarge

    Yes, I know…. there is a typo in there. Not my typo, it belongs to whoever prepared the official document at the DNC. Did you catch it?

    The document is signed by Chair of the DNC Convention and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, DNC Secretary Alice Travis Germond and Colorado Notary of Public Shalifa A. Williamson. It is dated August 28, 2008.

    However, this document was never delivered to a single state DNC Office for state certification, and it was therefore, never presented to any state Election Commission as certification of these candidates, although I do have a copy of this notarized document myself.

    Instead, a very similar document was delivered to fifty state DNC offices, which those offices certified to each of fifty state Election Commissions, who then date-stamped the document and stuck it in a file cabinet, and proceeded to place these “certified” candidates on the ballot.

    The “Official Certification of Nomination” that was presented by the DNC in all fifty states for the 2008 Presidential election, in which Barack Hussein Obama became the new President of the United States, was almost identical, and it too was signed by Chair of the DNC Convention and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, DNC Secretary Alice Travis Germond and Notary of Public Shalifa A. Williamson, dated August 28, 2008.

    But this version of the document was missing the following text, and I quote;

    “- and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

    The legal certification text on the DNC certified nomination document used for the DNC ticket was limited to, and I quote;

    “THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:


    Click to enlarge

    Oops, another typo? The reference to Obama’s constitutional eligibility was missing… An accidental omission?

    The text certifying that Barack Hussein Obama was “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution” had been removed from the document sent to the states. And yes, I have a copy of this version of the DNC Official Certification of Nomination letter too!

    In fact, this version is in Election Commission files of all fifty state Election Commission offices, state DNC headquarters, complete with date stamps, matching signatures, even the same Notary of Public authentication, and absent the constitutional text.

    Just in case you are wondering, the answer is yes. This version also includes the same typo present in the version not submitted by the DNC, but including the constitutional text, which means both documents have the same place of origin.

    The individual at DNC headquarters who prepared this very important document was not only a poor typist… they were sloppy enough to leave both versions of the signed documents lying around.

    Now this is the stuff real conspiracies are made of!

    The Implications

    Please, allow me to connect the dots here…

    • The DNC drafted, signed and notarized TWO slightly different versions of their Official Certification of Nomination documents, not one.
    • One of those documents had complete legal language, and one of them was missing the text concerning the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama.
    • The version which is absent any certification of constitutional standing for the office of President is the version that was filed with every state in the country, and the one used by the DNC to elect Barack Obama President.

    Oh, there is one more important document in this story.

    The RNC “Official Certification of Nomination” for John McCain and Sarah Palin reads, and I quote:

    “We do hereby certify that a national convention of Delegates representing the Republican Party of the United States, duly held and convened in the city of Saint Paul, State of Minnesota, on September 4, 2008, the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of President of the United States, and the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of Vice President of the Unites States, were nominated for such offices to be filled at the ensuing general election, November 4, 2008, viz;”


    Click to enlarge

    The certification of constitutional eligibility is there in the RNC Certification of Nomination presented to the state Election Commissions. It’s there in the document which the DNC had prepared, signed and notarized, but did NOT deliver to the states.

    But it is NOT there in the DNC Certification of Nomination that the DNC used to certify and elect Barack Hussein Obama President and Joseph Biden Vice President of the United States of America.

    Last, the fact that TWO DNC Certifications exist, both signed, dated and notarized by the same individuals on the same day, means that a very real conspiracy to commit election fraud was underway, and since it took until six months after the election to uncover it, the conspiracy was indeed successful.

    Are you still wondering why Barack Obama has spent nearly $1.5 million in taxpayer’s funds to race Department of Justice lawyers around the country to stop all cases questioning Obama’s eligibility before discovery can force Obama to open up his top secret life?

    Now I realize that leftists, I mean liberals, no “progressives” – don’t like getting all bogged down in minutia and nit-picky details like the Constitution, but this is actually very serious business here. We are talking about the top-down leadership of the ruling political Party knowingly and wantonly defrauding voters by way of playing monkey business with fraudulent election documents.

    As Al Gore once said, the debate is OVER!

    There is no honest debate on the matter anymore. Obama is NOT a constitutional president, which is to say, we do NOT have a constitutional federal administration at present and every anti-American policy of the last six months is also, BINGO! – Unconstitutional!

    What is still in question however – does any court in America have the backbone to do what must be done? – And what do the American people do, if not one court in the nation has that kind of constitutional backbone today?

    Obama’s DOJ has thus far been successful in blocking the people’s access to the courts by claiming that no American citizen, including another presidential candidate, has “proper standing” to demand proof of Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the office he fraudulently holds.

    To be very clear, the RNC nomination form filed with the states certifies that John McCain met all constitutional requirements for the Office of President. But the DNC nomination form filed with the states is absent any such language.

    I know what I conclude from these facts, but what do you conclude from these facts?

    More importantly, what will a court of law conclude? Will they ever even agree to hear the evidence?

    The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don’t Lie

    – Update 09-11-09

    First, thank you all for your comments. It is vital to the future of our beloved nation, that every American patriot awaken from apathy and engage in the defense of freedom, liberty and justice. The comments on this story demonstrate that this is happening, none too soon.

    I want to respond to several comments regarding this story.

    I was first made aware of these two documents when an anonymous reader sent them to me. The documents were posted here — Document #1 and here — Document #2 and I provided these proper links in my September 9, 2009 column Tennessee Grand Jury Joins DOJ in Obstructing Justice.

    A poster has taken issue with a couple typos in this column. They make a good point, but more importantly, prove a very important point about this story in that process. Typos are more common than not, and that’s why it is significant that the same typo appears in both versions of the DNC Certification document. Like my column typos, which spellchecker missed in both cases, they are a way of identifying the authenticity and place of origin of a document. I usually take great pains to cross all t’s and dot all i’s just to eliminate any opening to discredit a story strictly on the basis of a typo. In this case, the story is of such magnitude, that it was more important to get the word out than to wait for the normal editing process. My apologies for the typos, but they change nothing.

    Upon seeing the two DNC documents posted, I contacted several state election offices and requested copies of the DNC and RNC Certifications filed and in all cases, received the DNC version absent the constitutional eligibility reference. Since the RNC document included the constitutional reference in all cases, and the DNC document did not in all cases, I made the assumption that the same documents were fax-blasted to all states. Some states date-stamp and some don’t. I have NOT viewed all 50 state filings. I recommend that each of you contact your state Election Commission office and obtain a copy of the document filed in your state.

    It has been posted here that Hawaii received a version of the DNC Certification that included the constitutional text. I have not verified this claim due to time constraints. However, assuming that the “constitutional” version of the document was filed in Hawaii or other states, this only further raises the question - “why two different documents?” Contrary to the assumption made by the Hawaii Cert poster, whether a state requires Article II – Section I text in its certification process or not, the U.S. Constitution requires that all candidates meet those requirements. Further, asserting that only some states require the language in the Certification document explains why the DNC included that text in those certs. But it does NOT explain why the DNC omitted that text from all others. Why two certs?

    The good news is – the Hawaii Certification proves that BOTH documents are authentic and official, that all matching signatures on BOTH documents are authentic and that the DNC used BOTH when only the one with constitutional text was necessary. It adds complete credibility to the story as both documents appear to have been not only drafted, signed and notarized by the DNC, but filed differently in different locations. Why not just file one version including the constitutional text?

    Last, this story confirms that some form of a conspiracy to mislead and ultimately defraud voters took place at the top of the Democrat Party. No story in recent history is of greater gravity. Yet, some prefer to focus their attention upon John McCain, who was not only a well known war hero from a well known US Military family of distinction, but a Senate confirmed Natural Born Citizen who was NOT elected President. Others prefer to focus attention on a typo missed by spellchecker, and still others hope to derail the story by asserting that Hawaii’s doc changes the only question raised by this report – Why TWO documents? Why eliminate constitutional text from any of them?

    This is a very typical strategy of the left, and its purpose is to deflect attention away from the real crisis at hand, and focus attention upon typos, other candidates not elected, and technicalities that change absolutely nothing about the story or the only question of concern, why two different certificates and why omit the reference to constitutional eligibility regarding a candidate who clearly does not meet those requirements?

    I reported what I found in a clear factual manner, and even the comments seeking to discredit, further confirm the basis for the story. So, in the end, I must ask, what do you make of all evidence presented?

    If I missed any typos here, I apologize!


    (69) Reader Feedback | Subscribe

    JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. JB Williams’ website is jb-williams.com/

    JB Williams can be reached at: letters@canadafreepress.com

    Older articles by JB Williams


    Tags: OBAMA CONSTITUTION

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:30
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar



    The Manchurian Candidate By: David Horowitz
    FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, September 11, 2009


    Those who were surprised by the White House appointment of Van Jones – a self-styled “communist,” and a proponent of the idea that the Katrina catastrophe was caused by “white supremacy,” haven’t been paying attention to developments on the left since the fall of Communism, or to president Obama’s extensive roots in its political culture. Van Jones is the carefully groomed protégé of a network of radical organizations -- including Moveon.org -- and of Democratic sponsors like billionaire George Soros and John Podesta, former Clinton chief of staff and co-chair of the Obama transition team. 

    At the time of his appointment as the President’s “Green Jobs” czar – and despite a very recent 10-year history of “revolutionary” activity – Jones was a member of two key organizations at the very heart of what might be called the executive branch of the Democratic Party. The first is the Center for American Progress which was funded by Soros and is headed by Podesta. The second is the Apollo Alliance, on whose board Jones sits with Podesta, Carol Browner and Al Gore. This is a coalition of radicals, leftwing union leaders and corporate recruits, which had a major role in designing Obama’s green economy plans, including the “cash for clunkers” program. The New York director of the Alliance, who will be writing its applications for tens of millions of dollars in “stimulus” funds, is Jeff Jones (no relation) who was a co-leader of the terrorist Weather Underground along with Obama’s close friend and political ally William Ayers.

    According to his own account, Van Jones became a “communist” during a prison term he served after being arrested during the 1992 Los Angeles race riots. For the next ten years Jones was an activist in the Maoist organization STORM – “Stand Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement.” When STORM disintegrated Jones joined the Apollo Alliance and the Center for American Progress Democrats. As he explained to the East Bay Express in a 2005 article, he still considered himself a “revolutionary, but just a more effective one.” “Before,” he told the Express, “we would fight anybody, any time. No concession was good enough;… Now, I put the issues and constituencies first. I’ll work with anybody, I’ll fight anybody if it will push our issues forward.... I’m willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends.”

     

    Pursuing the deep satisfaction of radical ends is the clear sub-text of Jones’ 2007 book, The Green Collar Economy which comes with a Forward by Robert Kennedy Jr. and enthusiastic blurbs from Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore. According to Jones, the Katrina tragedies were caused by global warming, white supremacy, free market economics and the “war for oil” in Iraq. This “perfect storm” of social evils deprived poor blacks of the protection of adequate levees and private vehicles which would have allowed them to escape. The fact that a fleet of public buses was available but the black mayor and the black power structure in New Orleans failed to deploy them go unmentioned in Jones’ indictment of white racism. Instead, “The Katrina story illustrates clearly the two crises we face in the United States: radical socioeconomic inequality and rampant environmental destruction.” To deal with these crises “we will need both political and economic transformation – immediately.”

    How did John Podesta and Al Gore and Barack Obama come to be political allies of a far left radical like Van Jones, a 9/11 conspiracy “truther” and a supporter of the Hamas view that the entire state of Israel is “occupied territory?” To answer this question requires an understanding of developments within the political left that have taken place over the last two decades, and in particular the forging of a “popular front” between anti-American radicals and “mainstream liberals” in the Democratic Party.

    The collapse of Communism in the early Nineties did not lead to an agonizing reappraisal of its radical agendas among many who had supported it in the West. Instead, its survivors set about creating a new socialist international which would unite “social justice” movements, radical environmental groups, leftwing trade unions, and traditional communist parties – all dedicated to the revival of utopian dreams.

    The new political force made its first impression at the end of the decade when it staged global demonstrations against the World Trade Organization and the World Bank. The demonstrations erupted into large-scale violence in Seattle in 2001 when 50,000 Marxists, anarchists and environmental radicals, joined by the giant leftwing unions AFSCME and SEIU, descended on the city, smashed windows and automobiles, and set fire to buildings to protest “globalization” – the world capitalist system.

    In the direct aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the anti-globalization forces morphed into what became known as the “anti-war” movement. An already scheduled anti-globalization protest on September 29 was re-redirected (and re-named) to target America’s retaliation against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The new “peace” movement grew to massive proportions in the lead up to the war in Iraq but it never held a single protest against Saddam’s violation of 17 UN arms control resolutions, or his expulsion of the UN arms inspectors. It did, however, mobilize 35 million people in world-wide protests against America’s “imperialist war for oil.” The orchestrators of the demonstrations were the same leaders and the same organizations, the same unions and the same “social justice” groups that had been responsible for the Seattle riots against the World Trade Organization and the international capitalist system.

    A second watershed came in the run-up to the 2004 elections when billionaire George Soros decided to integrate the radicals – including their political organization ACORN -- into the structure of Democratic Party politics. Together with a group of like-minded billionaires, Soros created a “Shadow Party” (as Richard Poe and I documented in a book by that name) whose purpose was to shape the outcome of the 2004 presidential race. “America under Bush,” Soros told The Washington Post, “is a danger to the world,…” To achieve his goal, Soros created a galaxy of 527 political organizations headed by leftwing union leaders like SEIU chief Andrew Stern and Clinton operatives like Harold Ickes. As its policy brain he created the Center for American Progress.

    Soros failed to achieve his goal in 2004 but he went on working to create new elements of the network, such as the Apollo Alliance. Four years later the Shadow Party was able to elect a candidate who had spent his entire political career in the bowels of this movement. Obama’s electoral success was made possible by the wide latitude he was given by the press and the public, partly because he was the first African-American with a chance to be president and partly because his campaign was deliberately crafted to convey the impression that he was a tax-cutting centrist who intended to bring Americans together to find common solutions to their problems. When confronted with his long-term associations and working partnerships with anti-American racists like Jeremiah Wright and anti-American radicals like William Ayers, he denied the obvious and successfully side-stepped its implications.

    Just eight months into his presidency, however, a new Barack Obama has begun to emerge. With unseemly haste Obama has nearly bankrupted the federal government, amassing more debt in eight months than all his predecessors combined. He has appeased America’s enemies abroad and attacked America’s intelligence services at home. He has rushed forward with programs that require sweeping changes in the American economy and is now steamrolling a massive new health-care program that will give the government unprecedented control of its citizens.

     

    Among the hallmarks of this new radical regime the appointment of Van Jones stood out for its blatant departure from political normalcy. In his White House role, the radical Jones would have represented the president in shaping a multi-billion stimulus package, which could easily function as a patronage program of particular interest to his political allies in the “Apollo Alliance,” ACORN and the leftwing unions. In the classic manual for activists on how to achieve their radical goals, Obama’s political mentor Saul Alinsky wrote: “From the moment an organizer enters a community, he lives, dreams, eats, breathes, sleeps only one thing, and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army.” As the president’s green jobs commissar, Van Jones had entered the trillion-dollar community of the federal government and would soon have been building his radical army. The rest of us should be wondering who his sponsors were within the White House (senior presidential advisor and long-time “progressive” Valerie Jarrett was certainly one). Then we should ask ourselves what they are planning next.


    David Horowitz is the founder of The David Horowitz Freedom Center and author of the new book, One Party Classroom.

    Tags: OBAMA SOROS

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:05
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Jueves, 10 de septiembre de 2009
     
    Rep. Joe Wilson calls Obama a liar
     
    on illegal immigration!
     
     
     
     

     

     

    Rep. Joe Wilson Explains Why Obama is
     
     Wrong on Coverage of Illegals!
    Dick Morris Explains How ObamaCare
     
     Covers Illegals!
     



    Rep. Wilson is an immigration attorney in South Carolina
     AND he helped push amendments to the health care bill that
     would have expressly prevented coverage for illegal aliens ...

    ... but the Democrats in the House killed those amendments.





    Tags: OBAMA WILSON

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:49
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     
    "You Lie!"

    During Barack Obama's speech to Congress, last evening, Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., broke protocol and shouted, "You lie," at Obama, when Obama said his health care plan wouldn't cover illegals, although Obama has repeatedly said that his plan would cover 47 million uninsured -- a number that includes 11 or 12 million illegals.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi directed a fierce frown at him; first lady Michelle Obama pursed her lips and shook her head from side to side. Vice President Joe Biden looked down and shook his head, too.

    Obama, looked toward Wilson and replied, "That's not true," and went on with his speech.

    The fact is, Obama started lying at the very beginning of his speech.
       
       
    At the 1:30 mark in this video -- at the very beginning of his speech -- Obama definitely lied.  He said, "I can stand here with confidence, and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink."




    Well, let's look at that statement.

    Back from the brink?  Under Obama unemployment has
    soared to 9.7%.  It was 7.6% when he took over.  Unemployment is now in excess of 10% in 15 states and 3,766,000 jobs have been lost.

    Back from the brink?  The National Debt, in the first 230 years of the Republic, grew to $11.67 trillion.  Under Obama, $9 trillion has been
    added to the national debt in six months.

    Back from the brink?  Under Obama, the Gross Domestic Product has
    dropped 6.5%.

    Did Obama Lie?  Yes -- again -- and these numbers are still growing.

    Joe Wilson may have broken protocol, but he was correct in pointing out that the emperor had no clothes.

    Joe Wilson was correct.  Obama demonstrably lied.  I didn't watch the speech, but in that video from
    HotAir blog, he definitely lied in the first 2 minutes of his speech.  That one about illegals was certainly a whopper, and I suspect that these weren't the only lies in his excessively long diatribe.

    Obama's life is a lie.  His autobiography is a myth.  Here's a
    collection of Obama lies since he announced his campaign in 2007.

    This guy lies all the time.  The funny thing, he's no good at it, but he doesn't have to be -- his allies in the media don't report his lies, cover up for him when he's caught, and attack anyone who has the courage to call him on his lies -- just watch what they're going do to Joe Wilson today and tomorrow -- they're going to pillory his ass -- for daring to tell the truth.

    Reader "JH" just emailed me with these latest unemployment figures, and it's even worse than the charts, above, indicate.

    Unemployment (according to statistics) is actually at 16.7% (not 9.7% like the statist wants you to believe) if you count:

     People who have lost their full time jobs, and are working part-time unable to find a full-time job.
     People who have been laid off for more than 6 months who are still unable to find a job.
     People who have just given up looking for work.

    It's kind of like the 47 million figure for Americans without insurance.  As soon as you start
    peeling back the lies from the onion, the truth begins to stink stronger.

    A closing thought -- why is it OK for Obama to blatantly lie to the American People from the well of Congress, but it's a no-no for a member to call him on it -- that's just nuts!

    Tags: OBAMA YOU LIE

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:22
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Mi?rcoles, 09 de septiembre de 2009
     
     

    OBAMA’s REAL Kenyan Birth Certificate Finally - By William Wagner

    Posted on September 9th, 2009 by David-Crockett

    Posted 2:25 am, Sept. 9th, 2009, SANTA ANA, CA. - Today, 9th Dist. Federal Judge David O. Carter,
    gave a boost the Lawsuit filed on behalf of many Plaintiffs, including Military personal, that President Barack H. OBAMA, actually does NOT qualify to be President, because he actually was born in Kenya, Africa, as his father before him, and therefore does NOT meet the “Natural Born” requirement of the U.S.A. Constitution. Clearly, Federal Judge David Carter was taking this case very seriously, while displaying a sense of humor and judicial economy, tell Atty. Gary Grief to physically move his chair next to Dr. & Atty. Orly TAITZ, who is the Lead Attorney to oust legally Mr. Barack Obama from the White House, based on his failure to meet the “Natural Born” requirement. He ordered them to 15 minutes recess with their key plaintiffs to try to resolve their approaches.

    Dr. Taitz made it clear that she believed Gary to be working more in the interest of Obama than the Plaintiff, Pastor Wiley Drake. Clearly the U.S. Attorneys had made an effort to file last Friday a motion to dismiss, based on Lack of Subject matter jurisdiction, two fold: 1) that fraud in eligibility was a “political matter”, and 2) that Plaintiffs lacked “standing”, and Judge Carter seemed to be hinting that those were very weak arguments, and that he had not yet seen the filing, so Judge Carter went ahead and set firm dates for discovery, motions and possible trial in December of 2009 stressing that it is NOT in the “best interests” of the People of the United States to not know one way or the other if Mr. Obama is a ligitimate President, and he pushed the time table, suggesting that he was going on the assumption that Plaintiffs would trump the motions for Dismissal and he did NOT what to leave the country in a quandry. Dates were set, and he suggest that by Sept. 11,, Friday he would read the motion for dismissal.

    Dr. & Atty Orly TAITZ pushed hard to have a witness, Mr. Smith , be allowed to present his Kenyan


    Birth Certificate, and testify under Oath, under penalty of PERJURY, that he, Mr. Smith had brought back from Mombasa, Kenya an authentic, original Kenyan Birth Certificate of the now declared usurper President, Barack Hussein Obama. Judge Carter tried to persuade the Gov. Atty.s that it could be to their advantage to cross -examine Mr. Smith and get a head start on the Discovery and be better prepared for the trial. U.S. Attorney’s representing President Obama, clearly declined and urged Judge Carter to just read the Dismissal motion and DISMISS without regard to any evidence.

    Clearly, they were worried. In interviews outside the Reagan Federal Courthouse Mr. Smith displayed and identical Kenyan Birth Certificate that confirmed that President Obama WAS indeed
    born in Mombasa, Provincial Hospital, and it can be seen in Part 2 and 3 of this video series. This issue of “service” of President Obama has now been “effectuated” and Judge Carter has granted Dr. Orly Taitz considerable credibility in this case. This now surpasses all other attempts to bring the birth certificate issue to Judicial scrutiny. In view of the Kenyan authentic- appearing Birth Certificate,
    it would appear, Obama will, if Justice is allowed to happen, be removed from office. Dr. Taitz added that the mere fact that the many military officers who have decline to take ORDERS from President Obama and NOT been courtmarshalled, but had orders rescinded, is a clear indication that Obama does not relish a court challenge on this issue. It is even possible that Usurper Obama could move from the White House to the Big House in a Federal Prison, aka “Club Fed”.

     

    Tags: Obama Kenia

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:25
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     

    From The Courtroom — The Latest

    The Give Us Liberty blog is blogging from the courtroom. At 9:26 AM there was no visible media turnout for this hearing as in no SatCam uplink trucks.

    At 10:02 Justice Carter noting the packed courtroom and overflow crowd waiting in the hallways has ordered a change to a larger courtroom and has taken a 2 hour recess to accommodate the transfer of officers of the court and spectators.

    The estimated age range of those present is 18 to 80 — 70% Men — 30% Women — age 60+ seems to be the majority.

    Attorney Orly Taitz appeared relaxed — calm cool and collected.

    Justice Carter recessed the court at 12.30 pst 9/8/09 — his rulings:

    10/5/09 Defense Motion to Dismiss (MTD) to be heard — Judge Carter indicated only a very strong compelling reason would move him to dismiss at this point. He will review the defense’s 9/4/09 MTD. He wants to hear the case on it’s merits. Discovery to be ordered 10/5/09 if Motion to Dismiss is thrown out.

    1/11/10 Pre Trial Set — procedural for other motions, depositions, scheduling, etc

    1/26/10 Trial Date Set — earliest available date for Justice Carter.

    …. and from WND:

    Shocker! Judge orders trial on eligibility issue
    Arguments planned Jan. 11 for challenge to Obama

    Posted: September 08, 2009
    4:42 pm Eastern

    © 2009 WorldNetDaily

    A California judge today tentatively scheduled a trial for Jan. 26, 2010, for a case that challenges Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president based on questions over his qualifications under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

    If the case actually goes to arguments before U.S. District Judge David Carter, it will be the first time the merits of the dispute have been argued in open court, according to one of the attorneys working on the issue.

    In a highly anticipated hearing today before Carter, several motions were heard, including a resolution to long-standing questions about whether attorney Orly Taitz properly served notice on the defendants, which she had.

    In a second ruling, Carter ordered that attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation can be added to the case to represent defendants Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson, who had been removed by an earlier court order. Drake, the vice presidential candidate for the American Independent Party, and Robinson, the party’s chairman, were restored as plaintiffs.

    But the judge did not immediately rule on Taitz’ motion to be granted discovery – that is the right to see the president’s still-concealed records. Nor did Carter rule immediately on a motion to dismiss the case, submitted by the U.S. government, following discussion over Taitz’ challenge to the work of a magistrate in the case.

    Carter ordered a hearing Oct. 5 on the motion to dismiss and ordered arguments submitted on the issue of discovery.

    If the case survives that challenge, a pretrial hearing has been scheduled for Jan. 11 and the trial for two weeks later.

    More to come…

    I just received this from one of our Patriots that attended the hearing:

    The expedited trial has been set for Jan. 26, 2010, just 4 1/2 months from now!

    I and many other concerned veterans and citizens attended the hearing today in Federal Court in Santa Ana in the lawsuit against Barack Obama to determine his eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief. About 150 people showed up, almost all in support of the lawsuit to demand that Obama release his birth certificate and other records that he has hidden from the American people.

    Judge David Carter refused to hear Obama’s request for dismissal today, instead setting a hearing date for Oct. 5, since Obama’s attorneys had just filed the motion on Friday. He indicated there was almost no chance that this case would be dismissed. Obama is arguing this lawsuit was filed in the wrong court if you can believe that. I guess Obama would prefer a “kangaroo court” instead of a Federal court! Assuming Judge Carter denies Obama’s motion for dismissal, he will likely then order expedited discovery which will force Obama to release his birth certificate in a timely manner (if he has one).

    The judge, who is a former U.S. Marine, repeated several times that this is a very serious case which must be resolved quickly so that the troops know that their Commander in Chief is eligible to hold that position and issue lawful orders to our military in this time of war. He basically said Obama must prove his eligibility to the court! He said Americans deserve to know the truth about their President!

    The two U.S. Attorneys representing Barack Obama tried everything they could to sway the judge that this case was frivolous, but Carter would have none of it and cut them off several times. Obama’s attorneys left the courtroom after about the 90 minute hearing looking defeated and nervous.

    Great day in America for the U.S. Constitution!!! The truth about Barack Obama’s eligibility will be known fairly soon - Judge Carter practically guaranteed it!

    Video from the press conference after the hearing coming soon. Congratulations to plaintiffs attorney Dr. Orly Taitz! She did a great job and won some huge victories today. She was fearless!

    Jeff Schwilk, Founder
    www.SanDiegoMinutemen.com


    Tags: OBAMA'S TRIAL

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:55
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Martes, 08 de septiembre de 2009
     
    Administration’s Suggestions for Teachers: Read Books about Obama, Post Obama Quotes on Classroom Walls
    Tuesday, September 08, 2009
    By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

    (CNSNews.com) - The “corrected” lesson plans the U.S. Department of Education is suggesting that schools around the country use to turn President Obama’s speech to students today into a “teachable moment” still call for teachers to read books about Obama and to post quotations from Obama in large print on classroom walls.
     
    The Department of Education created two “
    menus of classroom activities” for use with the president’s speech.  One is designed to guide Pre-K through 6th grade teachers, and the other is designed to guide 7th through 12th grade teachers.
     
    The “menus” caused some controversy last week because the original version for Pre-K through 6th grade suggested that students, “Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.” In the corrected version, the guide now calls for students to: “Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals.”
     
    However, the corrected Pre-K through 6th grade “menu” currently posted on the Department of Education Web site and
    linked from the White House Web site suggests that teachers of Pre-K through 6th grade classes read books about Barack Obama in order to “build background knowledge” for instructing students about the president and his speech.

    The first point on Pre-K through 6th grade lesson plan says: “Teachers can build background knowledge about the President of the United States and his speech by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama.”
     
    The “menu” for 7th through 12th grade suggests that teachers post “large print” quotations from Obama’s speeches about education on their classroom walls.
     
    “Teachers may post in large print around the classroom notable quotes excerpted from President Obama’s speeches on education,” says the lesson plan.
     
    The lesson plans do not suggest posting on classroom walls quotations from any other American president, living or dead.




    Tags: OBAMA INDOCTRINATION

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:37
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Lunes, 07 de septiembre de 2009


    Several past presidents have spoken to school children. But in no previous instance was the chat accompanied by a "Pre K-6 Menu of Classroom Activities" in connection with the president's speech. Included (until late Wednesday) was a project whereby the students would write letters to themselves about what they can do to help President Obama.


    September 7, 2009

    Put all school activities on the internet?
    Postscript on stacked Montana town hall
    By Wes Vernon

    Is it time to explore a new means of keeping parents up to date as to what their children are learning in school? Modern technology should facilitate that. Consider what follows:

    Some of the fears expressed by parents and other activists this past week call to mind a short feature shown in movie theaters all over America during World War II, wherein little kids in German schools were depicted as saying — one after the other — "I belong to Der Fuehrer!"

    Paranoid?

    That kind of ultimate hero worship of the President of the United States was not bluntly advocated in the federal Department of Education's plans for a speech by President Obama to the nation's school children.

    Some conservatives in fact have warned against making too much of the controversy on the grounds that it will boomerang on Republicans. Don't worry. The Republican Party these days is largely comatose anyway.

    No, this is coming from the grassroots — from parents who don't want their kids spoon-fed any politically ideological propaganda. Really? That train left the station years ago. It is not for nothing that many have viewed much of government education — elementary, secondary, and higher — as indoctrination. (Over Labor Day weekend, FoxNews did a special on school textbook propaganda.)

    So what else is new? Several past presidents have spoken to school children. But in no previous instance was the chat accompanied by a "Pre K-6 Menu of Classroom Activities" in connection with the president's speech. Included (until late Wednesday) was a project whereby the students would write letters to themselves about what they can do to help President Obama.

    Boneheaded?

    The idea of asking kids to confront the question of how they can help Obama may have been — as Charles Krauthammer opined — the goo-goo brainstorm of "some bonehead" at the Education Department (though it has since been reported the White House was in on the planning — suggesting the "bonehead" might have been there). But the administration said it would yank that and other parts of the project that many parents interpret as an attempt to indoctrinate young children with Mr. Obama's socialist agenda.

    The White House announced the program would be revised, with the full text placed on the internet on Labor Day, about the time this column is posted. Ordinarily, the final project would end up with presidential good-citizenship advice such as work hard, don't drop out of school, obey the law, etc., and it would be a one-day story with everyone going back to other weightier matters.

    Not so fast

    Here is why parents were concerned: They don't trust President Obama to talk directly to their kids. Why?

    The file on Obama and the issue of education is crammed full of reasons why parents have every justification to be concerned about Obama's influence on their children. That is a terrible thing to have to say about the President of the United States — but I'm sorry, I'm just the messenger here.

    Counting (some of) the ways

    Start with Barack Obama's own early education at the knee of Frank Marshall Davis — a Communist and pornographer.

    Then search the writings of Sol Stern of the Manhattan Institute. He has the ultimate file on Obama's pal and political backer Bill Ayers, on whom the president bestows the bland designation "a tenured professor at the University of Chicago," — ignoring his background as a bomb-throwing Weather Underground terrorist. Mr. Ayers has much to say about education and its use as a tool to turn the nation's children into little Marxist revolutionaries.

    Ayers has written approvingly about the ideas of a radical Columbia University Teachers College professor, Maxine Greene, who taught that all traces of the "oppressive hegemony of capitalist social order" should be banished from the classroom, to be replaced with — as Stern describes it — "a rancorous view of America in which it is always two minutes to midnight and a knock on the door by the [capitalist] thought police is imminent."

    Stern continues: "The education professors feel themselves anointed to use the nation's K-12 classrooms to resist this oppressive system."

    "All music to Ayers's ears," Stern observes. "The ex-Weatherman glimpsed a new radical vocation. He dreamed of bringing the revolution from the streets to the schools. And that is exactly what he has managed to do."

    Marxist visits Marxist

    Or, as Ayers was quoted as saying in a visit to Communist dictator Hugo Chavez's Venezuela:

    "I walked out of jail and into my first teaching position [note: well, yes, I guess it beats being on the lam for about ten years] — and from that day until this, I've thought of myself as a teacher — but I've also understood teaching as a project immediately connected with social justice."

    The heavy Stalinist arm

    Anti-free speech Stalinists have gone out of their way to shut up anyone who exposes Ayers's effort to use the classroom as a platform for Marxist indoctrination. (See this column "
    Communists for Obama" — 10/20/08)

    Researcher Stanley Kurtz uncovered information on Ayers' and Obama's close collaboration on education issues with the help of a $100 million-plus grant at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC).

    Kurtz found that Obama and Ayers worked to steer that generous funding — nominally intended for school "reform" — instead toward a project whose aim was to involve kids and their parents with hate-America radicalism.

    Under their guidance, the project turned down applications to advance kids' knowledge of math and science, and instead used the money to pay for Afrocentricity and bilingualism and related subjects. It figures that Marxists — whether self-proclaimed or thinly disguised as liberals — will avoid teaching kids things like math and science. Can't do that. It may enable them to succeed in the evil capitalist system. Must keep them poor and angry, so they will back the hate-America agenda. It's an old con game. Marx, Lenin, and Stalin would be pleased.

    As Sol Stern puts it, "Calling Bill Ayers a school reformer is like calling Joseph Stalin an agricultural reformer."

    Ayers called himself a communist with a small "c." Communists (capitalized or otherwise) supported Obama for his present job.

    So this president's speech to children is not to be confused with those of his predecessors Ronald Reagan, the two Bushes, or even Bill Clinton. Parents should not be blamed for wondering what's going on in their kids' classroom.

    More examples

    — By now, you are no doubt aware of an assembly at an elementary school in Farmington, Utah, that showed a pro-Obama video I Pledge wherein celebrities pledged "to sell my obnoxious car and buy a hybrid," "to the funk and to the united funk of funkadelica," and "I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama."

    The principal was quoted by the Salt lake Tribune as admitting she made a mistake by not pre-screening the video. She entrusted that task to a local PTA board. It would be interesting to ask those board members what they were thinking.

    — A New Hampshire court has ordered a home-schooled Christian girl Amanda Kurowski to attend public school. District Court Judge Lucinda Sadler decreed that "Amanda's defense of her religious beliefs...suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider other points of view." Since when is that the prerogative of anyone but the parent? Especially given that the girl's academic achievement was above school standards, and she was taking supplemental public school courses in art, Spanish, theater, and physical education, and was into extra-curricular activities wherein she interacted with other children.

    But that was a Christian education. That was the problem. Now, on the other hand, if it were education of another faith — well, that's different. Malcolm Kline of Accuracy in Academia writes, "Indeed parents continue to voice their alarm over the [disproportionate] manner in which California public schools teach seventh-graders about Islam compared to other faiths. One parent wrote to me that six years ago his son had a class in which the history teacher gave him a take-home test with the question, 'How does following the 5 pillars of Islam make one a better person?'"

    Comment: How about a classroom discussion about why there are no Christian suicide bombers, no Jewish suicide bombers, no Buddhist suicide bombers, and no Hindu suicide bombers. Think that'll fly?

    Parents in on the conversation?

    Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) encouraged parents to attend school with their children to listen to the president's back-to-school speech and lessons associated with it.

    That is an excellent idea. And some education activists would carry that idea a few steps further:

    Why not require that official school activity — the lesson, the textbooks, assembly speakers, videos — be put on the internet so that parents will have an ongoing opportunity to know about the education of their offspring? Let's have a discussion about that.

    Senator Baucus — in the doghouse with the White House?

    As a follow-up to last week's column ("
    'Revolution' coming to the USA?"), I am informed by Michael Dougherty of Bozeman as to how the Obama entourage stacked the president's "health care" town hall meeting near Bozeman, Montana.

    It was reported the president snubbed Max Baucus (D-Mt.), the state's senior U.S. Senator. Governor Brian Schweitzer and the state's junior Senator Jon Tester received tickets for distribution, but none for Baucus. Speculation is Baucus was slighted for his failure to produce a Senate "health care" bill out of his Finance Committee by the August recess. The White House won't comment.

    Baucus — in hot water with his constituents?

    Senator Baucus also visited Bozeman for a health symposium, and later told the press he was surrounded "by an angry mob," and was "physically threatened" by the group.

    Dougherty says that "at no time, from the time [Baucus] stepped out of his car until he got back in, was there any reason for him to feel threatened."

    The people in the crowd did get frustrated when they perceived they were not getting straight answers to some of their questions, including Dougherty's attempt (four times) to get the senator to say if he "would agree to be on the same [health care] plan that he voted for."

    After some non-answer answers, Dougherty says he asked for a yes or no response. Senator Baucus answered, "Generally." The crowd took that as a no.

    Lobster in beef country?

    One report has it that Obama's party ordered lobster flown in for the main meal as he was met and was greeted by friends and supporters in Bozeman. Some commented that with Montana producing what is arguably the best beef in the world, why wouldn't a visiting president honor an engine of the local economy? The White House won't respond to an inquiry about that either.

    © Wes Vernon

     

    The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES
    Grades preK-6
     PDF (115K) | MS Word (119K)
    Menu of Classroom Activities

    President Obama’s Address to Students Across America

    (PreK-6)

     

    Produced by Teaching Ambassador Fellows, U.S. Department of Education

     

    September 8, 2009

     

    Before the Speech

    • Teachers can build background knowledge about the President of the United States and his speech by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama. Teachers could motivate students by asking the following questions:

    Who is the President of the United States?

    What do you think it takes to be president?

    To whom do you think the president is going to be speaking?

    Why do you think he wants to speak to you?

    What do you think he will say to you?

    • Teachers can ask students to imagine that they are delivering a speech to all of the students in the United States. 

    If you were the president, what would you tell students? 

    What can students do to help in our schools?  

    Teachers can chart ideas about what students would say.

    • Why is it important that we listen to the president and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?

    During the Speech

    • As the president speaks, teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful.  Students could use a note-taking graphic organizer such as a “cluster web;” or, students could record their thoughts on sticky notes.  Younger children could draw pictures and write as appropriate.  As students listen to the speech, they could think about the following:

    What is the president trying to tell me?

    What is the president asking me to do?

    What new ideas and actions is the president challenging me to think about?

    • Students could record important parts of the speech where the president is asking them to do something. Students might think about the following:

    What specific job is he asking me to do? 

    Is he asking anything of anyone else?

    Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?

    • Students could record questions they have while he is speaking and then discuss them after the speech.  Younger children may need to dictate their questions.

     

    After the Speech

    • Teachers could ask students to share the ideas they recorded, exchange sticky notes, or place notes on a butcher-paper poster in the classroom to discuss main ideas from the speech, such as citizenship, personal responsibility, and civic duty.
    • Students could discuss their responses to the following questions:

    What do you think the president wants us to do?

    Does the speech make you want to do anything?

    Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?

    What would you like to tell the president?

     

    Extension of the Speech

     

     Teachers could extend learning by having students:

    • Create posters of their goals.  Posters could be formatted in quadrants, puzzle pieces, or trails marked with the following labels: personal, academic, community, and country.  Each area could be labeled with three steps for achieving goals in that area. It might make sense to focus first on personal and academic goals so that community and country goals can be more readily created.
    • Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals.  Teachers would collect and redistribute these letters at an appropriate later date to enable students to monitor their progress.
    • Write goals on colored index cards or precut designs to post around the classroom.
    • Interview one another and share goals with the class to create a supportive community.
    • Participate in school-wide incentive programs or contests for those students who achieve their goals.
    • Write about their goals in a variety of genres, such as poems, songs, and personal essays.
    • Create artistic projects based on the themes of their goals.
    • Graph individual progress toward goals.

     -----------------------------------------------------

     

    CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES
    Grades 7-12
     PDF (170K) | MS Word (184K)
               

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Menu of Classroom Activities

    President Obama’s Address to Students Across America

    (PreK-6)

     

    Produced by Teaching Ambassador Fellows, U.S. Department of Education

     

    September 8, 2009

     

    Before the Speech

    • Teachers can build background knowledge about the President of the United States and his speech by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama. Teachers could motivate students by asking the following questions:

    Who is the President of the United States?

    What do you think it takes to be president?

    To whom do you think the president is going to be speaking?

    Why do you think he wants to speak to you?

    What do you think he will say to you?

    • Teachers can ask students to imagine that they are delivering a speech to all of the students in the United States. 

    If you were the president, what would you tell students? 

    What can students do to help in our schools?  

    Teachers can chart ideas about what students would say.

    • Why is it important that we listen to the president and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?

    During the Speech

    • As the president speaks, teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful.  Students could use a note-taking graphic organizer such as a “cluster web;” or, students could record their thoughts on sticky notes.  Younger children could draw pictures and write as appropriate.  As students listen to the speech, they could think about the following:

    What is the president trying to tell me?

    What is the president asking me to do?

    What new ideas and actions is the president challenging me to think about?

    • Students could record important parts of the speech where the president is asking them to do something. Students might think about the following:

    What specific job is he asking me to do? 

    Is he asking anything of anyone else?

    Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?

    • Students could record questions they have while he is speaking and then discuss them after the speech.  Younger children may need to dictate their questions.

     

    After the Speech

    • Teachers could ask students to share the ideas they recorded, exchange sticky notes, or place notes on a butcher-paper poster in the classroom to discuss main ideas from the speech, such as citizenship, personal responsibility, and civic duty.
    • Students could discuss their responses to the following questions:

    What do you think the president wants us to do?

    Does the speech make you want to do anything?

    Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?

    What would you like to tell the president?

     

    Extension of the Speech

     

     Teachers could extend learning by having students:

    • Create posters of their goals.  Posters could be formatted in quadrants, puzzle pieces, or trails marked with the following labels: personal, academic, community, and country.  Each area could be labeled with three steps for achieving goals in that area. It might make sense to focus first on personal and academic goals so that community and country goals can be more readily created.
    • Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals.  Teachers would collect and redistribute these letters at an appropriate later date to enable students to monitor their progress.
    • Write goals on colored index cards or precut designs to post around the classroom.
    • Interview one another and share goals with the class to create a supportive community.
    • Participate in school-wide incentive programs or contests for those students who achieve their goals.
    • Write about their goals in a variety of genres, such as poems, songs, and personal essays.
    • Create artistic projects based on the themes of their goals.
    • Graph individual progress toward goals.

     

     

     


     





    Tags: OBAMA SCHOOLS

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:50
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    Letters to the Editor

    For Monday, Sept. 7, 2009


    POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Sep 07, 2009

    (Single Page View) | Return to Paginated View

    Obama speech is indoctrination

    I took the time to call all of our congressional offices to register my intense opposition to President Barack Obama broadcasting a speech directly into our school classrooms tomorrow. Before I did that, I took the time to download and read the various "suggested discussions and activities" that pre-K through grade 12 could engage in after hearing the president's speech.

    If the camel's nose gets in the tent, the hump will follow, and I'm sorry to say this Obama speech directly into our schools looks like a political indoctrination attempt and I won't tolerate it. Many may disagree, believing instead that Obama wants to engage with our young. I don't buy that. I already saw the White House Web site soliciting "fishy" stories about folks, which meant that they wanted us to e-mail if we thought our fellow citizens were engaging in activities that didn't fall in line with current Obama policies.

    No, I'm sorry to say I'll be pulling my children out of class that day, and I'll spend time explaining the Bill of Rights, our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence to them on that day. Will my children ever be politically indoctrinated? Over my dead body!

    Loren C. Divers
    Honolulu


    Tags: Obama Indoctrination

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:25
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Domingo, 06 de septiembre de 2009

    WND Exclusive

    Groups question legality of Obama speech to kids
    Prohibition against fed 'control' of curriculum cited by lawyers

    Posted: September 05, 2009
    11:10 pm Eastern

    By Bob Unruh
    © 2009 WorldNetDaily

    A lawyer whose work has included myriad civil rights disputes and who has practice before the U.S. Supreme Court is accusing President Obama of trying to push his social agenda by reaching out directly to young children, bypassing parents who may challenge his statements.

    And what Obama plans to do on Sept. 8 with a planned speech directly to students in public schools across the United States may even be illegal, according to Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel as well as dean of Liberty University School of Law.

    "Obama has pushed his political agenda to the extreme by forcing himself on America's children," Staver said in a statement today. "Obama's political agenda on healthcare and his expansive vision for government is being rejected by the American people. Now Obama is after our children, who, like some socialist members of Congress, have not read the healthcare bill. Americans do not appreciate the president's attempt to use our children as political pawns in his game of chess. Mr. President, you must abide by the rule of law and stop this illegal activity. Our children do not belong to you."

    Staver's critique cited 20 U.S.C. § 3403, which regards the Department of Education and states, "No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system."

    Staver's concerns were echoed by others as well, including Liberty Legal Alliance spokesman Matt Barber, who said, "Not only is this a violation of federal law, it's just plain creepy. It's surreal. Obama's actions here are right out of the playbooks of Saul Alinsky and Chairman Mao. Soviet Russia? Sure. America? No way. I'm furious. Hands of my children, Mr. President!"

    "Who Killed the Constitution?" Here's a dirty little secret: The bedrock of our country is ... dead

    WND also reported when the Texas Justice Foundation warned the "classroom activities" suggested by the president's administration connected to the speech possibly were illegal.

    "The questions, comments, evaluations and analysis that occurs before, during, and after the president's speech will clearly 'reveal information concerning political affiliations' and probably, 'critical appraisals of other individuals with whom the child(ren) has/have close family relationships' (such as parents)," the foundation said in an analysis of the situation.

    "This is perhaps one of the greatest invasions of personal privacy and injecting political affiliation into the public school system in the history of the United States," the Texas Justice Foundation said.

    The group cited the Pupil Rights Amendment:

    "It also violates 34 Code of Federal Regulations Section 98.4[c] [1] and [2] that defines psychological testing as:

    (1) Psychiatric or psychological examination or test means a method of obtaining information, including a group activity, that is not directly related to academic instruction and that is designed to elicit information about attitudes, habits, traits, opinions, beliefs or feelings; (emphasis added)

    (2) Psychiatric or psychological treatment means an activity involving the planned, systematic use of methods or techniques that are not directly related to academic instruction and that is designed to affect behavioral, emotional, or attitudinal characteristics of an individual or group. (emphasis added)

    Texas Justice Foundation officials said the group activities suggested by the Department of Education "are not directly related to academic instruction and that are designed to elicit information about attitudes, habits, traits, opinions, beliefs, or feelings."

    "At this time of intense controversy over the president's far-reaching plans to transform America, it is incredible that he would consider using children to advance his political agenda," Justice Foundation President Allan Parker said. "It violates the constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children, federal law and is perhaps the greatest intrusion of a president into the education process in the history of the United States. In the opinion of the Texas Justice Foundation lawyers, it is both morally and legally wrong."

    Liberty Counsel described Obama's actions as "an unprecedented and an illegal political move."

    WND telephone calls and e-mails to the White House press office did not generate a response.

    But Liberty Counsel's analysis of the event condemned Obama plans to "bypass parents and directly target their children in an effort to implement his political agenda. Millions of parents are justifiably outraged.

    "Federal law expressly forbids the Secretary of Education or any officer from exercising 'any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system,'" the analysis said.

    The law is:

    20 U.S.C. § 3403. (Pub.L. 96-88, Title I, § 103, Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 670) United States Code Title 20. Education Chapter 48. Department of Education Subchapter I. General Provisions § 3403. Relationship with States (a) Rights of local governments and educational institutions It is the intention of the Congress in the establishment of the Department to protect the rights of State and local governments and public and private educational institutions in the areas of educational policies and administration of programs and to strengthen and improve the control of such governments and institutions over their own educational programs and policies. The establishment of the Department of Education shall not increase the authority of the Federal Government over education or diminish the responsibility for education which is reserved to the States and the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States. (b) Curriculum, administration, and personnel; library resources No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law.

    Also targeted for criticism was the letter sent by U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan to school principals "encouraging them to cease academic instruction and have clsses tune into a live speech Obama will give to children during schools hours."

    "The DOE even provided lesson plans, sample activities and questions that teachers can use to promote the event. The letter encourages teachers to 'build background knowledge about the president by reading books about Barack Obama,'" the analysis said.

    Liberty Counsel noted that because of backlash that already has developed, "some of the most offensive language has been softened."

    However, "Students as young as kindergarten will, nonetheless, be asked: 'Why is it important that we listen to the president?' and then, initially, were to be asked to write about 'what they can do to help the president.' Their writings would later be used 'to make students accountable to their goals,'" Liberty Counsel said.

    "We are a nation of laws," said Barber, "not a federal cult of personality. Obama and the DOE had better pull the plug on this or outraged parents across the country may just insist that members of Congress dust of their 'high crimes and misdemeanors' cheat sheets from the 1990s."

    Obama will give the speech at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Va. The speech is scheduled to be broadcast live at 12 noon EST on C-SPAN and at whitehouse.gov.

    As WND reported, worksheets provided by the U.S. Department of Education encouraged teachers to ask pre-K through 6th-grade students the following questions:

    • What is the president trying to tell me to do?
    • What is the president asking me to do?
    • What new ideas and actions is the president challenging me to think about?

    Students may be asked to write down "key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful, make posters of their goals, create a "supportive community" by sharing those goals with one another.

    Junior-high and high-school students may be asked to brainstorm answers to the following questions before the speech:

    • Why does President Obama want to speak with us today?
    • How will he inspire us?
    • How will he challenge us?
    • What might he say?

    They are encouraged to take notes while Obama speaks about personal responsibility, goals or persistence. As part of a "guided discussion," they may talk about what Obama has inspired or challenged them to do.

    Officials with the Thomas More Law Center said they were suggesting to concerned parents that students go to school, wearing black arm bands.

    Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel for the center, said, "Many Americans view the president's speech and the distributed lesson plan as an attempt to foster the cult of personality. It provides a pretext for liberal teachers to engage in political indoctrination. Students should not have to miss school because of the president, but can teach him a lesson in constitutional protesting by wearing the black arm bands."

    This type of protest, the law firm notes, was the same type of student protest of the Vietnam War that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. 


    Tags: OBAMA SCHOOLS

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:20
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar


     
     
     
     
    September 6, 2009

    Jones Resignation

    After a week of intense scrutiny and questions of integrity, Green Jobs “czar” Van Jones has resigned his position, effective immediately.

    Jones sent a letter to the chair of the Council on Environmental Quality Nancy Sutley. “On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide,” the written statement says. It goes on to say, “ I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future.”

    Reports about Jones and some controversial remarks began surfacing early in the week when a video of the best-selling author appeared showing him calling Republicans “a**holes”. But that was only the tip of the iceberg for Jones and his detractors. Shortly after the video came to light, there was another discovery. In 2004, Jones signed a petition implicating the Bush administration in the terror attacks on September 11. For his part, Jones said he didn’t know what he was signing at the time, but the admission only added fuel to the fire and calls for his resignation have been growing. On Thursday, Jones released a statement about the petition and the statements made prior to his job in the administration. "In recent days some in the news media have reported on past statements I made before I joined the administration - some of which were made years ago. If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize,” Jones said. “As for the petition that was circulated today, I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever.”

    As recently as Friday the administration continued to support Jones. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters while the petition is “not something the President agrees with,” he said Jones continued to work in the administration.

    But that backing did little to deter lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) became the first lawmaker to call on Jones to resign, issuing a press release calling for a moratorium on the hiring of additional "czars" until the vetting process in Jones's case could be properly investigated. Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) demanded that the Senate Green Jobs and New Economy Subcommittee conduct hearings to probe Jones's behavior and "reassure the American people that their government is safe from his divisive, incendiary and ultimately counterproductive sentiments."

    The Obama administration has not commented on the resignation, but CEQ chair Nancy Sutley issued a statement shortly after Jones resigned. "I have accepted the resignation of Van Jones and would like to thank him for his valuable contributions to the Council on Environmental Quality. Over the last six months he has been a strong voice for creating 21st century jobs that improve energy efficiency and utilize renewable resources. We appreciate his hard work and wish him the best moving forward."

    ***Fox News Correspondent James Rosen contributed to this story


    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/
     

    Czar’s ‘communist manifesto’ scrubbed from Net ( So he thought but now you also have a copy)

    Posted on August 31st, 2009 by Lynn Dartez

    WorldNetDaily Exclusive

    Founded group with ‘commitment to fundamental ideas of Marxism-Leninism’


    Posted: August 30, 2009
    7:15 pm Eastern

     

    By Aaron Klein


    WorldNetDaily

     

    JERUSALEM – How is this for a quick clean up job?

    Last week, WND reported the official communist-oriented manifesto of a radical group founded by Obama’s environmental adviser, Van Jones, was published in full on the Internet.

    Just hours later, the manifesto was removed and the entire website was taken down.

    It is, however, still available in web archives.

    As WND previously reported, Van Jones, special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation to the White House Council on Environmental Quality, is an admitted black nationalist and radical communist.

    Jones was the leader and founder of a radical group, the communist revolutionary organization Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM.

    STORM’s official manifesto, titled, “Reclaiming Revolution,” had been published on the Internet.

    A WND review of the 97-page treatise found that the manual describes Jones’ organization as having a “commitment to the fundamental ideas of Marxism-Leninism.”

    “We agreed with Lenin’s analysis of the state and the party,” reads the manifesto. “And we found inspiration in the revolutionary strategies developed by Third World revolutionaries like Mao Tse-tung and Amilcar Cabral.”

    Cabral is the late Marxist revolutionary leader of Guinea-Bissau and the Cape Verde Islands.

    WND previously reported Jones named his son after Cabral and reportedly concludes every e-mail with a quote from the communist leader.

    STORM’s manifesto boasted, “We also saw our brand of Marxism as, in some ways, a reclamation.”

    One section of the manifesto described of a vigil that Jones’ group held Sept. 12, 2001, at Snow Park in Oakland, Calif. The event drew hundreds and articulated an “anti-imperialist” line, according to STORM’s own description.

    The radical group’s manual boasted the 9/11 vigil was held to express solidarity with Arab and Muslim Americans and to mourn the civilians killed in the terrorist attacks “as well as the victims of U.S. imperialism around the world.”

    “We honored those who lost their lives in the attack and those who would surely lose their lives in subsequent U.S. attacks overseas,” STORM’s manifesto recalls.

    The White House did not return multiple WND requests the past few weeks seeking comment on how Jones was screened for his position and whether the White House knew of his admitted radical past

    Speaking to the East Bay Express, Jones said he first became radicalized in the wake of the 1992 Rodney King riots, during which time he was arrested.

    “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.

    “I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’ I spent the next 10 years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary,” he said.
    -------------------------------


    Tags: Obama Van Jones

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:57
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     
    Democrats like Dick Gephardt objected strenuously to President George H.W. Bush addressing students in 1991. Democrats like Dick Gephardt objected strenuously to President George H.W. Bush addressing students in 1991.

     

    Ah yes, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.  Let’s look back to 1991 when then President George H.W. Bush spoke to students at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, D.C. imploring them to stay away from drugs.  That speech was broadcast to schools nationwide after letters were sent to schools around the country encouraging them to allow students to watch.

    What was the response at the time?  The wonders of the Internet allow us to travel back in time and take a look.  News stories from the period show that Democrats were much less than pleased with the speech.  Among the complaints, House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt said, “The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students.  And the president should be doing more about education than saying, ‘Lights, camera, action.’ “

    The Washington Post on Friday, October 4, 1991 said this:

    House Democrats criticized President Bush yesterday for using Education Department funds to produce and broadcast a speech that he made Tuesday at a Northwest Washington junior high school.

    The Democratic critics accused Bush of turning government money for education to his own political use, namely, an ongoing effort to inoculate himself against their charges of inattention to domestic issues. The speech at Alice Deal Junior High School, broadcast live on radio and television, urged students to study hard, avoid drugs and turn in troublemakers.

    “The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students,” House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said. “And the president should be doing more about education than saying, ‘Lights, camera, action.’ ”

    Two House committees demanded that the department explain the use of its funds for the speech, an explanation that Deputy Secretary David T. Kearns provided late in the day in a letter to Rep. William D. Ford (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. Education Secretary Lamar Alexander was out of town.  [...]

    Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.), chairwoman of the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families, said it was outrageous for the White House to “start using precious dollars for campaigns” when “we are struggling for every silly dime we can get” for education programs.

    Rep. Martin Frost (D-Tex.) said that if Bush feels obliged to use government funds to hire outside consultants “to make him look good,” then he should fire some of the public relations experts on the White House payroll. “Then the president might be more sympathetic to unemployment benefits,” Frost said, referring to Bush’s threat to veto legislation to extend benefits.

    Hmm.  And yet Democrats today want to vilify Republicans for objecting to the president’s speech next week?

    Deb says:

    Syler:

    I think one of the main differences here is the materials that the Obama Administration is providing to go along with this speech.

    I don’t believe that Bush provided ANY study materials for his speech, because that is best left for TEACHERS.

    Not to mention, the so-called study materials are outrageous, in my opinion. Why should my child need to think about what “helps the president” Or “Read books about Obama”? Excuse me? All that for a 15-20 minute speech ab

    Mary says:

    When you already have raised concerns about being a socialist by your actions – takeovers of industries, banks, healthcare – you would think if the man were so smart he would figure out this wasn’t such a great idea.

    Remember that the issue was not raised because of the speech itself. It was raised because of the accompanying lesson plans that called for students to pledge allegiance to the president. It didn’t call on them to serve the nation. It all rings of a “Dear Leader”, Orwellian kind of thing and is scaryout education and staying in school? How is that in anyway going to help my child in the real world? Sounds like someone wants to have his EGO stroked AND that is a waste of my hard earned tax dollars at work?

    My child can watch the speech with me, in the privacy of our home. And that is my final answer.

    Dave says:

    It isn’t about the speech – it never was. Obama isn’t dumb enough to make it political (at least I don’t think he is). The real issue is the lesson plans issued by the White House and how they read as a “Dear Leader” type message not unlike we would expect from Mao Tse-tung, Kim Jong-il, or from Hitler.

    It is the duty of every American to question their leaders no matter what party they belong to. When we stop doing so, we are headed down a very dark and troubled path.

    Roy Hogue says:

    It’s not so much the speech, but the lesson plans. It’s already been said too many times, so I’ll leave it at that.

    Keep your children home on September 8,

     


    Tags: OBAMA BUSH STUDENTS

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:33
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    S?bado, 05 de septiembre de 2009
     
    David Horowitz On Obama

    This is excellent.

    Glenn beck interviews David Horowitz-son of a Communist Party family and a former radical in his own right.

    Horowitz nails two of the most dangerous men in America-George Soros and Robert Borosage.

    Horowitz has no doubts about the dangers of Obama's agenda.



    There is a huge uplift going on the US as hundreds of thousands of Americans are waking up.

    Three cheers for Glenn Beck!!!

    Tags: OBAMA SOROS

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:12
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     

    President Barack Obama has a message for students.

    But kids in Collier and Lee counties won’t hear it in school.

    That was the decision both school districts made Thursday in anticipation of the president’s speech to students, which is scheduled to be broadcast to schools across America at noon Tuesday.

    The decision comes as Republican critics across the country are calling the speech an effort to foist a political agenda on children, creating yet another confrontation with the White House.

    Obama is scheduled to address students on the importance of taking responsibility for their success, according to a statement from the White House. The United States Department of Education will also provide resources to classrooms that were developed by and for teachers to “engage students and stimulate discussion about persisting and succeeding in school.”

    The department also recommended that students be asked to write a letter to themselves on “how to help the president.”

    The speech will be broadcast live on www.whitehouse.gov and on C-SPAN.

    Schools don’t have to show it. But districts across the country have been inundated with phone calls from parents and are struggling to address the controversy that broke out after Education Secretary Arne Duncan sent a letter to principals urging schools to watch.

    In a statement released Thursday, Collier County Superintendent Dennis Thompson explained the school district’s plan with staff members.

    “We have received many inquiries concerning President Obama’s address to students next Tuesday, September 8th. After studying the situation, I have concluded that due to the logistics of making a Webcast available during that time of the school day, we will not be showing this address in Collier County School District classrooms or campuses,” he wrote in a memorandum. “However, as soon as the speech is available, we will place a link on the district Web site should you and your family choose to view the speech.”

    District spokesman Joe Landon said Thompson’s office had received inquiries from principals, parents and community members about showing the speech.

    “There was a pretty good balance from people who wanted to weigh in,” he said. “Some just wanted to know whether or not we would be showing it to the students.”

    Collier County Republican Party Chairwoman Carla Dean applauded the decision, saying it seems more appropriate to allow families to watch the speech together.

    “I think that’s a more appropriate thing,” she said. “Kids are real impressionable and I think that’s the route to take.”

    Children are in school to do one thing: to learn, Dean said. Taking time away from that mission does not make sense, even if the president is delivering a common-sense message on the importance of education, Dean said.

    “There is a concern,” she added. “What does the president want to talk about? All I’ve heard is vague generalities.”

    Dean is not alone in her concern.

    Some conservatives across the country, driven by radio pundits and bloggers, are urging schools and parents to boycott the address. They say Obama is using the opportunity to promote a political agenda and is overstepping the boundaries of federal involvement in schools.

    “As far as I am concerned, this is not civics education — it gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality,” said Oklahoma state Sen. Steve Russell. “This is something you’d expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.”

    The Lee County School District said in a statement it will “record it and apply the standard process for reviewing instructional materials; and make it available as a supplement to instruction to enhance established Sunshine State Standards.”

    Principals across the Lee County School District received an e-mail from Superintendent James Browder Thursday informing them of the district’s decision. Bonita Springs Middle School Principal Ruthie Lohmeyer said she has communicated the decision to tape the speech to all of her teachers so they can easily field parent questions.

    “I had one student who said his dad will not let him watch it,” Lohmeyer said. “I’m sure you have a slew of parents who want them to see it, too. Whatever the president has to say is important, but we’re not going to take instructional time away during the school day.”

    Steve Hemping, chairman of the Collier County Democratic Party called the decision not to broadcast Obama’s speech “a lost opportunity for all students.”

    “President Obama embodies the American spirit that in our country, you can achieve anything through education and hard work,” Hemping said. “President Obama is an exemplary role model for using education as a path to success. ... To shut off communication between students and the President of the United States is a tremendous loss for students and teachers.”

    Opponents of the speech said children should not be forced to listen to a presidential message. Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer released a blistering statement on the party’s Web site, condemning Obama’s “use of taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate America’s children to his socialist agenda.”

    “While I support educating our children to respect both the office of the American President and the value of community service, I do not support using our children as tools to spread liberal propaganda,” he wrote. “The address scheduled for September 8, 2009, does not allow for healthy debate on the President’s agenda, but rather obligates the youngest children in our public school system to agree with our President’s initiatives or be ostracized by their teachers and classmates.”

    The White House plans to release the speech several hours beforehand, online, so parents can read it.

    “I think it’s really unfortunate that politics has been brought into this,” White House deputy policy director Heather Higginbottom said in an interview with The Associated Press. “It’s simply a plea to students to really take their learning seriously. Find out what they’re good at. Set goals. And take the school year seriously.”

    She noted that President George H.W. Bush made a similar address to schools in 1991. Like Obama, Bush drew criticism, with Democrats accusing the Republican president of turning the event into a campaign commercial.

    Despite the rhetoric, two of Florida’s larger districts, Miami-Dade and Hillsborough, plan to have classes watch the speech. Students whose parents object will not have to watch.

    “We’re extending the same courtesy to the president as we do with any elected official that wants to enter our schools,” said Linda Cobbe, a Hillsborough schools spokeswoman. Cobbe said the district, which includes Tampa, has gotten calls from upset parents but said officials don’t think the White House is trying to force politics on kids.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.


    Tags: OBAMA'S PROPAGANDA

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:58
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    I DID NOT FIND ANY POST WITH SIMILAR MESSAGE AT MIAMI/DADE SHOOLS AT http://www.dadeschools.net/

     

    Community Input Needed

    On Tuesday, September 8, 2009, Broward
     County Public Schools students will have
     the opportunity to watch an online national
     address from President Obama on the
    importance of education. The Web address
    can be seen locally in Broward County
    at 12 noon on the White House Web site
    (
    www.whitehouse.gov/live), and broadcast
     live on
    BECON Channel 24.

    According to Superintendent James F. Notter,
     there have been several calls into the Superintendent’s Office
     suggesting and/or requesting that alternative space
     and activities be provided for those students wishing
    to “opt out” of this activity.

    “As one of the premier major school systems
     in America, we have consistently encouraged
     civics education in the broadest sense, e.g.,
     Kids Voting, elected officials participating
     in Career Days, countywide broadcast of
    Inaugural address, etc.,” said Notter.
    “Therefore, providing for a separation
     from this Address does not align with
     our practices and responsibility to provide
     a well rounded, quality education for all students.
     This is the first time an American President
     has spoken directly to students on the
    importance of education and the challenge
    to work hard, set educational goals, and
     take responsibility for one’s learning.”

    Schools will have the option to record or obtain
     a copy of the Address for later educational use,
     due to individual school needs, such as, tests
     at that time, field trips, prior scheduled
    events, and other reasonable conflicts.

    © 1998 - 2009   Broward County Public Schools
    600 SE Third Ave. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 USA
    Phone: (754) 321-0000
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     

    Tags: OBAMA BROWARD SHOOLS

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:43
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    sstinson@dadeschools.net,martaperez@dadeschools.net,
    ajbarrera@dadeschools.net,rdiazdelaportilla@dadeschools.
    net,lfeldman@dadeschools.net,phantman@dadeschools.net,
    wtholloway@dadeschools.net,martinkarp@dadeschools.net,
    Alogan@dadeschools.net,
    mdinnen@browardschools.com,jennifer.
    gottlieb@browardschools.com,rbartleman@browardschools.com,
    bgallagher@browardschools.com,phyllis.
    hope@browardschools.com,skraft@browardschools.
    com,ann.murray@browardschools.com,marcia.
    simmons@browardschools.com,ruth.lutz@browardschools.com
     TO:                ELECTED SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS
     
    COUNTIES:     MIAMI/DADE AND BROWARD
     
    RE:                FOR YOUR INFORMATION PLEASE READ.
     
    FROM:           MIRIAM MATA      http://usurpador.blogcindario.com/
     
    DATE:            SEPTEMBER 5, 2009
     
     
    Friday, September 4, 2009

    An article about an article, about a radio report -- about the beginnings of treason

    There are at least three problems in Obama's predictably ministerial ploy upon America's educational complex and upon our children:
    1. the usurpation of state and local jurisdictions, by federal government, inherent in the orchestrating of this entire set of events
    2. the (changing) suggestions or dictates of teacher-student behavior, to be carried out before and after the speech
    3. the content of Obama's speech
    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6jaVHAW3QCY/SqF7Ni5H75I/AAAAAAAAAao/U4b9QUCinfc/s1600-h/constitution_pen_siriusputsch.jpgPresented below is the blog, American Daughter's initial report on problem number one, the effective abrogation of federal and state constitutions, by Barack Obama and the Department of Education.

    A reminder: every human has rights, which are inherent in the People. Our modes of government have powers proscribed by the People. In America, Citizens have enumerated natural rights, listed in the U.S. Constitution and unenumerated natural rights, which are not specified, but which are retained by the People. However, American bodies of government do not have any powers that are not constitutionally granted them by the People. See the Constitution's
    Ninth and Tenth Amendments and the Preamble.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<> I.O.<>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Major Breach of Protocol

    by Nancy Matthis at American Daughter

    Ignoring school superintendents, Obama wrote to school principals announcing his forthcoming speech to school children. This is a serious breach of protocol. All communications should be routed through the Superintendent of Schools for each district.

    Not only was this bad manners bigtime, it has implications for states' rights and local rights that go far beyond the one event. School districts are overseen by a School Board, usually elected by the citizens of the district. Voters expect that board to ensure an education that reflects their values and goals for their children. From an
    eHow campaign advisory:
    Public education is one of our most crucial institutions. Participating in the body that oversees the policies and procedures governing schools is a major task ... To get elected to the school board ... know the concerns of the community and clarify how you can help achieve the goals and represent their values.
    By deliberately cutting the local school boards and the superintendents out of the loop, Obama is essentially bypassing the voters, including parents. He is establishing a precedent for federal control of the children, for making them wards of the federal authority. This is totally a page out of the Marxist playbook that Obama and his office mate terrorist Bill Ayers used in Chicago.

    Most of the controversy surrounding his scheduled speech and the lesson plan outlines prepared for teachers to use with it has been concern about the content of his remarks. Like a magician, education czar Arne Duncan has kept the American public focused on the rabbit in the tophat, waiting to see what it looks like when pulled out. If Obama's speech turns out to be a pep talk about staying in school, working hard, and achieving goals, the American public will breathe a collective sigh of relief and think that nothing has gone wrong.

    But the damage has already been accomplished in the process. Barack Hussein Obama communicated directly with all of the country's school principals, and got them to march in lock step, without anyone screaming about the school boards being bypassed. The first step of the Marxist game plan is complete.



    In our first article,
    Parents, Should You Be Worried?, we gave all the details about the scheduled speech, the letter to principals, and the lesson plans for grades K-6 and 7-12. We also itemized the parallels between Obama's methods and those Hitler used to entrain the minds of German youth.

    Our second article,
    P.A.S.S. and Twitter Power, described the response of parents, many of whom plan to keep their children home from school when Obama speaks.

    Radio station 100.7 FM WFLA in Tallahassee
    linked to our first article. Their 7:30AM talk show was about parents' reactions, and is worth a listen. It will probably be available for the rest of today. Click here to listen (about 26 minutes). It was the host of that talk show who first mentioned the breach of protocol.
    Why did I say that this was a predictable and "ministerial" move, by Obama? Because, by definition, that is the way in which Marxists and fascists operate, i.e., by central, governmental control, through various ministries. If you have been following the development of the Obama administration, you are seeing numerous other endeavors for ministerial control. Through the cabinet and through the "czars," Barack Obama is attempting to impose this form of governmental tyranny upon America, in violation of the principles of the Declaration and the People's foundationally mandated design of our method of self-governance, proscribed by means of the Constitution.

    Such an organized and pervasive assault upon America is literally and thoroughly, treason, whether it comes by trickle, or by flood and whether it is caught in its initial ploys, or further on in the burgeoning injury to the People, inflicted by this insurrection.

    Please comment if you think the venue in which you now read should present or link to examinations and explications of just what are the treasons of Marxism, social Darwinism, fascism, anarcho-syndical socialism, progressivism, globalism, and transnational progressivism.






    Tags: OBAMA USURPER

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:38
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Viernes, 04 de septiembre de 2009



    Indoctrination Of ‘Obama Youth’ In Schools Accelerates

    by DefendUSx September 04, 2009 17:12

    (Alleged) President’s speech is only one component of brainwashing activities that have been ongoing for the last year

    Indoctrination Of Obama Youth In Schools Accelerates 040909top2

    Paul Joseph Watson
    Prison Planet.com
    Friday, September 4, 2009

    Despite efforts to portray next week’s event as merely the President giving a speech to students, the full scope of what some education experts are decrying as part of an indoctrination program represents an advancement of the creepy, Orwellian, cult of personality-style worship of Obama and servitude to government being pushed in schools throughout America.

    President Obama is set to address students directly on Tuesday with a speech that will be streamed live on the White House website in what the government claims is a move designed to encourage kids to stay in school.

    However, the speech is to be accompanied by lesson plans issued by the Department of Education which instruct teachers to ask children “Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials.”

    The children are also asked to consider, “What is the President trying to tell me?,” “What is the President asking me to do?,” and “What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?”

    Children were also asked to write letters about what they can do to help the President, but this section has since been amended following an outcry.

    Activities suggested for after Obama’s speech include asking students “What resonated with you from President Obama’s speech? What lines/phrase do you remember?”

    “In general, I don’t think there’s a problem if the president uses the bully pulpit to tell kids to work hard, study hard and things like that. But there are some troubling hints in this, both educationally and politically,” Neal McCluskey, associate director of Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, told Fox News, adding that kids who refuse to follow Obama’s policies could end up trailing their peers.

    “It essentially tries to force kids to say the president and the presidency is inspiring, and that’s very problematic,” McCluskey said. “It’s very concerning that you would do that.”

    McCluskey noticed several passages in the lesson plans that seemingly glorify Obama and advance the cult-like persona being built around him, especially when it comes to young people.

    “It could be a blatantly political move,” he said. “Nobody knows for sure, but it gives that impression.”

    Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, said the lesson plans “very much starts to set up the president as a superintendent in chief.”

    Over the past year there have been several examples, documented by way of You Tube videos, that show school children being directed to pledge allegiances, perform military style drills, or write and sing songs in honor of Obama. Though establishment talking heads are often aghast at people who invoke historical dictators in criticizing Obama, some of the scenes that have come out of American schools do closely resemble the kind of idol worship that school children were ordered to perform in Maoist China or Nazi Germany.

    The videos below should seriously disturb the reader and offer a warning as to where the idolatry of Obama and his government could lead if left unchecked. The Orwellian nature of what is going on in American schools should at least send a shiver down the spine of all those who are aware of what has happened historically when leaders carefully groom a cult of personality and create a generation of mindless sycophantic followers who are unaware they are pledging allegiance to a dictator.


    This creepy cult-like video showing celebrities pledging their “service” to the Obama government’s global warming agenda
    is being shown in Utah schools.


    This now infamous “Obama Youth” video shows students at a middle school in Missouri performing a military style drill while chanting slogans about Obama’s policies.


    Disinterested-looking children forced to compose and sing a song in Obama’s honor.


    A creepy video of young children in Illinois singing a Maoist-style homage to Obama’s government, chanting “Yes We Can.” A shockingly accurate comparison with the Hitler Youth is made at the end of the clip.


    Teenagers in Toronto Canada perform a song for Obama in school.


    A group of third graders sing another Obama worship song.


    Black children mindlessly chant for Obama on a school bus.

     


    Tags: OBAMA SCHOOLS

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 21:01
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     
     
     

    Brown shirts here we go.  Let’s build the sympathies and get to the heart of our children who don’t hear most the real news and don’t understand just how misrepresenting Obama’s administration is.  President Obama plans to address the students in our schools all across the country on September 8th, 2009.   They will  hear his rallying, manipulative, sugary words and contrived promises of aid in the future and be awe inspired to serve and follow. This is unprecedented and reflects Obama’s desperation and manipulative style completely.  

    Get a sea of emotional kids trained and behind Obama who are working on their parents with his half truths and lies.   Evolve and graduate them to community service and working for Obama so they can earn a pittance of college money down the road.  Of course, Obama will control what they are exposed to,  what they get paid in pay back work and manipulate their futures completely.  Ideally, these wonderfully indoctrinated and now loyal sea of children will be Obama’s brown shirts and turn in parents and friends who disagree with Obama and his plans.  Do you get it yet?

    The white house web site where folks were encouraged to turn in their friends was turned off due to the outcry of most of us but now we will TURN ON the children and they will eventually do the turning in.  They will be loyal to Obama just as Jim Jones created and manipulated his victims.  He created loyalty to the death.  Jim was the deliverer, miracle worker, community service master and Messiah.  Obama wants to assume the position.  He will if we let him.  Remember how tyrants massage, create crises then rescue while demonizing the good guys.  This is their repeat cycle again and again!  It is happening as we speak.

    Obama needs the children, will manipulate their needs, dreams and hopes and start training them to be community volunteers who answer to him. 

    Keep your children home on Sept. 8th or demand from your teacher to see the speech in advance and warn and prepare your child before they are exposed to this sugary, lying rot from hell.  Process it before and after the speech.  Do not let their mind get sucked in.

    Regarding the future of your children

    Don’t even think about taking this administration’s help and loans for college in exchange for forced community service.  Plan way ahead for college on your own.  This kind of pitch and help will only end up abusing and controlling the mind of your child!  Do you happen to remember what has happened to our auto industry and banking sector once loans and help were given?  They are now owned and controlled whether they like it or not.  They will be told what to make how much to loan and folks will get hired and fired as Obama sees fit!

    We have seen Obama go after media, radio and TV.  We know from Doug Hagmann and Judi McLoed’s fine investigative work that this administration has manipulated and threatened anyone in media who dares mention and cover the eligibility and birth certificate issue (you can listen to the archive of the show, August 7th where they broke their investigation www.therothshow.com). 

    We have seen the assault on private enterprise and takeovers.  We have seen Obama’s plans to take over and run health care.  We also see the ongoing and distortion pushing cap and trade and global warming mythology.  We are getting used to the over reaches and international apology tours while demonizing God fearing, tax paying patriots at home!  This latest push takes the cake however!  Now, this reprobate President wants to manipulate, lie to and control the minds and hearts of our children.  Well, he can kiss my grits and then some.  I’m keeping my kids home on the 8th!

     

     


    Tags: OBAMA pioneers Che

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:39
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     
     
    Rage Against The Obama Propaganda Machine

    "Choose you this day whom ye will serve." That may be from the Bible's Book of Joshua, but it could be from a book of Barack Obama.  Kathryn Lopez asks, is that hyperbole?  Only slightly, unfortunately.

    In U.S. Department of Education materials surrounding the first national presidential address to public-school students, children were encouraged to write letters to themselves about what they can do to help Obama.  After some genuine and vociferous backlash, the Obama administration took back some of these recommendations for recruiting students to the cause that is Barack Obama.

    But the pullback came around the same time that an elementary school in Utah was scheduled to show students a
    video parade of celebrities pledging allegiance to Obama, and to the liberalism for which he stands.  In this video, various tabloid types seeking to "Be the Change" vow to "smile more" and "love more."  Other plans include "to be the voice for those who have no voice"; and to not always flush the toilet, for the sake of the planet; "To pledge allegiance to the funk, of the United Funk of Funkadelica"; and, most audaciously, "To free one million people from slavery in the next five years."  Yes, it was a bit of a mix.

    The culmination of the whole mess, however, was very clear; to "pledge to be of service to Barack Obama . . . to be a servant of Obama and all mankind."

    Rational people would argue that the head of a republican government serves the people who elected him, not the other way around.  But reason does not live in an era of vague feelings.

    The video was produced and directed by noted thespian and liberal scold Demi Moore and her husband Ashton Kutcher, who recently told Reuters: "There's an assumption that this one man is going to take on his new job full-time and somehow wave a magic wand of change, and I don't believe that to be true.  I think that we have to be the leaders, and that's not celebrities -- I think that we as citizens have to be leaders of the movement that we want to create."  Evidently, in order to get people to be the change, you have to get to them early, when they're in public school.  "We're all in this together," one celeb declared.  Would that have only been the case when George W. Bush was president?  Instead, examples of celebrity service during that era took the form of actress Cameron Diaz (who makes an appearance in the Moore pledge video) declaring on the Oprah Winfrey show during the 2004 election: "If you think that rape should be legal, then don't vote.  But if you think that you have a right to your body, and you have a right to say what happens to you and fight off that danger of losing that, then you should vote."

    What the heck is she talking about?  Abortion, obviously, once you cut through all the craziness.  It's safe to say Diaz wasn't into presidential servitude back then.

    The school indoctrination stories have been airing at the same time as revelations, on the right-leaning Web site Big Hollywood, of a government body organizing an artistic propaganda machine.  Film producer Patrick Courrielche was invited by the National Endowment for the Arts to join a conference call sponsored by the NEA, the White House Office of Public Engagement, and United We Serve, the organization created by Obama to promote volunteer service.  The stated purpose of the call was "to help lay a new foundation for growth, focusing on core areas of the recovery agenda -- health care, energy and environment, safety and security, education, community renewal."

    A few days after the call, Courrielche noticed that the starry-eyed Rock the Vote campaign, whose "mission is to engage and build the political power of young people in order to achieve progressive change in our country," sent out an e-mail declaring: "We can't stand by and listen to lies and deceit coming from those who are against reforming a broken system...Young people demand health care now."  Unsurprisingly, Rock the Vote is in favor of a public component to said health care.

    A representative for Rock the Vote was on the NEA conference call.  He picked up the orders.

    These have been tough times for Obama.  With a majority in Congress, and an adamant imperative that his health-care reform will should be done, he had to let summer recess in Washington come and go without his commands fulfilled.  You can understand wanting to use every resource available to him.

    Aristotle said that art completes what nature cannot bring to a finish.  Perhaps Obama's NEA might say that art completes what democracy isn't obedient enough carry out.

    The problem is that, if the National Endowment for the Arts exists -- which some of us think has always been regrettable in a nation that has more than enough private resources and enthusiasm to support the arts without need of government support -- it is not at the political service of a politician.  It's not meant to be an extension of his communications office.

    The video, the Department of "Political" Education directives, the secular crusading ... these are alarm bells.  An emptiness exists, created by a tyrannical reign of elite secularism.  And self-declared servants of Obama may not realize this yet, but it's a void that ultimately can't be filled by hollow rhetoric and bureaucratic disasters.

    We are a culture that understands art as an elevation, not as a campaign tactic.  And there is a higher authority than the Resident of the United States whom you're still free to pledge service to if you so choose.

    Tags: OBAMA PROPANDA SCHOOLS

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:15
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Dear Parents,

    Do you want Neo-Communist revolutionary, Barack "Fundamentally Change America" Obama, speaking to your children from the Oval Office?


    Do you remember this?: As related in a few venues around a year ago, including "Investigating Obama: Career Path toward a Neo-Marxist Presidency," this Obama is the very man who
    joined Weather Underground terrorist, Bill Ayers and fellow SDS member Michael Klonsky, a self-described Maoist communist, to gain tens of millions in Annenberg foundation money for an educational project, while passing much of it to ACORN and other insurgent "community organizations"

    Their goal? To "raise political consciousnes," chiefly among black school kids. Never mind reading, writing and arithmetic. What "political consciousness?" One attractive to Ayers, a self-proclaimed anarchistic communist. Ayers secured the purse, thus presumably played a responsible role in setting up young Mr. Obama as Chairman. They mingled in a small circle of Chicago's education radicals, at the time.
    Historically, a key SDS and Weathermen objective was to piggyback upon any black separatist revolt in America, for their overall Marxist ends. Education and "community organizing" became key elements of the adjusted Weathermen model of revolution, when they confronted limits to the political success of blowing up buildings and the people in them.

    Obama's school-age mentor, Frank Marshall Davis had the same communist goals for public education. What a coincidence, for the boy now all grown up and hiring fellow Marxists and Social Darwinists into his shadowy "Czar" cabinet, over at 1600. Why, now this student is (allegedly) the President, of all of America! Leader of the free world! But, whether or not you believe Larry Sinclair, how would you feel, if Obama's limo followed along and pulled over at the curb, where your child was walking to school?

    Many parents around America will be keeping their children home, Tuesday, September 8. But, many know nothing of the ongoing activities, planned for them.

    Leading up to this event, teachers have been given exacting federal instructions from the U.S. Department of Education, about how to indoctrinate students for Obama. Remember when Ronald Reagan spoke of eliminating the DoEd? The following is copied from those instructions, a great deal of emphasis, mine:
    Extension of the Speech: Teachers can extend learning by having students
    • Create posters of their goals. Posters could be formatted in quadrants or puzzle pieces or trails marked with the labels: personal, academic, community, country. Each area could be labeled with three steps for achieving goals in those areas. It might make sense to focus on personal and academic so community and country goals come more readily.
    • Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.
    • Write goals on colored index cards or precut designs to post around the classroom.
    • Interview and share about their goals with one another to create a supportive community.
    • Participate in School wide incentive programs or contests for students who achieve their goals.
    • Write about their goals in a variety of genres, i.e. poems, songs, personal essays.
    • Create artistic projects based on the themes of their goals.
    • Graph student progress toward goals
    Students of Marxist psychological operations, "brainwashing," and cult behavior overall will recognize the controlling powers of programmatic, coerced, and pervasively reinforced accountability to authorities and peers -- practiced upon our children, no less. That dynamic is very "Weatherman," as informant, Larry Grathwohl attests. (Congratulations, Billie Ayers, you educational authority, you! -- you are really making headway! You studied up well, back when, as your wife had to do the bomb planting dirty work.)

    Since when is it ruled, and from what higher power, that
    the person and the goals he may call his own are to be compartmentalized into one "quadrant" of one's life? In truth, one's personal life is definitively all of a person's life -- whether his attentions and efforts are spent in academics, work, church relationships, civic responsibilities, or other activities. And all of that is his business, not government's.

    Do you wish your child to be taught, by that communist, that his very person is only good enough for one fourth of the ontological space his life takes up? -- that as a student, academics, "community," and the state take up the remaining three quarters? Three quarters -- you know, about the same ratio as the taxation into which your child appears headed.

    From his numerous speeches, Obama's answer clear, and right out of his Rev. Wright radical, liberation theology "church":
    "our individual salvation depends on collective salvation." While that would have been less than Good News to Christ's Apostles, it would have had a certain ring to Marx and Engels, alright.

    And then what is planned for The Next Big Obama Events, at school? Will our children be brought together to sing, "Obama's gonna change it; Obama's gonna lead 'em?"

    Highest regards, parents, for a recovered and renewed America,
    Arlen


    Tags: Obama Schools Marxist

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:09
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     
     
     
    Obama, Socialism, America’s school children
     

     

     

     

    Back-to-School with Obama:

    Obama plans to systematically “embed positive behavior” into America’s Kids

     

     By Marinka Peschmann, Special to Canada Free Press   Friday, September 4, 2009

    Some conservatives are under fire for claiming President Barack Obama’s back-to-school address is actually an indoctrination tactic intended to brainwash America’s school children with his political ideology as opposed to the White House’s stance that Obama’s address is a harmless Presidential reach-out to simply encourage kids. Are conservatives correct or going overboard? Let’s let Obama’s education record speak for itself. In 2007, then Senator Obama introduced education legislation which “systematically” “embeds” “positive behavior” into America’s kids to “achieve important social outcomes.”

    First, let’s look at Obama’s initial plans for America’s school children scheduled for September 8. According to the Obama White House press release, “As children across America go back to school, President Obama will deliver a national address directly to students on the importance of taking responsibility for their success in school…“In advance of this address, the Department of Education is providing resources developed by and for teachers to help engage students and stimulate discussion about persisting and succeeding in school.”

    Next, as we now know, the White House in cahoots with the Board of Education created a lesson plan that included pre-address and post-address school assignments. The students, pre-K through sixth graders, were asked to write answers to questions like “What is the President asking me to do?” Then after listening to President Obama’s speech, the students would be instructed to write letters answering “what they can do to help the president” that teachers would later use in the classroom to “make students accountable to their goals.”

    As CFP reported here, the White House has since withdrew their call for students to help Obama, claiming it was an “honest misunderstanding.” The address was meant to be an “inspirational, pro-education” message as opposed to a pro-Obama narcissist exercise.

    Recall, prior to the election, then presidential hopeful, Barack Obama’s, experience with education was working with William Ayers, the unrepentant domestic terrorist and former Weather Underground Operative. It was Ayers, now a “distinguished” professor in Chicago, who served as “Collaborative” co-chair and crafted Chicago public school education policies to Obama’s chairmanship in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC). CAC reportedly funneled over US$100 million to radical activists and radicalized students. Story here.

    Moreover, as CFP reported, prior to the 2008 Presidential elections, on September 27, 2007, then Senator Obama introduced the “Positive Behavior for Effective Schools Act” in the Senate.  Obama’s education bill, S.2111, significantly redesigns and amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to allow, in part, for “State…local educational agencies, and schools to increase implementation of early intervention services particularly school-wide positive behavior supports.”

    According to Section 3, “the term `positive behavior support’ means a systematic approach to embed proven practices for early intervening services, including a range of systemic and individualized strategies to reinforce desired behaviors and eliminate reinforcement for problem behaviors, in order to achieve important social outcomes (emphasis added)…” Story here.

    Section 5 called: “Teacher and Principal Preparation to Improve School Climate,” mandates a new requirement for teachers and principals. It is described as “an understanding of social or emotional, or both, learning in children…such as positive behavior support.”  Obama’s bill also provides for “instructional leadership skills to help teachers” satisfy this requirement.

    In Section 8 Obama’s bill creates what’s called the “Office of Specialized Instructional Support Services” which shall “administer, coordinate, implement, and ensure adequate evaluation of the effectiveness of programs …” via a new “Director” who provides “continuous training and professional development opportunities for specialized instructional support personnel” comprised of “school counselors…social workers…psychologists, and others…” These “instructional support personnel” provide “assessment, diagnosis, counseling, educational, therapeutic, and other necessary corrective or supportive services…” for students.

    Obama’s bill intends to extract–without restrictions from Title I funds. The bill “re-designates” funds to allow State educational agencies to “allocate funds to develop and implement coordinated, early intervening services (including school-wide positive behavior supports) for all students, including those who have not been identified as needing special education (emphasis CFP) but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed…”

    Obama’s bill did not specify the “systematic approach” he plans to “embed” in America’s students to achieve the “desired behaviors” or “important social outcomes” his legislation mandates. Inquires to former Senator Obama’s Presidential campaign and now to the White House to define them have thus far gone unanswered. Perhaps Obama should explain to parents exactly what he means before he addresses American’s innocent school children this Tuesday. Indoctrination? Yes, no?


    (0) Reader Feedback | Subscribe

    Marinka Peschmann, Special to Canada Free Press Most recent columns

    Copyright © Canada Free Press
    Marinka Peschmann, marinkapeschmann.com is a freelance writer. She’s collaborated and contributed on books ranging from showbiz to true crime and politics.
    She may be reached at: Marinkapm@aol.com or letters@canadafreepress.com


    Tags: OBAMA SCHOOL SOCIALISM

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:45
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Jueves, 03 de septiembre de 2009
    http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/lohmann/090903

    September 3, 2009
    Is Bill Ayers the voice behind Obama's school speech to children on Tuesday?
     

    By Stella Lohmann

    Since when does the Department of Education dictate curriculum, especially one promoting its boss? Next Tuesday class schedules and lesson plans will be usurped by a Presidential speech given by Barack Obama via the internet. Educators nationwide have already been given exercises to administer before and after his address. So what's the uproar all about? President George H. Bush and even Ronald Reagan gave similar talks to schools about staying in school and staying away from drugs. But Obama's timing and questionable associations have been known to reappear at the White House as advisors.

    University of Illinois at Chicago Professor Bill Ayers — elementary school theorist and unrepentant convicted domestic terrorist for public bombings including the Capitol and Pentagon — is certainly one that Obama said time and time again was just an acquaintance who just happened to host his campaign kick off at his home in Chicago as well as chair an education reform council on which Obama was a member. Obama never disavowed their relationship and shared visions for changing wrongs in social issues. Listen to this excerpt from "No Place to Hide," a 1980's documentary on the Ayers and the Worldwide Underground of which he belonged.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ

    Even then Ayers' radical views were being scrutinized with warnings of a clearly defined agenda and mission statement to eliminate capitalism and reinstitute social reform through revolution in the classroom. On Saturday, October 04, 2008 National Review analyzed the article published in the New York Times "Ayers-Obama Whitewash." Four days later, the New York Times printed another article, one less than flattering about then GOP Presidential candidate Senator John McCain:

    Mr. McCain responded: "Well, sir, with your help and the people in this room, we will find out, just as Senator Clinton said in the primary that we should find out about this association. Look, we don't care about an old washed-up terrorist and his wife who still, at least on Sept. 11, 2001, said he still wanted to bomb more. You know, but that's not the point here. The point is Senator Obama said he was just a guy in the neighborhood. We need to know that's not true.''

    At this point, the crowd in the Center Court Sports Complex booed furiously." — http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/mccain-questions-obama-ayers-relationship/ Suddenly and much too lately, McCain began to see his polls numbers increase favorably as the public finally began to question Obama's relationships with radically thinking associates, including Bill Ayers. The National Review October 4th article continued with this analysis:

    "There is nothing "sporadic" about Barack Obama delivering hundreds of thousands of dollars over a period of many years to fund Bill Ayers' radical education projects, not to mention many millions more to benefit Ayers' radical education allies. We are talking about a substantial and lengthy working relationship here, one that does not depend on the quality of personal friendship or number of hours spent in the same room together." http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWI0MjY3NzMyODgxZGM2ZjUwNTE1MmEzOGRiZmFkNWE= though the article greatly underestimates that as well).

    Here are excerpts of Ayers's 2006 speech before Hugo Chavez and other assembled "comrades": http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjRkOWUzMTVjMTU5YjIxYmQyMjY3YjU0NWJkY2QxZjY=

    "President Hugo Chavez, invited guests, comrades. I'm honored and humbled to be here with you this morning. I bring greetings and support from your brothers and sisters throughout North America [sic]! Welcome to the World Education Forum. Amamos la revolucion Bolivariana! ...I began teaching when I was 20 yeas old in a small freedom school affiliated with the Civil Rights Movement in the United States. The year was 1965, and I'd been arrested in a demonstration. Jailed for ten days, I met several activists who were finding ways to link teaching and education with deep and fundamental social change. They were following Dewey and Dubois, King and Helen Keller who wrote: "We can't have education without revolution.

    We have tried peace education for 1,900 years and it has failed. Let us try revolution and see what it will do now.... [I've] learned that education is never neutral. It always has a value, a position, a politics. Education either reinforces or challenges the existing social order, and school is always a contested space — what should be taught? In what way? Toward what end? By and for whom? At bottom, it involves a struggle over the essential questions: what does it mean to be a human being living in a human society?...

    Totalitarianism demands obedience and conformity, hierarchy, command and control. Royalty requires allegiance. Capitalism promotes racism and materialism — turning people into consumers, not citizens. Participatory democracy, by contrast, requires free people coming together, voluntarily as equals who are capable of both self-realization and, at the same time, full participation in a shared political and economic life."


    And now almost one year later, President Barack Obama is set to address elementary school aged children nationwide via an internet webcast. One parent wrote a note to the principal of her daughter's school and emailed it a friend of mine who copied me. The parent wrote:

      September 3, 2009
      To the teacher of my child:

      I would like to know what alternative arrangements have been made available to children whose parents decline to send them to the President's "Indoctrination Plan" speech on Tuesday, Sept. 8th. Since this political speech can in no way be considered school-sanctioned or mandatory, I assume the school has made alternative plans for children who will not attend. Please advise me as soon as possible where the children will be located and what activities will be planned for these non-attending kids. My child will NOT be attending; I believe exposure to what this President has to say can only be considered dangerous and destructive.

      If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

      Thank you.

    As a substitute teacher it will be interesting to see what actually occurs in the classroom on Tuesday if I am asked to fill in for a teacher that day. If so, certainly a follow up will be in order to see how the school responded to this parent and what the President and the children have to say.



    MORE INFORMATION:

    CNN on Ayers-Obama connection: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvROBLortBQ

    Bill Ayers Bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers

    William Charles Ayers (born December 26, 1944)[1] is an American elementary education theorist and former leader in the anti-war movement that opposed U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. He is known for the radical nature of his activism, which began within the anti-war movement of the 1960s, as well as his current work in education reform, curriculum, and instruction. In 1969 he co-founded the violent radical left organization the Weather Underground, which conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings during the 1960s and 1970s. He is now a professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, holding the titles of Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar.[2]2008 Presidential campaign, a controversy arose over his past contacts with candidate Barack Obama.

    © Stella Lohmann

    During the
     

    The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
    (See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)



    Tags: Obama school speech

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 23:49
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     
    Salt Lake Tribune
    Updated:09/03/2009 07:39:58 AM MDT

    Some Utah parents have already made up their minds

     about a speech President Barack Obama plans to give


    to students about the importance of education: They

     don't want their children watching it.

    In the speech, which will be broadcast live online at 10

     a.m. on Tuesday, Obama will challenge students to work

     hard, set educational goals and take responsibility for

     their learning, according to the U.S. Department of

     Education, which has urged schools to join in the

     "historic" event, even providing age-appropriate

     classroom activities.


    But in Utah and nationwide, conservative voices are

     saying they don't want their kids "forced" to watch the

     speech, fearing it will eat up precious class time with

    political or policy messages. Officials from the Alpine,

    Jordan, Canyons and Granite school districts say they


    have fielded complaints from concerned parents.


    Nationally, the Virginia State Superintendent is urging

     schools "to make reasonable accommodations for

     students whose parents may object." In Texas, parents

     are threatening to boycott schools, according to 
    The

     Houston Chronicle 
    . And in Florida, the head of the s

    tate Republican Party labeled the address an

     inappropriate "indoctrination" to the President's

     "socialist" agenda.


    Utah school districts are taking precautions.


    Granite, Jordan, Salt Lake City and Davis districts are

     sending letters to principals saying that if they plan to

     broadcast the speech, they should warn parents and

     provide alternate activities for students who don't want

     to watch it. Canyons is sending home letters to parents

     today along with waivers they can sign if they don't want

     their children to watch the speech. Canyons only plans

     to show the live speech to secondary students because o

    f district-wide testing in the elementary schools, said

     Jennifer Toomer-Cook, district spokeswoman.


    Majestic Elementary PTA president Jennifer Walters

     doesn't see what all the fuss is about. She said she's

     pleased and surprised that the president would take time

     out of his busy schedule to address kids.


    "Anytime a president gives a speech, kids should

     probably hear it, at least the older ones," said the West

     Jordan mom. "I'm all for anything that makes kids feel

     good about school."


    Utah districts, however, are taking special care, partly

     because of controversy that arose this week after a

    Farmington school showed students a video, unrelated to
     
    Obama's upcoming speech, that featured celebrities

    making pledges to Obama and the world. Some parents

    at that school were offended, saying the video contained

     liberal, inappropriate or disagreeable messages. School

    districts are trying to make sure educators and parents

    know Obama's Tuesday speech has nothing to do with

    the "I Pledge" video.


    It's uncertain how many Utah schools will telecast

     Tuesday's speech.


    But "many parents and media members may be paying

     close attention," warned Salt Lake district spokesman

    Jason Olsen Wednesday in a letter to principals. If

    parents have complained, Olsen says he isn't aware of it.


    That's true for Davis district, too, said spokesman

    Christopher Williams.


    Granite, however, has received at least a dozen

    complaints from parents, said district spokesman Ben

     Horsley. "We don't believe that's a political message. It's

     a positive message our students need to hear."


    The Alpine district has also received more than a dozen

     complaints, said district spokeswoman Rhonda Bromley.


    "Parents, of course, at any time can excuse their kids

    from school for any reason," Bromley said. "Certainly,

     though, as part of social studies curriculum we talk

     about the role of the federal government, talk about the

     role of the president and we talk about the fact that we

     respect the role of the president."


    Gayle Ruzicka, president of the conservative Utah Eagle

     Forum, said she's heard from more than 20 upset

    parents. Ruzicka said she doesn't see a problem with the

     speech if it really is just about education, but if it carries

     other messages, that's a problem.


    "I do believe whoever the president is that's speaking to

    school children, parents do need to find out what the

     speech is about," Ruzicka said. "Is it going to be political

     speech or is it going to be a patriotic speech? We have an

     obligation to our children to find out what they're being

     taught."


    One remedy for worried parents, said Ruzicka, would be

     to go to their children's schools and watch the speech

     with them. She said the Utah Eagle Forum will also

     likely send out a letter letting parents know about the

     speech.


    Suzanne Walker, Midvale Elementary PTA president,

     said Obama's address doesn't worry her. But she says

     last week's "I Pledge" video exemplifies why parents

     should be involved in schools.


    "I agree with a lot of what Obama has planned. But

     asking my kids to pledge and do things that I don't

    support, I have a problem with that," Walker said.


    Obama on education


    President Barack Obama will give a speech about the

    importance of education that federal education officials

     would like American students to watch while they are at

     school. The speech will be broadcast live Tuesday, 10

     a.m. at 
    www.whitehouse.gov/live/ . For more

    information,

     visit 
    www.ed.gov/admins/lead/academic/bts.html .


    Tags: OBAMA SCHOOL SPEECH

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:31
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    READ THE COMPLETE ARTICLE, SEE THE VIDEO I PLEDGE AND VOTE AT LINK BELOW

    Parents upset over 'leftist propaganda' video

    Principal apologizes for showing 'I Pledge' to students. 

    http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13249171?_requestid=5883011


    Children at Eagle Bay Elementary School in Farmington were shown a short video called "I pledge" on Aug. 28. The video opens with an image of President Barack Obama and part of a speech in which he says, "Let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other." The video then features celebrities making pledges about how they will help the president and the world -- and that's where some say the problem lies.

    Many pledges, such as supporting local food banks, smiling more, and caring for the elderly are noncontroversial. But other pledges, such as "to sell my obnoxious car and buy a hybrid" and to advance stem cell research.

    "Showing the video in a public school is completely inappropriate," said Jennifer Cieslewicz, whose daughter is a first-grader at the school. "I don't believe a video such as this that promotes certain values should be shown to elementary students, especially without parents being aware. "

    Other offensive pledges included, "I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama," "I pledge allegiance to the funk, to the united funk of funkadelica," and pledges to not use plastic grocery bags and not flush the toilet after urinating.

    Cieslewicz said such values should be decided in the home, not at school.

    "They shouldn't be troubling our youth with the woes of the world and making them feel like we're in slavery or they have to worry about how many times they flush the toilet or if they have a plastic water bottle," Cieslewicz said, referring to pledges in the video to "end slavery."

    "It got to a point where she ( Principal Ofelia Wade ) turned to her assistant and said, 'Oops, I wish I would have seen this before. I don't think I would have shown it,' " 

    "She acknowledges she was wrong and apologizes for it and says she's sorry," Williams said.


    Tags: OBAMA I PLEDGE

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:07
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Freaky indoctrination video playing in schools. Now is Pledge to OBAMA instead of the USA 

     

    Obama,,,,, Democrat or a Republican, you should be disgusted with this video!!!!!   Kids should be learning things in school not how to serve any socialist President

    Watch this video and be shocked share with friends and families avoid sending your children to school on Sep. 8th this video might be played on this day for the children  

     

    Everybody, Please call the Miami-Dade Public Schools and demand that this indoctrination on Sept 8 is not mandatory for every student.  And if every student is forced to watch and participate in the activities that Obama has provided the public school system, they are going to be held responsible and liable for their actions. Please call MIAMI-DADE at (305) 995-1000 OR 305-995-1430  IN BROWARD   754-321-000 Spread the word. 

    Tell all your friends that their kids will be listening to Obama for an hour in school on Sep 8 AT NOON.

    HERE ANOTHER VIDEO

    http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13249171?_requestid=5883011

    Parents upset over 'leftist propaganda' video
    Education » Principal apologizes for showing 'I Pledge' to students.

    By Lisa Schencker

    The Salt Lake Tribune


    Salt Lake Tribune
    Updated:09/02/2009 10:07:30 AM MDT

    A school principal has apologized for showing a video at an assembly that a politically conservative group leader is calling "radical, leftist propaganda."

    Children at Eagle Bay Elementary School in Farmington were shown a short video called "I pledge" on Aug. 28. The video opens with an image of President Barack Obama and part of a speech in which he says, "Let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other." The video then features celebrities making pledges about how they will help the president and the world -- and that's where some say the problem lies.

    Many pledges, such as supporting local food banks, smiling more, and caring for the elderly are noncontroversial. But other pledges, such as "to never give anyone the finger when I'm driving again," "to sell my obnoxious car and buy a hybrid" and to advance stem cell research cross the line, some say.

    "Showing the video in a public school is completely inappropriate," said Jennifer Cieslewicz, whose daughter is a first-grader at the school. "I don't believe a video such as this that promotes certain values should be shown to elementary students, especially without parents being aware. "

    Chris Williams, Davis School District spokesman, said school principal Ofelia Wade and school PTA leaders decided to show the video as part of an assembly about the school's theme for the year, service. He said the PTA board chose the video and Wade did not see it before it was shown in the assembly.

    "It got to a point where she turned to her assistant and said, 'Oops, I wish I would have seen this before. I don't think I would have shown it,' " Williams said. He said Wade could see how some adults might find the video political.

    "She acknowledges she was wrong and apologizes for it and says she's sorry," Williams said. Attempts to reach school PTA leaders Tuesday evening were unsuccessful.

    Williams said Wade plans to send a letter home to parents Wednesday about the issue.

    Gayle Ruzicka, president of conservative Utah Eagle Forum, said the video was blatantly political. She said other offensive pledges included, "I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama," "I pledge allegiance to the funk, to the united funk of funkadelica," and pledges to not use plastic grocery bags and not flush the toilet after urinating.

    "It's very inappropriate to show a radical, leftist propaganda piece that political to children," Ruzicka said. "If parents want their children to learn about those things and do them in the home, wonderful, fine, but it's not the place of the school to show a one-sided propaganda piece to children without parents knowing about it."

    Cieslewicz said such values should be decided in the home, not at school.

    "They shouldn't be troubling our youth with the woes of the world and making them feel like we're in slavery or they have to worry about how many times they flush the toilet or if they have a plastic water bottle," Cieslewicz said, referring to pledges in the video to "end slavery."

    Ruzicka said she contacted local media about the video after receiving complaints from several parents. Ruzicka said she worried the video's messages would confuse children whose parents might choose to use plastic bags when shopping or who want their children to flush the toilet after every use. Also she said she didn't like a pledge "to be of service to Barack Obama" as he is here to serve Americans, not the other way around.

    Ruzicka said she'd like to see the school district send a link to the video to all parents before an upcoming back-to-school night so they can voice their opinions and discuss it with their children. Williams said it's unlikely the district will send out a link, but parents are welcome to access the video on YouTube.

    http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13249171?_requestid=5883011


    Tags: OBAMA CHILDREN BRAIN WASH

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 19:28
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Mi?rcoles, 02 de septiembre de 2009

    http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2009/09/alert-obamas-psy-ops-on-kids-school.html


    TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2009

    Dear Parents,

    Do you want Neo-Communist revolutionary, Barack "Fundamentally Change America" Obama, speaking to your children from the Oval Office?


    Do you remember this?: As related in a few venues around a year ago, including 
    "Investigating Obama: Career Path toward a Neo-Marxist Presidency," 
    this Obama is the very man who 
    joined Weather Underground terrorist, Bill Ayers and fellow SDS member Michael Klonsky, a self-described Maoist communist, to gain tens of millions in Annenberg foundation money for an educational project, while passing much of it to ACORN and other insurgent "community organizations"

    Their goal? To "raise political consciousnes," chiefly among black school kids. Never mind reading, writing and arithmetic. What "political consciousness?" One attractive to Ayers, a self-proclaimedanarchistic communist. Ayers secured the purse, thus presumably played a responsible role in setting up young Mr. Obama as Chairman. They mingled in a small circle of Chicago's education radicals, at the time. Historically, a key SDS and Weathermen objective was to piggyback upon any black separatist revolt in America, for their overall Marxist ends. Education and "community organizing" became key elements of the adjusted Weathermen model of revolution, when they confronted limits to the political success of blowing up buildings and the people in them.

    Obama's school-age mentor, 
    Frank Marshall Davis had the same communist goals for public education. What a coincidence, for the boy now all grown up and hiring fellow Marxists and Social Darwinists into hisshadowy "Czar" cabinet, over at 1600. Why, now this student is (allegedly) the President, of all of America! Leader of the free world! But, whether or not you believe Larry Sinclair, how would you feel, if Obama's limo followed along and pulled over at the curb, where your child was walking to school?

    Many parents around America will be keeping their children home, Tuesday, September 8. But, many know nothing of the ongoing activities, planned for them.


    Leading up to this event, teachers have been given exacting federal 
    instructions from the U.S. Department of Education, about how to indoctrinate students for Obama. Remember when Ronald Reagan spoke of eliminating the DoEd? The following is copied from those instructions, a great deal of emphasis, mine:
    Extension of the Speech: Teachers can extend learning by having students 
    • Create posters of their goals. Posters could be formatted in quadrants or puzzle pieces or trails marked with the labels: personal, academic, community, country. Each area could be labeled with three steps for achieving goals in those areas. It might make sense to focus on personal and academic so community and country goals come more readily.
    • Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.
    • Write goals on colored index cards or precut designs to post around the classroom.
    • Interview and share about their goals with one another to create a supportive community.
    • Participate in School wide incentive programs or contests for students who achieve their goals.
    • Write about their goals in a variety of genres, i.e. poems, songs, personal essays.
    • Create artistic projects based on the themes of their goals.
    • Graph student progress toward goals
    Students of Marxist psychological operations, "brainwashing," and cult behavior overall will recognize the controlling powers of programmatic, coerced, and pervasively reinforced accountability to authorities and peers -- practiced upon our children, no less. That dynamic is very "Weatherman," as informant, Larry Grathwohl attests. (Congratulations, Billie Ayers, you educational authority, you! -- you are really making headway! You studied up well, back when, as your wife had to do the bomb planting dirty work.)

    Since when is it ruled, and from what higher power, that the person and the goals he may call his own are to be compartmentalized into one "quadrant" of one's life? In truth, one's personal life is definitively all of a person's life -- whether his attentions and efforts are spent in academics, work, church relationships, civic responsibilities, or other activities. And all of that is his business, not government's.

    Do you wish your child to be taught, by that communist, that his very person is only good enough for one fourth of the ontological space his life takes up? -- that as a student, academics, "community," and the state take up the remaining three quarters? Three quarters -- you know, about the same ratio as the taxation into which your child appears headed.

    From his numerous speeches, Obama's answer clear, and right out of his Rev. Wright radical, liberation theology "church": "our 
    individual salvation depends on collective salvation." While that would have been less than Good News to Christ's Apostles, it would have had a certain ring to Marx and Engels, alright.

    And then what is planned for The Next Big Obama Events, at school? Will our children be brought together to sing, "Obama's gonna change it; Obama's gonna lead 'em?"

    Highest regards, parents, for a recovered and renewed America,
    Arlen 

    Tags: OBAMA MARXIST SCHOOLS

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 19:56
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    Obama to use America’s school population as his private teaching ground?

    Flunked with parents, `Professor POTUS’ to shill Socialism on School Kids

    Author
    Judi McLeod  Bio
    Email Article

    Shop CFP

     

     By Judi McLeod  Wednesday, September 2, 2009

    Professor POTUSReaders are writing Canada Free Press to ask why Barack Obama is addressing America’s entire school population just three days before the eighth anniversary of 9/11 and four days before the people’s Sept. 12 march on Washington, D.C.

    Obama is doing to American school children exactly what was done to him: Indoctrination.

    It was indoctrination by social activists that brought a young Obama to the streets of Chicago as a community organizer. 

    There is no report card or graduation for a community organizer only indoctrination.

    Is it fair for Obama to use America’s school population as his private teaching ground?

    No.  Especially when you know this overblown professor can’t be counted on to teach the textbook set the proven downside of socialism; that it has, over time flunked everywhere else it has been tried;  that it kills the human soul and inevitably leaves a path of human misery in its wake.

    For politicians cum professors, vulnerable children in classrooms make the perfect captive audience.

    If Obama’s campaign speeches won over adult voters,  who fell for his promise of hope and change, what chance does an impressionable young student have to escape the propaganda of a slick and smarmy Socialist?

    Textbook bumpersticker education that teaches children what to think, not how to think

    Classic Liberal Education would be more appropriately served if the youngsters forced to listen to Obama’s speech were addressed as well by someone from the other side of the political spectrum.

    But leftwing educators,  who have ruined public education, are into propaganda not fairness.  They are into textbook bumpersticker education that teaches children what to think, not how to think. 

    It’s been going on uninterrupted for decades in education systems that fail any country’s most valuable asset, the eager up and coming generations who are tomorrow’s leaders.

    Indeed, the left virtually dominates education, a fact not missed by Obama, who fresh out of law school took over the first chairmanship of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a group that poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.

    Taking advantage of his status as POTUS to go into the classroom at the beginning of the school year, speaks volumes of Obama’s bold agenda for the United States of America.

    This from a man whose own school records are sealed off from public view. 

    In the upside-down world of Barack Obama,  the virtues of socialism begin with the ABC’s.

    Wonder if his daughters’ private school will be subject to this assault on public education, or are they taught socialism in nightly bedtime stories?

    In the days when the writer of this column was education columnist for the Toronto Sun, teachers were taking their grade school students out to the roads on peace marches.  The children could hoist the signs they made in class at motorists—including their misspelled messages.

    One student group taken out on the march by their teacher was young enough to be dubbed “the teddy bear brigade” by local media.
    Although as far as is known never by a president, exercises in indoctrination by leftwing social activists has been tried too many times before.

    The largely Ukrainian parent population of Humberside Collegiate in west end Toronto were outraged when the school principal invited the KGB to address the student assembly en masse.  Parental requests for speakers who lived under communism to address the assembly in an attempt for balance, were turned down, and the media was banned from attendance.

    The KGB address took place during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.  Incredibly the Soviets told students they had invaded Afghanistan at the “request” of the Afghan people.  One enterprising student covertly taped the entire address and delivered it Yours Truly at the Toronto Sun.

    Years later, some of those very students came to Toronto Free Press (forerunner of CFP) as co-op students.  Most of them were anti-communist.

    One of the instructions in the Prek-6 Menu of Classroom Activities for President Obama’s Address to Students Across America is laughable: “Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor?  Why is what they say important?”

    Obama can’t force their parents to listen to what he and other elected officials are saying, so he is now merely trying to force-feed their children.

    Parents who don’t want to keep their children home on September 8 can trump this administration’s latest agenda.  So as not to give too much attention to the arrogant Obama, they can always draw on treacherous characters of the past like Tokyo Rose or Lord Haw-Haw to teach their children Propaganda 101.

    Meanwhile, you can come off like a cult leader in certain groups, be a Pied Piper to a fawning media and have your pictures on cups and t-shirts sold by NBC.

    But even a president can’t force-feed parents Socialism through their school-aged kids!  

    Copyright © Canada Free Press
    Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.

    Judi can be emailed at: judi@canadafreepress.com

    Older articles by Judi McLeod


    ---------------------------

     
    U.S. Department of Education: Promoting Educational Excellence for all Americans - Link to ED.gov Home Page
    EVENTS
    Media Advisories

    THE WHITE HOUSE
    Office of the Press Secretary

    President Obama to Speak Directly to Students in National Address on Educational Success

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – As children across America go back to school, President Obama will deliver a national address directly to students on the importance of taking responsibility for their success in school on Tuesday, September 8th at 12:00 PM EDT at Wakefield High School in Arlington. In advance of this address, the Department of Education is providing resources developed by and for teachers to help engage students and stimulate discussion about persisting and succeeding in school. The speech will be broadcast live on www.WhiteHouse.gov and C-SPAN. The speech is open to pre-credentialed media. The deadline to request credentials is 6:00PM EDT tomorrow, Thursday, September 3rd.

    September 8, 2009

    PRESIDENT OBAMA DELIVERS NATIONAL ADDRESS TO AMERICA’S SCHOOCHILDREN

    Wakefield High School
    4901 S. Chesterfield Rd.
    Arlington, VA 22206

    Media Pre-set: 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM (All equipment must be dropped at the site by 7:00 AM; media will not have access to their equipment from 7:00 AM to 10:00 AM.) Media Access: 10:00 AM

    Throw: 60 ft.
    Cable run: 600 ft.
    Live truck parking: Trucks should enter the entrance off Dinwiddie Street and will be directed on site. All live trucks must RSVP with vehicle information. Trucks must plan to park by 7:00 AM. Live truck operators must bring cable ramps.

    Media entrance: Entrance number 2, off Dinwiddie St.

    Media Coverage: This event is open to pre-credentialed media. To request credentials, please RSVP online at: www.WhiteHouse.gov/the_press_office/MediaRSVP-EducationAddress-9-8-09/. The deadline to RSVP is 6:00PM EDT tomorrow, Thursday, September 3rd.

    All names submitted for credentials must be accurate and reflect the identification media presents at check points for entrance. RSVPs do not guarantee access. You will receive a confirmation e-mail if you will receive a credential to cover the event.

    Contact for logistical and planning purposes only: Johanna Maska at jmaska@who.eop.gov.

    #

    -------------------------------------------------


    Tags: OBAMA SOCIALISM SCHOOLS

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 19:24
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Life and Liberty PAC presents the Proof Positive Series with Molotov Mitchell.
     This is the first episode, an introduction to Life and Liberty's campaign for
    transparency. Go to www.proof-positive.com to learn more and demand to see Obama's birth certificate by signing the petition! You've got proof positive...where's his?




    Tags: OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 19:06
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar



    Larry Greenley, AKA America's Freedom Fighter, analyzes the
    growing opposition to the Obama
     administration's health care reform proposals. This video features
     four video clips from health
    care town halls around the nation where citizens use
     the Constitution to make their case against
     Obama's proposal for a government takeover of health care.


    Tags: Obama communism

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 18:41
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    http://frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=36166 


      Obama's Oil Man By:
    Tait Trussell

    FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, September 02, 2009


    President
    Obama is adept at rewarding those who put him into office. And hard-left financier George Soros is emerging as a leader of the patronage pack.

     

    A payback to Soros was due. As the chief moneyman behind left-wing political action committees like MoveOn.org, Soros, an early supporter of Obama, played an instrumental role in drumming up voter mobilization and political advertising on the novice candidate’s behalf. In no small part, Obama’s triumph in the Democratic primary over better-known rivals was a testament to Soros’s deep pockets and his political commitment.

    Now it’s time for Soros to collect on his investment. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the Obama administration has committed up to $10 billion to Brazil’s state-owned oil company Petrobras to finance oil exploration off of Brazil’s coast.

    Yet Obama historically has opposed expanded oil drilling. This was not only a strategic decision, aimed at pleasing the environmental Left, but also a personal choice, since Obama sincerely believes that drilling is deeply destructive to the natural environment. Thus, as a Senator, Obama voted against permitting the U.S. to drill for oil and natural gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on the grounds that it would be a crime to despoil such “beautiful real estate.” Similarly, during last year’s presidential campaign, he warned of the “environmental consequences” of oil drilling, and insisted that “we cannot drill our way out of the [energy] problem.”

    But apparently George Soros can. The president has elected to help another nation with the same type of drilling that he opposes so vehemently for this country, and the reason seems to be Soros’s $811-millon investment in Petrobras. The company just happens to be the largest holding in Soros’s investment fund. Soros’s connection to the company is no secret; he has been investing in Petrobras since 2007. A profitable venture, Petrobras has estimated recoverable reserves for the so-called Tupi oil field of between 5 and 8 billion barrels. With his billion-dollar loan, Obama has taken patronage politics to striking new level.

     

    The Petrobras loan may be a windfall for Soros and Brazil, but it is a bad deal for the US. The administration is prepared to lend up to $10 billion to a foreign company to drill off its coast, when it could bring in $1.7 trillion in government revenue, as well as create thousands of new jobs, by allowing drilling off the coast of the United States.

     

    This is no empty speculation. The American Petroleum Institute estimates that oil exploration in the U.S. could create 160,000 new, well-paying jobs, as well as $1.7 trillion in revenues to federal, state, and local governments, all while fostering greater energy security. Federal data from the Minerals Management Service of the U.S. Department of Interior says the U.S. has enough oil and natural gas to fuel more than 65 million cars for 60 years, and enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years. In fact, the government estimates that there are 30 billion barrels of undiscovered technically recoverable oil on federal lands currently closed to development. But rather than investing in the country’s energy future, the administration seems to be offering an expensive kickback to a political ally in a time of economic recession and high unemployment.

     

    The oil deal stinks for other reasons, as well. For instance, there is the rank hypocrisy of Soros – an enthusiastic proponent of global warming theory and environmental liberalism – investing in the fossil fuels whose use he otherwise condemns – and doing so in part with the aid of taxpayer funds. For years, Soros has urged the adoption of a global carbon tax that would punish companies that contribute to global warming. But that didn’t prevent him from plowing money into Petrobras.

     

    The cozy Soros-Obama alliance goes beyond favorable oil deals. It’s also playing a role in the health care debate. Huge demonstrations dedicated to enacting Obama’s universal health care are largely a Soros-financed operation. When tens of thousands of people rallied in the nation’s capital in support of Obama’s health care plan, the demonstrations were organized by Health Care for America Now! (HCAN), a new national grassroots movement of more than 1,000 organizations in 46 states encompassing 30 million people dedicated to winning health reform now.

     

    The “grassroots” organization appears to be more like a gang of interconnected ultra-liberal pressure groups. Among the 21 members of its steering committee are such Soros-funded groups as ACORN, MoveOn.org, and the Center for American Progress (CAP), headed by Clinton former chief of staff John Podesta, who also has been a key adviser to Obama. Soros’s charity, the Open Society Institute, in 2007 gave CAP $1.75 million and approved added grants of $1.25 million.

     

    Obama’s collusion with Soros and his agenda-driven squadrons is an unfortunate turn from an administration that entered office promising unprecedented transparency in the White House. Soros certainly did his share for Obama. Now, with his backing for a billion-dollar oil loan to a Brazilian company, the president has proven more generous to Soros than to the American voters who put him in office.





    .

    Tags: OBAMA SOROS

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:44
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar