Jueves, 29 de abril de 2010
 

Comprehensive Immigration Reform

The Coup de Grace

 By Michael Oberndorf, RPA

  Wednesday, April 28, 2010


With all of the Marxist legislation being rammed through Congress by the neofascist Obama/Pelosi/Reid cabal, you would think it would be hard to pick the most dangerous one of all. But really, folks, it’s frighteningly easy. It’s the upcoming amnesty bill, euphemistically called by the leftist, globalist majority in Congress, Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

This as yet unwritten bill (thus, as with the “stimulus” and “healthcare reform” bills, we cannot possibly know what is in it until it is actually signed into law) has nothing to do with immigration, fairness, or race. It’s sole purpose is to inflate the rolls of Democrat voters with as many as 12,000,000 people, mostly from countries with long histories of voter fraud and corruption, where bribery is a way of life, and constitutional liberty is unknown. The effect of this would be to give the neofascists an insurmountable majority, allowing them to quickly and permanently turn America into a Marxist dictatorship.

But wait, the propagandists and liberal apologists say, what about fairness? To which I say, what is fair about foreign criminals – for that is, by definition, what people who break the law to enter our country are – what is fair about foreign criminals stealing 12,000,000 jobs from American workers, at a time of massive suffering due to double-digit unemployment? But they only take jobs that Americans won’t do, the leftists say. This is a huge lie, as anyone who has looked at a construction site or the crew on a state road job or a federal contract job, etc., knows. And guess what else? These are the good paying jobs that used to held mostly by American minorities. No more. I constantly see contractors on federal, state, and private jobs who are the only citizens on the whole crew. Just what the hell is fair about that?

But…but…this is racist! It will be aimed at brown-skinned people! Well, yes, but only to the degree that most of the illegals are brown-skinned. However, as anyone who is even marginally familiar with Mexicans – not Chicanos, folks, Mexicans – can spot them a mile away. They dress and act very differently than Chicanos, and they don’t speak English. The only people in this country legally who don’t speak English are usually seriously old, which the vast majority of illegals are not. In any case, a criminal is a criminal, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc, etc, ad nauseam. And frankly, the people who have made race the defining characteristic of their social, economic, and political policies, are the real, hypocritical racists, and have no credibility.

The criminal aliens who have overrun our country have cost hard-working American taxpayers billions of dollars, and hundreds of lives of people killed by drunken, un- or illegally licensed drivers, or murdered by violent sociopaths. When is Obama, who has in his narcissistic autobiographies and by his close associations made it clear that he hates white people, going to show some concern for what is fair to Americans – of all races? However, when you have a “president” who appears to have gotten into office by fraud – Remember ACORN? Seen proof that he is a natural born American? – one who is clearly a puppet of fascist/globalists like George Soros, do you really expect him, or the corrupt party that he fronts for, to put the interests of America and Americans first?

We are on the verge of unprecedented disaster. Amnesty must be stopped, and illegal aliens must all be sent back to their countries of origin. If we don’t, America will cease to exist as a free nation, and we will have no one to blame but ourselves…


Tags: obama Immigration Reform

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:04
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
 

New name for Obama: The Manchurian President


Bookexposes radical nexus behind chief executive that is changing America


Posted: April 28, 2010
9:56 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily


President Obama has deep ties to an anti-American extremist nexus that has been instrumental not only in building his political career but in crafting current White House policy,charges a new book.

"The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and other Anti-American Extremists," is set officially to be released Monday.
The book exposes an extremist coalition of communists, socialists and other radicals working both inside and outside the administration to draft and advance current White House policy goals.

With more than 800 citations, the brand-new, autographed title from WND senior reporter Aaron Klein bills itself as the most exhaustive investigation ever performed into Obama's political background and radical ties. Klein's co-author is historian and researcher Brenda J. Elliott.

"The Manchurian President"
 contains potentially explosive information not only about President Obama but also concerning other officials in the White House, including top czars and senior advisers Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod.


The book also includes an extensive investigation into Obama's own background. The work uncovers, among many other things, Obama's early years, including his previously overlooked early childhood ties to a radical, far-left church. The book provides copious new details about Obama's deep ties to the unrepentant Weatherman Underground terrorist group founder William Ayers and about the president's boyhood years in Indonesia, the world's most populousMuslim nation.

Of all Obama's radical associates from the past, few received more attention or were as shocking as his connection to Ayers. The book uncovers for the first time where and how Obama first met Ayers – and it is much earlier than previously believed.

"The Manchurian President" also unmasks, exclusively,important aspects of Obama's carefully covered-up college years, withnew details of his student career at Occidental College and later atColumbia University.

Obama's associations with theNation of Islam, Black Liberation 
Theology
 and black political extremists are also revealed, with extensive new information on the subjects.
Also detailed are Obama's deep tiesto ACORN, which are much more extensive than previously documented else where. The book crucially describes how a socialist-led,ACORN-affiliated union helped facilitate Obama's political career and now exerts major influence in the White House.

In one chapter, the book unmasks the extremists among Obama's "czars" and other top advisers, including new information linking Axelrod and Jarrett to communist activists.
The many issues pertaining to Obama's eligibility to be president are carefully examined and given a much more extensive analysis than in previous works, including questions about Obama's birth documentation and whether or not he legally qualifies as a "natural-born citizen" according to the U.S.Constitution.

"The Manchurian President" also exposes how Obama's health-care policy, masked by moderate populist rhetoric, was pushed along and partially crafted by extremists, some of whom reveal in their own words that their principal aim is to achieve corporate socialist goals and a vast increase in government powers.

"I believe this work is crucial to Americans from across the political spectrum," says Klein,"including main stream Democrats who should be alarmed that their party has been hijacked by an extreme-left fringe bent on permanently changing the 
party
 to fit its radical agenda.

"Indeed, this book will document,with new information, Obama's own involvement with a socialist partywhose explicit goal was to infiltrate and eventually take over theDemocratic Party and mold it into a socialist organization," Kleinclaims.

Klein began investigating Obamaduring the 2008 presidential campaign and broke major national stories. He first exposed the politician's association with Ayers in a 
widely circulated WND article.

That story prompted the Nation magazine to lament, via the CBS News website, that "mainstream reporters now call the Obama campaign to ask about Klein's articles."

It was in a WABC Radio interview with Klein that Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to Hamas, "endorsed"Obama for president, generating world headlines and sparking controversy. Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain and Obama repeatedly traded public barbs over Hamas' positive comments.

Klein was among the first reporters to expose that Obama's "green jobs" czar, Van Jones, founded a communist organization and called for "resistance" against the U.S.government. The theme was picked up and expanded upon by the Fox NewsChannel's Glenn Beck, leading to Jones' resignation last September.

Co-author Brenda J. Elliott is a historian, author and investigative researcher known for her 
blogging
 duringthe 2008 presidential election about Ayers, Tony Rezko and other controversial figured linked to Obama. Since 1988, Elliott has been responsible for a number of historical projects, has won an award by Project Censored for her work and has been named "One of the Intriguing People" by Central Florida magazine.
The introduction to "The Manchurian President" relates: "Barack Obama is backed by and deeply tied to an anti-American fringe nexus that, as this book will show, was instrumental not only in mentoring Obama and helping him to build his political career, but essentially in overthrowing the moderate wing of the Democratic Party and in securing and powerfully influencing Obama's presidency.

"As will be seen, these radical associates not only continue to influence Obama and White House strategy, but some are directly involved in creating the very policies intended to undermine or radically transform the United States ofAmerica."

Autographed! Get Aaron Klein's "TheManchurian President" at WND's Superstore.




Tags: obama Manchurian

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:38
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
SENATORIAL COMMITTEE THREATENS LAWSUIT

by Sharon Rondeau



Ft. Hood is the largest active-dutybase in the U.S. military
(Apr. 29, 2010) — The Pentagon underthe Obama regime has refused to turn over documentation from lastNovember’s fatal shooting of 13 people, one of whom was pregnant, atFt. Hood, TX by an Islamic terrorist.
The U.S. Senate issued a subpoenadeemed “unusual” requesting information on witnessesand communications which the Pentagon is unwilling to release becauseit contends that it could imperil the investigation of Maj. NidalHassan.
According to The WashingtonPost, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee claimed 
Congress is seeking information whichthe Pentagon and FBI are reluctant to release on the grounds that itmight “have a potentially negative impact” on the prosecution of thecrime, including interviews already conducted with witnesses andHasan’s personnel file.  According to Collins and Lieberman,military and FBI personnel were permitted to speak with investigatorsbut not with members of their Committee.
The Committee, chaired byLieberman, began 
According to a Fox News reportdated April 20, 2010, the deadline for the administration toturn over all of the requested documentation was Monday, April 26, 2010.
The information which the Pentagonwill not release is documentation ofcommunications between Hasan and Anwaral-Awlaki, a Muslim terrorist residing in Yemen.  There isevidence that the two conspirators discussed the appropriateness ofjihad against U.S. military serving in Iraq as well as “innocentpeople.”
An official description on thewebsite for Ft. Hood states: “Fort Hood covers a total of 340-squaremiles and supports multiple units, a corps headquarters and a robustmobilization mission. Fort Hood also meets the training and supportrequirements for many smaller units and organizations, thus maintaininga vital defense force for the United States of America.”
However, when Hasan opened fireon November 8, 2009 on his fellow soldiers, 14 were killed, includingan unborn child.  Awlaki is considered a Muslim terrorist recruiterwith whom Hasan had beenin contact as early as 2008.
Family members haveapparently reported that Hasan wanted toleave the military and had retained an attorney to assist him despitereceiving a promotion to the rank of Major during 2009, about sixmonths before the shooting.
A Pentagon spokesman stated that “Thedepartment has and continues to cooperate with Congress while ensuringthe integrity of both the administration’s own internal reviews as wellas the criminal investigation and prosecution of NidalHassan.”   However, Lieberman and Collins stated that their“efforts have been met with delay, the production of little that wasnot already publicly available, and shifting reasons why thedepartments are withholding the documents and witnesses that we haverequested.”
According to a report published shortly afterthe murders, Hasan had written posts about suicide bombers, describingtheir plans to kill “enemy soldiers” as “a strategic victory.”
© 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reservedinternationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on ourcopyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader ofevery page, along the left margin.


Tags: obama Ft. Hood

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:19
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 27 de abril de 2010

The man John Jay warned about

An investigative report detailing the Obama eligibility controversy

 By Doug Hagmann  Tuesday, April 27, 2010

imageI cannot think of any other subject in recent American history that has been so mired in controversy, so factually misrepresented, mischaracterized and so misunderstood than the matter of the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II to hold the office of President of the United States. Despite its importance, the topic has been summarily dismissed as fodder for conspiracy theorists by many, while others insist that the question of OBAMA’s citizenship has been “asked and answered.” But has it really been answered, and if not, why not?

In consideration of the controversy that continues to plague Barack Hussein OBAMA over his citizenship status and his well documented sustained pattern of refusal to provide authenticated documentation of his birth records and numerous other pertinent records, I’ve conducted an in-depth investigation into the matter in an effort to separate fact from fiction, myth from reality. My approach was the same I’ve used as an investigator over the last 25 years on behalf of Fortune 100 companies in their selection of corporate executives, conducting due diligence background investigations. In this case, however, I was not afforded direct and unfettered access to the “applicant’s”, or in this case, OBAMA’s original records. Nonetheless, I conducted inquiries and a lengthy investigation researching the information directly or indirectly disclosed by OBAMA, as well as collections of documents, court records, official federal and state documents, verbal statements, utterances and other documents determined to be of authentic provenance.

At issue is whether Barack Hussein OBAMA or any of his representatives have furnished sufficient documentation to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution that 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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”
Presently, OBAMA occupies the White House as the
Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America. As president, he is the commander-in-chief of our armed forces and ultimately responsible for the security of the United States. Any person of reasonable sensibilities would logically believe that his eligibility status has long been established by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) or those in positions of oversight for such matters. But has it?

In order to be as comprehensive as possible, my investigative findings include important background information into the legal definition of a “natural born citizen” as applicable to Article II of the U.S. Constitution. This background information is provided to clear up many common misconceptions about the eligibility controversy, and to explain why so many people are confused and easily misled over this issue. After thoroughly investigating this matter, I have found demonstrable evidence that this confusion is a deliberate and highly effective tactic used to divert attention from a constitutional issue and thus, the rule of law, to the detriment of American citizens.

This report will also provide insight into the reasons for the largely ignored yet unprecedented legal fight by Barack Hussein OBAMA II, his representatives and assigns, against any release of the authenticated copy of his long form birth certificate and a multitude of other relevant historical documents.

More…


Tags: obama Hagmann

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:02
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Dr. Manning: We have proof of Obama’s ineligibility

JURY TRIAL MAY 14-19 TO BE “AN INTERNATIONAL EVENT”

by Sharon Rondeau

Dr. James David Manning, who will be conducting a jury trial to hear charges against Obama next month

 

(Apr. 27, 2010) — Today The Post & Email welcomed back Dr. James David Manning, Ph.D., to speak about the upcoming Columbia University Treason and Sedition Trial which he is conducting in Harlem, NY, from May 14-19, 2010.  Dr. Manning reports that he has documented evidence that Barack Hussein Obama II is not a “natural born Citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution to be President of the United States, and that Obama also did not attend Columbia University from 1981-83 as Obama has claimed.

MRS. RONDEAU: In your most recent video, you stated that a highly-placed government official will be testifying at the trial.  How did you get him to agree to testify, and will he be there in person or submitting something written?

DR. MANNING: Right now, we are anticipating at least two government officials will testify.  One will be through statements that will be uttered that will be documented, and the other will be a physical presentation where he will actually take the stand.

MRS. RONDEAU: And are they in government now or were they past employees of the federal government?

DR. MANNING: One is in government now, and one is a past employee.

MRS. RONDEAU: How did you reach out to them and when?

DR. MANNING: Actually, one reached out to me and the other became a matter of my investigation discovery.

MRS. RONDEAU: How long has the investigation lasted?

DR. MANNING: I have been following the Obama ineligibility issue from 2007, quite frankly, but more emphatically since the election on November 4, 2008.  That is when I began observing the issue of ineligibility more closely.  I have been on this matter for a couple of years now.

MRS. RONDEAU: How long have you had a formal investigation going on?

DR. MANNING: Six months or so.

MRS. RONDEAU: I know that the trial will take place May 14-19.  You’ve also mentioned a march around Columbia University.  Does that coincide with those dates, or will that be at a separate time?

DR. MANNING: The two are synonymous.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you have any other key witnesses coming?

DR. MANNING: I have some very interesting witnesses that I have subpoenaed such that if they show up, it will be explosive.  If they don’t show up, we’re going to have them testify based on previous statements they have made, carefully observing the rules of evidence to enter those statements into evidence.  Having said that, I have subpoenaed George Stephanopoulos, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Condolezza Rice; I have subpoenaed Michael Sovern, the President of Columbia University at the hour when the breach and the infractions took place; and I have subpoenaed Rod Blagojevich, whom I think is integral to a number of things that went on with the surrender of Barack Obama’s law license back in the spring of 2008 when Blagojevich was still governor; I want to talk to him about that.  I’ve subpoenaed all of the faculty that were a part of the Political Science program during the years that Obama would have been a student at Columbia University.

More recently, I have subpoenaed Louis Farrakhan and Jesse Jackson mainly because they were in Chicago in an eminent way during the years that Obama was an alleged community organizer.  Jesse Jackson was running PUSH and the Rainbow Coalition, and Louis Farrakhan was eminent in  forming the Million Man March, and Obama was allegedly a community organizer during a stretch of years.  I want to know what their relationship was and why they did not know him until he rolled into the Senate seat in Illinois some years later.  More specifically, the tenor of Chicago needs to be outlined by those two leaders.

I have also subpoenaed James Cone, who is a professor and the founder of the whole idea of Black Theology.  He wrote a very explosive book in the early ’80s outlining black theology.  He was the mentor of Jeremiah Wright, who was Obama’s pastor for 20 years.  Jeremiah Wright has developed his theology out of James Cone’s Black Theology; all the tenets which Wright preaches are based on Cone’s philosophical, religious and cultural outline.  I’ve subpoenaed him for two reasons.  One is that Dr. James Cone was an eminent professor at the Union Theological Seminary, which had a very close relationship with Columbia University.  During the years that Obama would have studied at Columbia, James Cone was right across the street as the most eminent black theologian in 1979-81.  Everyone on the planet was talking about James Cone then.  I want to ask James Cone this one question:  Why is it that he and Obama never knew each other with Obama being a black person searching for his roots, and James Cone right there  with everyone wanting an interview with him.  Why didn’t Obama take any classes with him?  The Union Theological Seminary and Columbia University were connected.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think it’s significant that they apparently never met?

DR. MANNING: I think it’s telling beyond belief that if Obama was indeed, in his own words, “searching for his roots,” if James Cone was teaching in the school Obama attended, why didn’t they know each other?

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think perhaps they met or had dealings with each other and neither one will admit it?

DR. MANNING: Well, let’s find out.  If they concealed the information, why?  I have a hunch that they did not; in fact, I know that they didn’t, because James Cone was my professor as well during those years.  Perhaps they had lunch; I doubt it, but if they did, why did they conceal it, and if they didn’t, there is no way that Obama could have been at Columbia and not have known James Cone.  And also, James Cone and Cornell West were both professors from 1979 to 1985 at Union Theological Seminary, which had a close relationship with Columbia University.  Both were my professors during those years.  Not only do I want to know why Obama did not know James Cone; I want to know why he didn’t know Cornell West.  At the time, these two men were perhaps the two most important black men on the planet, and for Obama not to have had any contact with them, or to mention them in any of his writings or speeches, leaves a big question mark, and I want to know why.  I’ve subpoenaed those four men to come to testify; now whether they come or not remains to be seen.

MRS. RONDEAU: Is there a penalty if anyone does not honor your subpoena?

DR. MANNING: The  Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives us the absolute, mandated right to call for a trial with a jury of we the people sanctioned by the Constitution if we discover that the courts or government officials are not executing their duties and allowing the people due process.  Thusly, the Constitution empowers our courts.  We, at times, will present evidence that crimes have taken place.  At that point, it becomes the responsibility of the officials to arrest those who have been charged with crimes in a public and duly-authorized hearing or court.  We will point out that crimes did take place.  If the court is duly authorized, then the contempt of that court is also an infraction, and you can be arrested for that as well.  So anyone who does not show up can be in contempt of a duly-authorized, Tenth Amendment, constitutionally-mandated court.  That’s the best way to answer that.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you have a mechanism to enforce it?

DR. MANNING: We will present the information to the local officials.

MRS. RONDEAU: How many people do you expect to be there, not counting media?

DR. MANNING: We have several people, more than 50, who have submitted their names to serve as jurors.  I suspect that number will go well past 100 before we actually begin the process of selecting 12.  We have other people also who have volunteered to participate in the trial:  stenographers, artists, technicians – a large number in those areas.  In terms of observers and those who will march around Columbia University, the Columbia march and the trial will happen in tandem, so we will start each day with a march around the compound of Columbia University.  It will have the biblical basis of the Joshua march around the city of Jericho.  We will do it by that example and then come back to the courtroom, which is only seven blocks from Columbia. The trial will start each day about 11:00, because it will take us about an hour or so to do the march around the campus.

How many people participate in total is anybody’s guess…all I know is that we’re getting a flurry of activity and information and registration of people who have stated that they are going to be here.  I suspect we’re going to see thousands upon thousands…I estimated at one point 30,000…I really don’t know.

MRS. RONDEAU: When will you finish selecting the jurors?

DR. MANNING: That is a matter of whether or not Columbia and/or Obama will send defense attorneys to make an attempt to represent themselves, so it’s hard to say.  A jury selection process could go for a day and a half or two days, perhaps.

MRS. RONDEAU:    So people might arrive there thinking that they’re going to be on the jury, and that might not be the case.

DR. MANNING: They have to be here on the morning of the 14th and they have to register well in advance.  There’s a registration login at our website where jurors can log in and register.  But they will have to be here on the morning of the 14th in the courtroom in order to be a part of the jury.

MRS. RONDEAU: And then you’ll start selecting jurors just as any other grand jury would?

DR. MANNING: Yes.

MRS. RONDEAU: During the trial, do you expect that evidence will come out that specifically points to Obama being ineligible for the presidency, or is your evidence focused strictly on the Columbia University issue?

DR. MANNING: The trial, at present, is being structured by me, as a prosecutor, in three phases.   Phase One will demonstrate unequivocally with proof, with documentation, with statements, with a plethora of evidence that Obama is indeed not a natural born Citizen.  That would be the objective, and we will have evidence that will substantiate that at least 12 different acceptable ways.  From there, we will demonstrate that since he isn’t natural born, he violates the U.S. Constitution.  That’s No. 1.

The second stage of the trial will demonstrate that the alleged Columbia years were not spent at Columbia University and the issuance of the degree all over the place demonstrates that Obama did not attend Columbia in a traditional or non-traditional, satellite or correspondence course.  He was not enrolled in any of those courses.  We will demonstrate the type of program that Columbia had and the requirements for a political science major to complete and that Obama did not participate at that level, yet he was issued a degree.  We have the documentation at Stage 2 of the trial to demonstrate that both Columbia and Obama were in a criminal conspiracy to issue and to accept, respectively, knowing that he had not completed the required courses to have done so.

MRS. RONDEAU: Was Columbia paid off?

DR. MANNING: They were certainly compensated for their efforts; “paid off” might not be the appropriate term.

The third segment will be to demonstrate that if Obama was not at Columbia for two solid years, then where was he? and why was he?  which would introduce how he was first approached and why Columbia was approached, and we’re going to go through all of the evidence that Obama has presented, which is scant. Columbia has produced absolutely nothing to validate any reason to give him a degree in light of all the questions that were raised about his non-attendance there.  Then we’re going to move to demonstrating the CIA involvement, the Afghanistan involvement, the Patrice Lamumba School in Moscow, how that entire area works and what Obama’s and the CIA’s roles were during those years.

MRS. RONDEAU: So you will cover a lot of ground during those 5-6 days.

DR. MANNING: Yes, we plan to do it as efficiently as we possibly can; we just wonder whether we’ll have enough time, because some of this could take 3-4 days on its own.

MRS. RONDEAU: And you have paper documentation of all of this?

DR. MANNING: Yes, we do.

MRS. RONDEAU: How many private investigators did you use?

DR. MANNING: We used only three, not including myself.  With me, that makes four.  One of them is a trained attorney.

MRS. RONDEAU: Are you able to announce the names of the lawyers and judge who may be presiding, prosecuting or defending during the trial?

DR. MANNING: I would not want to release that information at present.

MRS. RONDEAU: If for some reason  on the 19th you have not finished presenting all of the evidence, is there a mechanism to extend the trial, or does it have to be done within those six days?

DR. MANNING: We are going to approach this matter, if the attorneys for the defense show up, using reasonable and fair procedures that both the defense and the prosecution can agree upon; that’s generally how it’s done.  The defense could spend four days defending one issue that I bring up, so this trial could last for a month.  If it did, then of course both parties would then have to agree to let the trial run its course.  If we get into a contest between the prosecution and the defense attorneys and we recognize that even with the selecting of a jury and the presentation of the prosecution’s case, we’ve exhausted the first 5-7 days, I think it would be agreeable to both the American people and the people involved to do what every other trial does:  let it run its course, and when it’s complete, it’s complete.  We have put the parameters of the trial based on the march around Columbia University at seven days, but that certainly is not a hard and fast rule.

MRS. RONDEAU: At this point, do you know if Obama is aware that this is going to take place?

DR. MANNING: Well, he has been served, as has Columbia University.  We have talked with the officials from New York City’s police department about it, and they are in great deliberations about it as we speak.  I am absolutely confident that he is aware that the trial has been set.

MRS. RONDEAU: Has there been any response from the White House or any defense attorneys for him?

DR. MANNING: None.

MRS. RONDEAU: You may have recently read that attorneys for Rod Blagojevich, the former Illinois governor whom you mentioned a few minutes ago, have subpoenaed Obama to testify at his trial which is expected to start June 3.  The Post & Email just published a story on it.  Do you think that what Blagojevich contends, that Obama is vital to the case because he has different information from what has been presented, is true, and that Obama could be guilty of crimes regarding the selling of the Senate seat?

DR. MANNING: I am convinced that Blagojevich knows of Obama’s crimes, and to subpoena Obama for his trial is an act which is probably as confident as my act of bringing Obama to trial.  I think Rod Blagojevich may be a bit of an odd person in many ways, but I think he knows that Obama has committed crimes and that he has the leverage to use that knowledge in the appropriate way.  Why he did not use it to maintain his governor’s seat could be a matter of the federal investigation and his own crimes, but I am confident that he knows Obama has committed crimes.

I did read that Blagojevich has subpoenaed Obama, but I also read that there was a mistake in the release of seven documents that were supposed to have been sealed regarding Obama and for whatever reason were mistakenly released in the process.  Actually, I don’t think they were mistakenly released; I think they were leaked.  I think that’s a tactic that Obama uses quite often, leaking information.  I think he’s going to do the same thing now:  rather than appearing for the trial, I think he’s going to try to leak his way out of it.    I’ve subpoenaed Rod Blagojevich because I know that he is absolutely integral to information about Obama, and at the appropriate time, we’ll use it.  I think right now, other than Obama’s grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, and Tony Rezko, too, by the way, who has  been shuffled around throughout the correctional system for years and has not been sentenced — that’s unheard-of.  It’s absolutely incredible that this man has not yet been sentenced, obviously because he hasn’t worked out a deal with Blagojevich and Obama.  I wish I could subpoena Tony Rezko, but I’m certainly going to get Blagojevich here.   I think he might come.  More than anybody else, I think Blagojevich might show up.

MRS. RONDEAU: Have you heard anything from him?

DR. MANNING: Not a word.

MRS. RONDEAU: Is there any evidence that gives you the idea that he might come?

DR. MANNING: No.

MRS. RONDEAU: Regarding accommodations for those who will be coming to New York, have you made package arrangements available?

DR. MANNING: We’ve listed some hotels to give people a general sense of the area as well as travel companies such as Expedia, Priceline.com, and all those places which can help people to get into a room and get comfortable.

The week prior to the trial, we will put up a pictorial of the area and a schedule of events right down to the last detail.  All of that will be made available so that when people finally do arrive in New York, they will be able to go through the pictorial and won’t be lost about anything regarding the trial or the march.

MRS. RONDEAU: What will you be doing between now and the trial?

DR. MANNING: At the present time, we are structuring the flow of information and the idea of what we want to see as jurors. Our next step within the next couple of days is to begin to reach out to the Harlem community.  As you know, this is happening in Harlem.  We have 2000-3000 people, at the very least, expected to march through the streets of Harlem, all coming from a conservative, Anglo-Saxon background.  Therefore, we want to make sure that we have done our homework in the community, first of all, by informing the community that the people will be coming and for the businesses, the restaurants, the shops, souvenir places, to be prepared to receive this extra flow of business.  We want to at least offer that as an olive branch to the community.  We also are taking measures to make sure that we reach out to the community leaders so that the people who are integral to the community will recognize that this is simply a matter of justice that needs to take place.  That way, there will not be any disrespect for either group that will be in the community at the time.

Because we believe that a large number of people coming will be middle-aged to elderly people,  we want to make sure that because they will not be able to get into the church but will be seated outside, there will be comfortable seating for everybody, refreshments, water — we’re contacting several of the major bottling companies to get involved in the process and a number of other people who will be integral to making comfortable the days during which people will be sitting and watching the trial on a big screen.   I think our major efforts over the next couple of weeks will be to get the community ready to receive this, and we want the community very much involved in the process.

MRS. RONDEAU: Would you say that most of the people in your immediate community are  or were Obama supporters?

DR. MANNING: I would say that for the most part, they still are, but not at the level at which they were…the kind of energy that was generated during the campaign is not there now.  People were excited because of the campaign and its potential.  They’ve had a year, nearly two years now, to digest Obama’s alleged and illegal presidency, and some of that energy has dissipated, and for the most part, they would never be as excitable as they were during the campaign.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think a lot of them are disappointed in Obama, or do you think they sense that something could be wrong with his legitimacy?

DR. MANNING: I think both.  I think perhaps they’re willing to sweep it under the rug, and perhaps many have said, “Well, you know, if there’s something wrong with his legitimacy, he’s not the first; think about who Bush was,” and a number of other things.  But it has lessened some of his support; it is not as staunch as it was, and I don’t think it will ever be again, quite frankly.

MRS. RONDEAU: Is that true of members of your church who were avid Obama supporters?

DR. MANNING: Yes, it does.  The passing of time and the fact that he has not met any of those expectations as far as the black community is concerned have caused their support to wane.  I think the best way to express that is that many people, even on the very liberal far left, are disappointed with Obama.  They thought that he was really going to demonstrate a change that they could sink their teeth into and be proud of.   He’s disappointed them.  And that’s understandable and appreciable from a political point of view that is legitimate. The black people are equally disappointed, not so much because they had a clear outline of what they thought Obama would be as a black president; I’m not sure what they expected, but they’re certainly not getting it, or anything near it, and they know it in their hearts.

MRS. RONDEAU: So people are starting to understand that he didn’t follow through on what he said he would do.

DR. MANNING: Or become what they thought he would become.  People are floating statements around now that there’s not much difference between Obama and Clarence Thomas or Obama and George Bush, and that is damning!  People are writing that and making valid points, that Obama is continuing the Bush doctrine.  That’s unheard-of, but it’s happening!

MRS. RONDEAU: After the trial, will there be a way to get the information to every single American, particularly if they don’t have internet access?

DR. MANNING: Because the courts have prevented the evidence that I will be presenting at this trial from being presented and deliberated on, they have routinely stated that those who made claims against Obama have no standing, so therefore, the information has been muted, for the most part.  The psychological effect of that is when the courts made such statements regarding that and all the attorneys:  Phil Berg, Orly Taitz, and the others…people who did not understand the procedure thought the courts had ruled against the information.  The courts never ruled against the validity of the information; they ruled against the opportunity to bring that information to the courts that it might become public knowledge.

Our advantage here is that we can then demonstrate that a constitutionally-mandated, Tenth Amendment court hearing has taken place, the evidence has been presented in a credible way that is irrefutable, and there is documented evidence that crimes have taken place…at that point, America is going to have to step back and ask herself a question:  What should we do about this?  Should we disavow the right of the people to call a court, a grand jury…by the way, grand juries are not a part of the government, but yet, certainly are mandated by the Constitution, and as such, on a matter as integral, as important, as all-encompassing as the highest office of our land, are we simply going to ignore the evidence as if it never took place?  I don’t think so.

The other thing is that I am convinced that, knowing the media, they know that this is going on, because the New York City Police Department is making statements such as, “We can’t handle seven days of people marching around; we don’t have the resources to do that; we can’t shut down the streets for seven days.”  Now they’re going to have to do it, but the Mayor has to make the final decision on this.  So the media has been informed.  I guarantee you:  one of the mainstream media-types is going to break this story, because they recognize that if they don’t break it, someone’s going to break it before them…trust me, by the time the gavel falls, they’ll be all over the place.

MRS. RONDEAU: So you do think that the mainstream media, television, perhaps, will report this?

DR. MANNING: I’m confident of it; they’ll have to.  You can’t have white people marching through Harlem and the media not report it.  I don’t care how much they love Obama.

MRS. RONDEAU: If after the trial you find Obama guilty of something and present it to law enforcement, is there any way they can tell you that you don’t have standing?

DR. MANNING: Not unless they’re willing to disavow the Constitution.  If I approached a local precinct or district attorney and said, “I am a witness to a crime; I saw this man sell drugs and then stab the person he sold the drugs to, and here’s the evidence,” if the district attorney says, “You don’t have standing, and I’m not going to act upon that,” then he is negligent in his duty and can be prosecuted himself.  This trial will bring forth testimony of crimes that have taken place, and at that point, somebody has to arrest somebody.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think that will be an outcome of the trial?

DR. MANNING: If it’s not, then the failure to arrest will be a bigger issue.  The matter here is that the authorities are going to have to act one way or the other.  The matter cannot be kept away from the press.  I have likened this to an open door with Columbia University.  There is no way that this matter will not become a national and international event.  We have international people coming to the trial who will be reporting about it in their nations.  The only way that they can stop this information from coming out is to stop the trial.  It will have to be reported and acted upon unless they want to go further and state, “Because of our complicit criminal activity, we’re going to ignore the constitutional mandate allowing people to form a trial and to bring due process to the American people.”

MRS. RONDEAU: So you think this will be the catalyst to get law enforcement to act on this?

DR. MANNING: I’m very confident that it will.

MRS. RONDEAU: Is there anything else you would like to say about the trial and everything that has led up to it?

DR. MANNING: People in government at present, whom I call collectively the “2008 political class” such as John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, the Clintons, Dr. Howard Dean – all these people know of Obama’s ineligibility.  There are people now in the media, Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck (whose statement in particular of “Well, if it was proven that he was ineligible, it would tear the nation apart” makes him a part of the 2008 political class along with all the others), who know that Obama is not eligible and that he is an illegal alien, and they know that he cannot defend himself against such a trial as this. The excuse passed around in board rooms and situation rooms and think tanks has been that if we expose him, it would tear the nation apart; black people in particular would rise up.  And the thing I’d like to say to you, having said that, is this:  that’s a misnomer; it’s a red herring.  First of all, it is a very condescending, patronizing and disrespectful view of black people that their only recourse is to riot.  It’s disrespectful.

While I think that a number of things have remained the same or gotten worse in America, one of the things I can say as an alleged “black” pastor is that black people are not of the mindset of the 1960s when rioting was a solution to their problems.  That is not the mindset of black people anymore, and they just don’t have that energy or that understanding.  They have become a little more politically savvy whereby they go to the polls, or they may march, but certainly not riot.  That needs to be clear.  But even were they of that mindset, I don’t think now, after having observed Obama for a year and a half, that they would be willing to put all on the line to protect someone who can be demonstrated to be guilty and who has embarrassed them, and moreover, suckered them or pimped them and then given black people a black eye because here’s this man who is allegedly the first black president but has a marred, if you will, dirty, dirty background and a dirty secret.  I don’t think they would defend that with riotous behavior.

Muhammed Ali, who was, in his heyday, even more popular than Obama is at present — I mean, he was just a very popular person -  when his title was taken from him, there was not one riot in the street about that.  When Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, there was some setting of fires and some boisterous behavior, but even Robert Kennedy himself stated in a meeting in Indianapolis that he quelled a riot there when he made the announcement and blacks went home peacefully.  So to think that to use a shotgun or to hold a shotgun to the head of the American people to say, “Let this man continue in office, albeit illegally; it is the better of the two evils” is a farce.  It is absolutely the worst possible thing for America and for black people, in particular.  Let justice be done and let America rise up and accept justice, and America will heal itself.  So I think that people using the argument that exposing Obama destroys America is absolutely criminal and the worst kind of condescension toward black people.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think that’s what McCain and the others have been doing?  Is that their justification for not stepping forward and saying, “This man is not an Article II, Section I-eligible person?”

DR. MANNING: Absolutely.

MRS. RONDEAU: The Post & Email very much appreciates your time, Dr. Manning, and we wish you the very best between now and the trial.

DR. MANNING: God bless you.

——————————

Editor’s Note: The Post & Email’s initial interview with Dr. Manning can be found here.  Additional information about Dr. Manning’s ministries and the Columbia trial can be found here.


© 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.


Tags: obama Manning

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:50
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 26 de abril de 2010
 

Educating The Really Really Confused About “Nbc-gate”…

It looks like Nbc-Gate is hitting top volume.  I’ve witnessed some very desperate blogging propaganda trying to stop the bleeding as the nation finally wakes up to the fact that President Obama was a British citizen at the time of his birth.   Having been born with dual nationality, he was born with a recognized allegiance to a foreign nation.  I have explained previously in great detail why this disqualifies him from being President.

That report was closely followed by a historical discovery of Sharon Rondeau at the Post & Email which highlighted the legal opinion of lifelong Democrat  Breckenridge Long - an attorney and graduate of Washington University Law School who later served as Secretary of State as well as U.S. ambassador to Italy under FDR – who, in an article written for the Chicago Legal News, argued that a “native born citizen” of the US who is also born to a British father is not a “natural born citizen” by  stating – in 1916 – about Presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes:

“It is not disputed that Mr. Hughes is not a citizen of the United States, but if he had the right to elect, he must have had something to choose between. He was native born because he was born in this country, and he is now a native born citizen because he is now a citizen of this country; but, had he been a “natural born” citizen, he would not have had the right to choose between this country and England; he would have had nothing to choose between; he would have owed his sole allegiance to the government of the United States, and there would have been no possible question, whether he found himself in the United States or in any other country in the world, that he would be called upon to show allegiance to any Government but that of the United States.”

There you have a lifelong Democrat politician – who served at a high level of Government service – making the argument that President Obama would not be eligible to the office of President despite his place of birth.  Is the former Democrat Secretary of State now to be retroactively attacked as a wing nut birther?

The historical dam is breaking as more and more evidence surfaces proving Obama is not eligible.  A reader of this blog who has asked to remain anonymous recently provided further historical proof that Obama is not eligible to be president. The New Englander And Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845) states:

The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President.  In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.

That is serious on point historical research.  At the time of his birth, Obama owed allegiance to Great Britain.  That is not disputed, it is admitted by the President himself.  And this admission is the true problem Obama faces should this issue ever make its way to the Supreme Court.  Obama owed allegiance to great Britain when he was born.

In a previous article, I highlighted the opinion of Alexander Porter Morse, taken from the Albany Law Review article entitled, “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT”:

“If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are  essential  to intelligent discussion.”

It’s a rather clear testimony to the fact that simply being “native born” does not mean that one is “natural born” but “accuracy and intelligent discussion” are not the goals of propaganda.  A fraudulent blogger who shall remain nameless attempted to justify Obama’s eligibility with the following lie:

“Some people have confused Alexander Morse’s paper on child born (abroad) to two US citizens being natural born citizens as a necessary requirement. Of course, anyone familiar with Alexander Morse realizes that he never held such a position…”

It appears the liar has selectively failed to read the quote above as well as Mr. Morse’s letter to the Albany Law Journal of December 18th, 1884, which states:

It seems to the undersigned, aside from judicial sanction, that the children of aliens born in the United States are, to use the language of Judge Cooley in another connection, ” subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only in a much qualified sense; ” until they take some steps submitting themselves to the jurisdiction…

This letter was written in 1884 – before Wong Kim Ark was decided.  His article quoted above, was written in 1904 – after Wong Kim Ark.   The historical evidence proves that Morse held the same point of view before and after Wong Kim Ark.  The article and the letter both indicate clearly that Morse would not have agreed Obama was eligible.

History, what a concept.

Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.

Pidgeon & Donofrio GP

This entry was posted on April 26, 2010 at 9:43 AM and is filed under Uncategorized . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed Both comments and pings are currently closed.


Tags: obama Donofrio

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:10
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar



Obama's attempt to impose a final solution onIsrael

Obama’s 5 Big Lies About Israel

 By Daniel Greenfield  Monday, April 26, 2010

In preparation for his attempt to impose a final solution on Israel, Obama is spreading a variety of lies through the media and his spokesmen about Israel. And by exposing thoselies, we can best get at the truth.

Netanyahu Must Choose Between Obama and his Right Wing

What Obama’s people would like you to believe here is that all it would take to restore good relations with the Obama Administration is for Netanyahu to reject the “extremists”and do what Obama tells him to do.

But in fact the vast majority of Israelis support Netanyahu’s position that Jews have the right to live anywhere in Jerusalem, and oppose Obama’s position that Jews have no right to live or build homes in parts of Jerusalem that were seized by Jordan in 1948 and ethnically cleansed of Jews.

Netanyahu’s real choice is betweenObama and the vast majority of his country’s voters. By demanding tha the turn his back on them and do what Obama says, the real demand here is for Netanyahu to completely disregard Israel’s democracy, and betray his own electorate, and enact Apartheid in Jerusalem. This will supposedly appease Obama. And all Netanyahu has to do is disregard the Israeli people’s wishes in favor of DC’s wishes.

So Netanyahu must choose between Obama and democracy. And the media is blasting him because he chose democracy over Obama.
Obama Wants Netanyahu’s Right Wing Coalitionto be More Centrist

More centrist. Really? Netanyahu’s current coalition includes the left wing Labor party, an immigrant’s rights party and the party of Sefardi Jews. It even has an Arab Muslim Deputy Minister.

So what is Obama’s idea of a centrist Israeli government? One that jettisons Shas, the party of Jewish refugees from Muslim countries, and Yisrael Beitenu, the party ofJewish refugees from the USSR—in favor of Kadima, an illegitimately created party headed by Tzipi Livni, a former member of Netanyahu’s own Likud party. How is a coalition with Kadima more “centrist” than acoalition with the Labor party and parties that represent Israel’s different minorities? The answer is it isn’t. The only thing “centrist” about Kadima, is that Tzipi Livni air headedly endorses every Obama proposal, which hasn’t exactly made her popular in the country. But it has made her popular with Obama, who wants to force her into a coalition with Netanyahu.

If you believe the Washington talking heads, Livni will make Netanyahu’s coalition more centrist than former Labor Prime Minister Ehud Barack. This despite the fact that Kadima officials 
have repeatedly stated they will not enter any coalition headed by Netanyahu.

Let me emphasize this again. Obama’s people are trying to force Netanyahu to drop two parties, one of Jewish refugees from Muslim countries and another of Jewish refugees from Communist countries—(it’s not too hard to figure out why Obama would dislike both) in order to form a more “centrist” coalition with aformer member of his own party.

Tensions Between Obama and Israel Were Caused by Netanyahu’s “Insult” Toward Biden

The truth is that the relationship between Obama and Israel has always been bad. And that’s not surprising. Obama was a long time member of a church whose pastor,the Reverend Jeremiah Wright portrayed Israel in terms reminiscent of Nazi newspapers. He was friends with Rashid Khalidi who was a spokesman for the PLO terrorist organization. His own background as a child was in the Muslim world, where Israel is viewed as nothing short of the devil.

Once elected, Obama made his first phone call to current PLO head and Holocaust denier, Mahmoud Abbas. And it didn’t take long for the administration to begin making demands of Israel, and then refusing to accept any compromises. All this was long before Biden paid a brief visit to Israel, and pretended to be outraged because potential housing on an empty plot of land in Jerusalem went through one part of a multi-stage approvals process.

Was Biden offended by this as a demonstration of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem? Not likely since Biden himself had
 co-sponsored no less than three Senate resolutions in support of a United Jerusalem under Israeli rule. If we are to believe that Biden was offended, then he was offended by policies he himself supported.

The truth of the matter is that the Obama Administration was looking to pick a fight and waited for an incident that they could claim was an Israeli provocation. Israel didn’t insult America, Biden or Obama by approving possible housing tobe built in Jerusalem. Rather Obama who had always disliked Israel,took the chance to pick a fight, while pretending to be the victim.

Netanyahu Must Come Back to the NegotiatingTable

What negotiating table? Israel has spent almost two decades at the negotiating table. It has given up land and put even its own capital on the table under Prime Minister Barak (currently a member of Netanyahu’s “Right Wing” coalition. The Palestinian Arabs have never put anything on the table. They have taken and taken.

Netanyahu has already agreed to freeze home building in Judea and Samaria. Check points have been dismantled, despite the fact that this allows terrorists to slip through and murder Israelis. Israel has repeatedly offered to go back to the negotiating table. It is Abbas, the first foreign leader that Obama spoke to, 
who refuses to negotiate. Not only that Abbas has asked Obama to impose asolution.

If Abbas wants Obama to impose a solution. And Obama wants to impose a solution. Then what is there left to negotiate? The exact place where Obama will impose his solution.This argument is a cynical ploy to blame Israel for not wanting to negotiate, when in fact Israel is the only party in this conflict that wants to negotiate and that has consistently tried to negotiate.

But neither Obama nor Abbas are interested in negotiations. They only want Israel to obey their demands.

Israel is Costing the US Blood and Treasure

The US has fought three wars since Vietnam. Each of those wars were fought on behalf of, or against Muslims. In the Gulf War, the US responded to Saddam’s invasion of its Kuwaiti allies with armed force. In Yugoslavia, the US intervened on behalf of Kosovar Albanian Muslims. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US overthrew Muslim dictatorships and tried to stabilize the two countries.

It is Islam that has cost the US an untold fortune in blood and treasure. It is Muslims that have dragged the US into three wars. In the Gulf War, the US was responding to an invasion of Muslim Kuwait. In Yugoslavia, the US was responding to the supposed ethnic cleansing of Albanian Muslims. In Afghanistan and Iraq,the US was fighting back against an Al Queda attack, motivated by the presence of a US base in Saudi Arabia, and in Iraq, against Saddam Hussein’s continuing defiance of sanctions.

Thousands of Americans dead and hundreds of billions of dollars. Now that’s real blood and treasure. And the toll keeps on climbing. But in truth the first “Blood andTreasure” extracted by Muslims from America predated the modern Stateof Israel. Instead it took place on the “Shores of Tripoli” as President Thomas Jefferson chose to go to war with the Muslim pirates who were raiding American ships and enslaving American sailors, because they viewed them as subhuman infidels.

Of course the Obama Administration which has banned any mention of Islamic terrorism, can’t possibly address any of that. All it can do is direct false smears at Israel.

Tags: obama lies Israel

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:46
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Sábado, 24 de abril de 2010

 



Posted on April 24th, 2010 by David-Crockett

Dan Smith wrote the following excellent comment onthis site

It is now a fact that Obama is not a “natural bornCitizen”. Obama admits he was born a British subject of Kenya, whichmakes him “ineligible” to be President under Article II, section 1,clause 5. Obama father was never a u.s. citizen. In fact, Obama’sallegiance by law is to the British Empire forever.

Then Dan Smiththe fact he became a Indonesian citizenwhen he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. Obama is the phony in chief. Whyelse would the other Military “cases” be dis-missed due to “change” oforders. It was to avoid “DISCOVERY”.

No one in the Military has been guilty of anythingsince Obama took Office. All “order’s” by the Military are subject toChain-of-Command. In this case, it is Colonel Roberts who issuedunlawful commands, and will be most likely be charged with conspiracyand treason for aiding a “usurper”. These are very interesting statutescited at 8 USC 1481.http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html (Indonesia) ALSO:MISPRISION OF TREASON 2383 to 2386http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002382—-000-.html ANOTHER IS: MISPRISION OFFELONY FYI: 18 U.S.C. 4 imposes a legal obligation to report allFederal Felonies to an officer in the Judicial, Civil or Militaryauthorities of the United States (Federal Government):http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/4.html (Failure to do so isanother Federal Felony!) I did not make these Laws up, Congress did.There are many more that apply.

Nowhere in Our Constitution allows anyone except a“natural born Citizen” to be President. The 14 th Amendment onlyaddresses qualifications for Congressmen and Senators, NOT PRESIDENT.The 14 th Amendment also only addresses “citizens” (small cap c),wheras the Articles address Citizens with a (Capital C) as there weretwo classes of citizens at that time.

Big Difference. If “one” studies Our Constitution youwould know. The 14 th Amendment only allows for any child born on u.s.soil to be a (native) “citizen”, which is only a “citizen”, unless thechild is born to two “natural” (biological) Parents who are u.s.citizens at the time of the childs birth. see 1101 natural parent. Ifthe “simple” meaning of “all persons born on u.s. soil” as stated inthe 14 th Amendment is a “citizen”, then that would allow for “any”child born here to be President, even if Fidel Castro had a girlfriendwho he impreganated and sent to the u.s. to have the child born here.He could claim that child as being a Cuban citizen, who would be underCastro’s Allegiance and dual- citizenship. The sooner Our Citizensrealize that Obama is a puppet of a NWO the faster we can put him injail as a common crimminal who presented false identification. NoImpeachment needed as he never met the qualification clause to beginwith.

The real “criminals” are those that conspired withhim and failed to meet their solemn Oath to protect Our Constitution.This is no joke my friends, regardless if you support Obama or Not, heis not Constitutionally “eligible” to be President who works for We thePeople. If you really enjoy the future “taxes” then so be it. I don’thave any kids to worry about, but I do worry about others whose Parentsare too busy “working” to pay for all this crap of free healthcare, andbogus cap & trade. Ooops, I left out illegal Aliens. My mistake.Let me remind you that under “International Laws” , Obama can besubject to any Laws provided by the British, Kenya, and IndonesiaCountries whether Obama denounced them or not. British Law states thatany British subject (now citizen) is their “citizen”forever….regardless of any other Law. The United States has no power totake away another Country’s right’s to their citizens.

IF England passed a Law that any of their “citizens”(which includes Obama) were to be drafted into their Military to fightin a War, then Obama would have to go, regardless if he was ourPresident or not. You might laugh at this, but its true underInternational Law which We adhere to. Think about, then decide whoObama really is! If any of You have Legal verified proof that Obama isa “natural born Citizen” under Article II, section 1, clause 5, I willhelp You collect over $25 Million Dollars in Rewards being offered byseveral individuals in the United States (and Abroad) for a smallcommision. Colonel Gordon R. Roberts, Colonel Peter M. MeHughs willmost likely be charged with unlawful orders under their “usurper”Commander-in-Chief Obama, who has failed to present “any” Legalverifiable evidence of even being a u.s. citizen other than a “forged”COLB (certifiication of live birth) which allows “foreign”citizens.under Hawaii State Statutes, not Federal. (Since when does asingle Sovereign State of 1959 rule over the other States andFederal???)

In my opinion, LTC Lakin will prevail, unless doopedby corrupt Judges who will be charged accordingly, and later on…… TheAmerican People will eventually realize who Obama really is, and hisconspiritors. This is only just starting.


Tags: obama not natural born

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 19:51
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 23 de abril de 2010

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Friday, April 23, 2010


Obama an Unconstitutional Illegal President - 20100201 Issue Wash Times Natl Wkly - pg 5

George Washington Consulted the Legal Treatise "Law of Nations" during his First Day in Office An historical account from the times of what the newly sworn in President George Washington was doing with the legal treatise and reference book borrowed' the legal reference book "Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law" and never returned it to the library in New York and now owes a huge past due fine on that book. This new current events story ties into the importance of that book to George Washington and the other founders. Attached is an image and an the account what the new President was doing with the book in 1789 in New York. The new President was found consulting that book by visitors to his office on his first day in office after the inauguration of him in New York in 1789.

New York was then the capital of the USA. See attached highlighted section of the history book,
This Was New York, The Nation's Capital in 1789, by Monaghan & Lowenthal, published by Books for Libraries Press of Freeport NY. I have a copy of this rare book. But it can also be viewed online at Google's book site.
The Law of Nations by Vattel is a very important legal treatise and was very important to the founding of our nation. It was first published in 1758. The Law of Nations is mentioned in our Constitution in Article I, Section 8. The "Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law" which is its full name was the preeminent legal treatise of the last half of the 1700s and was depended on heavily by the Revolutionary Patriots in the founding of our nation. Benjamin Franklin cited that it was being heavily used during the Constitutional Conventions when he received three new copies of the newest circa 1775 edition from the editor Dumas in Europe. And John Jay the 1st Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court cited it often. This legal book was cited many times by the various U.S. Supreme Courts in the 1800s and much of it became the common law of our land via Supreme Court decisions citing the wisdom conveyed in this book.

And it is this legal treatise by Vattel which defines who the "naturel" citizens are, i.e., the "
natural born Citizens" of a country, i.e., a person born in the country to two citizen parents of that country. This was the law of nature and Vattel codified it in his book Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. This book was the source of the wisdom which prompted John Jay to write to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787, and request that the requirement of "natural born Citizenship" be put into the new Constitution as an eligibility standard for the office of the President and commander of the military, for future holders of that office after the original generation past, to minimize any chances of foreign influences on that singular most powerful office in our new nation.

The founders and framers in their wisdom anticipated the day would come when a citizen of the world funded by foreign money would attempt to take over America. That day has come. Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the USA. He was born a subject of Great Britain. He is not Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of the military for exactly the reasons John Jay stated to George Washington in the summer of 1787.

Obama is a Usurper in the Oval Office and must be removed by We the People.

CDR Charles Kerchner
Pennsylvania
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
http://www.protectourliberty.orgLaw of Nations in New York in 1789.

There was a news account recently that President George Washington '

Tags: obama Unconstitutional

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 22:00
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 22 de abril de 2010
 




BORN IN THE USA?

Army charges Lt. Col. Lakin

Officer demanding proof of eligibility accused of failing to report for duty


Posted: April 22, 2010
3:15 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily



The U.S. Army has filed two charges against Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who earlier posted a video inviting that action, over his refusal to follow orders until Barack Obama documents his eligibility to be commander-in-chief.

The documents, filed today and posted on the SafeguardOurConstitution website,which is generating support for the officer, cite alleged violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice Articles 87 and 92.

Lakin publicly asked the president to document his eligibility and expressed a willingness to deploy with the 32nd Cavalry Regiment to Afghanistan, without response from the White House.

The filing of charges may, however, be part of the still-unrevealed strategy Lakin and his legal counselors are pursuing.

Formally, Lakin is accused of "through design" missing ""the movement of US Airways Flight Number 1123, departing from Baltimore/Washington International Airport arriving in Charlotte, North Carolina, in order to deploy for a Temporary Change of Station in support of Operation Enduring Freedom with the 32nd Calvary (sic) Regiment, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Kentucky, with which he was required in the course of duty to move."

The second charge accuses Lakin of failing to report "to the office of his Brigade Commander, Colonel Gordon R. Roberts, at 1345 hours, or words to that effect, an order which it was his duty to obey…"

Neither the Army nor Lakin's counsel, Paul Jensen, responded immediately to requests for comment.

At the SafeguardOurConstitution website, however, it was explained the first charge, "missing movement" is a serious crime in the nature of a felony. The second is "disobeying a direct order" and includes four specifications.

"Any soldier convicted on all charges and specifications would expect to be sentenced to years at 'hard labor' in the penitentiary," the site explained..

(Story continues below)

   

WND had reported just days ago when Lakin appeared on the G. Gordon Liddy show with Jensen and discussed the situation.

Then, Jensen hinted the president's proof of eligibility could come up during the course of the government's prosecution of his client.


The charges against Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, the highest-ranking and first active-duty officer to refuse to obey orders based on President Obama's eligibility.

"In the (Uniform Code of Military Justice), just as you would expect, criminal defendants have the process of the court, for subpoenas and depositions under the rules that are prescribed," attorney Jensen said during the interview on Liddy's nationally syndicated radio show.

Jensen was on the program with his client, Lakin, who posted a YouTube video inviting his own court-martial because he believes military orders under an ineligible president are illegal. He then posted a letter telling Obama it's up to him to provide the proof.

"I'm not going to say what we are going to do other than we are going to do what you would want us to do," Jensen said.

The attorney avoided broadcasting any specific defense strategy for the case developing against Lakin.

But he expressed confidence there will be an aggressive discovery phase in preparation for a defense of the charges.

"Every criminal defendant has to be allowed the benefit of doubt to discover information relevant or which may even lead to the discovery of relevant information that could support his case," he said.

"It would shocking to me that a defendant ... would not be permitted to discover information that would lend itself to proving his [case]," he said.

The discovery issue previously was raised in court by attorney John Hemenway, who was threatened by a federal judge with sanctions for bringing a court challenge to Obama's presidency.

Hemenway is serving in emeritus status with the Safeguard Our Constitution website, which is working to raise support for Lakin.


Hemenway brought the court challenge on behalf of a retired military officer, Gregory S. Hollister, who questioned Obama's eligibility.

Here is the only "birth certificate store" around! Read about the hunt for Obama's documentation!

The Hollister case ultimately was dismissed by Judge James Robertson – who notably ruled that the federal legal dispute had been "twittered" – and therefore resolved – during the 2008 election campaign.

Robertson sarcastically wrote: "The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his commander in chief (because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven – to the colonel's satisfaction – that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be president.

"The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court," Robertson wrote.

Then the judge suggested sanctions against Hemenway for bringing the case, and Hemenway responded that the process then would provide him with a right to a discovery hearing to see documentation regarding the judge's statements – not supported by any evidence introduced into the case – that Obama was properly "vetted."

Hemenway warned at the time, "If the court persists in pressing Rule 11 procedures against Hemenway, then Hemenway should be allowed all of the discovery pertinent to the procedures as court precedents have permitted in the past.

"The court has referred to a number of facts outside of the record of this particular case and, therefore, the undersigned is particularly entitled to a hearing to get the truth of those matters into the record. This may require the court to authorize some discovery," Hemenway said.

The court ultimately backed off its threat of sanctions.

WND columnist Vox Day earlier wrote about this very scenario, calling it a "get out of war free" card.

The comments followed the case of a reservist who challenged the legality of his deployment orders under Obama. The orders later were canceled by the government.

"Rather than contesting the suit," Day wrote, "the Army took the highly peculiar step of revoking the major's deployment order, suggesting that the Pentagon generals are not entirely confident that they can demonstrate the legitimacy of their purported commander in chief.

"The Pentagon's decision to back down rather than risk exposing Obama's birth records to the public means that every single American soldier, sailor, pilot and Marine now holds a 'get out of war free' card."

Obama's actual response to those who question his eligibility to be president under the Constitution's requirement that the U.S. president be a "natural born citizen" has been to dispatch both private and tax-funded attorneys to prevent anyone from gaining access to his documentation.

While Jensen declined during the radio program several opportunities to outline strategies, he said, "We are going to zealously pursue every opportunity and every avenue that Lt. Col. Lakin is not guilty of the charges brought against him."

Responding to one radio-program caller's instructions to "Give 'em hell," Jensen responded, "You can count on it."

He also asserted the information obtained in any trial should be public record.

"There is no reason that I can foresee that classified information would come out [during a prosecution and trial]," he said. "These are public proceedings. I rather think the press will cover any trial and the evidence will be public."

He said the public can support Lakin through prayers and through a legal-defense fund.

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."

WND has covered a multitude of challenges and lawsuits over the issue. Some have alleged that he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 has he has written, or that the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens – Obama's father was a subject of the British crown at Obama's birth – from being eligible for the office.

The issue has prompted a number of state legislatures to work on proposals that would require presidential candidates to submit proof of their eligibility. And a similar proposal has been introduced in Congress by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.

Lakin and his private counsel told Liddy they are addressing this "important question about the Constitution."

"It's by far the most difficult thing I've ever done," Lakin said during the interview. "The Lord blessed me with a great family, wife and good upbringing. I've tried to uphold the principles espoused by my parents and do the right thing and not take the easy way out. I just seek the truth."

"My motivation stems from my oath of office to defend and uphold the Constitution," Lakin said. "It's the Constitution. That needs to be upheld."

"We look forward to defending his case as events arise," Jensen said.

He suggested that the president's continuing efforts to withhold documentation that could resolve the question is, in itself, suggestive of a lack of evidence.

He also said that the failing of many of the cases that have been brought – standing or the issue of political question – "do not come into play in any way in Lt. Col. Lakin's defense."

Lakin told Liddy he tried to resolve the questions through formal channels.

"I did seek out … friends and my chain of command in how to address this issue and hopefully get answers. … Really there was no forthcoming help from legal resources in the military and I did what I could on my own – essentially researching and finding out about (Uniform Code of Military Justice) Article 138 complaint I attempted to file over a year ago."

But he said he was told his complaint didn't have to be addressed.

WND founder and CEO Joseph Farah and WND senior investigative reporter Jerome Corsi also appeared on the program to offer questions to Lakin, with Farah pointing out a new CBS–New York Times poll revealed only 58 percent of Americans even "think" Obama was born in America.

Lakin earlier released a copy of a letter he sent to Obama saying, "the burden of proof must rest with you."

The letter, posted at the Safeguard Our Constitution website, which is assembling support for the officer, describes how Lakin tried through his chain of command and his congressional office to get answers to questions about Obama's eligibility.

Lakin originally announced his position with a video stating he would not follow orders because he was not sure of their legality under Obama, who has concealed personal information that could confirm he meets the constitutional requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen."

There's a new strategy to get answers to Obama's eligibility questions. See how you can help.

Lakin is not the first officer to raise questions. Others have included Army doctor Capt. Connie Rhodes and Army reservist Maj. Stefan Cook. But Lakin is the highest-ranking officer to raise the question.


Besides Obama's actual birth documentation, the still-concealed documentation for him includes 
kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records,
 Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from
the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator,
 his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.


"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard helps light up the night at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip.

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?"

The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 500,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility,the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

A new effort now asks those in authority regarding the nation's elections to demand the full proof.

The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.

Your donation – from as little as $5 to as much as $1,000 – can be made online at the WND SuperStore. (Donations are not tax-deductible. Donations of amounts greater than $1,000 can be arranged by calling either 541-474-1776 or 1-800-4WND.COM. If you would prefer to mail in your contributions, they should be directed to WND, P.O. Box 1627, Medford, Oregon, 97501. Be sure to specify the purpose of the donation by writing "billboard" on the check. In addition, donations of billboard space will be accepted, as will significant contributions specifically targeted for geographic locations.)

If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND.

Note: A legal-defense fund has been set up for Lt. Col. Terry Lakin.



Tags: obama Lakin

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:51
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
 

Seals Honor in Court vs Enemy

By dipinion on Apr 21, 2010 in Politics


Tags: obama Seals

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:16
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, April 22,2010, 5:22 AM

More Hope and Change-

Attacked
Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, April 22, 2010, 5:22 AM

More Hope and Change-
The Obama Administration sends out another warning… To Israel.


The Danger Room reported, via Mere Rhetoric:

The Obama Administration sends out another warning… To Israel.

The Obama Administration won’t rule out firing on Israeli jets if Iranis attacked by Israel.
TheDanger Room reported, via Mere Rhetoric:

America’s top military officer wouldn’t rule the possibility todayof U.S. forces firing on Israeli jets, if Israel launched a pre-emptivestrike on Iran.

In a town hall on the campus of the University of West Virginia, ayoung Air Force ROTC cadet asked Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of StaffAdm. Mike Mullen to respond to a “rumor.” If Israel decided to attackIran, the speculation went, those jet would need to fly through Iraqiairspace to reach their targets. That airspace is considered a “no-fly”zone by the American military. So might U.S. troops shoot down theIsraeli jets, the airmen asked the chairman, if they breached thatairspace?

Mullen tried to sidestep the question. “We have an exceptionallystrong relationship with Israel. I’ve spent a lot of time with mycounterpart in Israel. So we also have a very clear understanding ofwhere we are. And beyond that, I just wouldn’t get into the speculationof what might happen and who might do what. I don’t think it serves apurpose, frankly,” he said. “I am hopeful that this will be resolved ina way where we never have to answer a question like that.”

This isn’t the first time we’ve heard this.
Last September, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former foreign adviser to USpresident Jimmy Carter and current advisor to Barack Obama, calledfor the US to shoot down Israeli jets.


Tags: obama Israel

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:49
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
 

Individuals Named Below Are Hereby Declared Domestic Enemies Of The United States Of America In Commission Of Treason

Lt. Col. Lakin, and Commander Fitz

 By Jim O'Neill  Wednesday, April 21, 2010

imageIndividuals Named Below Are Hereby Declared Domestic Enemies Of The United States Of America In Commission Of Treason

[At the end of a rather lengthy list]: [Adm.] Michael Mullins (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff), [Adm.] Gary Roughhead (Chief of Naval Operations), Robert M. Gates (Defense Secretary), [Adm. Ret.] Dennis Blair (National Security Advisor), Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House of Representatives), Joe Biden (purported U.S. Vice President), Barack Hussein Obama (also known as Barry Soetoro, also known as Steve Soetoro), illegal alien, infiltrator, and impostor United States president.

 

From the Affidavit of Criminal Complaint filed by Walter Fitzpatrick III (Lt. Commander USN Ret.) sworn, signed, and issued Monroe County, Tennessee, 0945, Monday, March 29, 2010

“I, _____, 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…. So help me God.”

From the U.S. military Oath of Enlistment

“Presidents and congressmen come and go; our Constitution lasts forever.”

Miles, Olson “Citizens are rising up to defend Constitution

According to the Cornell University Law School website, a person guilty of “misprision of treason” is legally defined as: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same…is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.” 

In addition, withholding knowledge of the commission of a felony, is known as“misprision of felony,” and, of course, carries a jail term as well. Identity theft and social security fraud are both considered felonious crimes. If you know of someone who has committed either crime, and you stay silent, you can be prosecuted for misprision of felony.

Obama’s lack of concrete proof for eligibility to be POTUS

“Aiding and abetting,” “collusion,” “misprision…” these and other terms are perhaps of little importance, but the penalties are not.  You might think that more people would be concerned about their participation, either active or inactive, in covering up Obama’s lack of concrete proof for eligibility to be POTUS.

Nonetheless, the Lame Stream Media has been committed to sweeping the issue under the rug since day one. No surprise there, as the media is almost exclusively slanted to the left; the only question is to what degree—hard-core left, or only mildly anti-American.

What has been a surprise, and a disappointing one, is the “roll-over and play dead” acquiescence of the only TV news network that has any claim to journalistic integrity—Fox News.  Sean Hannity has at least kept quiet on the subject, but Bill O’Reilly has been smug, condescending, and dismissive of any attempts to question Obama’s legitimacy to be POTUS. 

Most disappointing of all, has been the fact that Glenn “Question with boldness—Hold to the truth—Speak without fear” Beck, has taken the same tack as O’Reilly. 

So, the fix is in—across the board. Nobody’s going to ride to our rescue.  It’s up to “we the people”—WE are the cavalry riding to America’s rescue.

The good news is that more people are joining the “cavalry” every day, and far from going away, or being swept under the rug, the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be POTUS, is growing rapidly into thee cause célébre. 

O’Reilly et al. had best decide quickly, just how much egg they want on their faces, and others might want to start looking at their careers, and decide how much longer they’re willing to continue sticking their necks out for a lost cause.

Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, “Colonel Birther” to the left

Some heartfelt thanks are due to those brave souls who have kept this issue alive, and suffered a torrent of abuse in the process. The names are too numerous to list here individually, but surely a “short list” would include Charles Kerchner, Mario Apuzzo, Philip Berg (former Deputy Attorney General for Pennsylvania), Walter Fitzpatrick III, and most recently, Lt. Col. Terry Lakin—called “Colonel Birther” by the Left.

Margaret Hemenway, Lt. Col. Lakin’s spokeswoman recently said, “...people continue to be enthralled” by the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be POTUS. Ms. Hemenway is deadly earnest about defending Lakin, and her comment shouldn’t be misread as making light of the topic. Her comment merely points out that Obama’s eligibility to be POTUS isNOT going to go away because the “powers that be” wish it to, or the Left ridicules the topic. 

Seldom will the Left argue the facts straight up—the facts seldom, if ever, favor their position. Instead they throw up straw men, toss out red herrings, and lash out through ad hominem attacks and/or ridicule. A word to the Left—you ridicule Lt. Col. Lakin at your peril—“we the people” will not stand for it.

Lakin’s “issue” with the POTUS is succinctly stated in his official letter to the President: “...until an original birth certificate is brought forward that validates your eligibility and puts to rest the other reasonable questions surrounding your unproven eligibility; I cannot in good conscience obey ANY military orders.” 

Man of integrity and honor

Lt. Col. Lakin has a stellar record. According to Ms. Hemenway his record puts him in the top 10% of U.S. Army doctors—he is undoubtedly a bright, articulate, man of integrity and honor. He is a mere couple of years away from being eligible for full retirement—why would he put his entire career on the line, in order to question his CINC’s (Commander IN Chief’s) eligibility? 

Because he IS a man of integrity and honor.

If you haven’t yet seen the short video that Lakin made to go with his letter, then I urge you to do so. CJ Graham, a fellow vet, describes Lakin’s facial expression as he makes his statement before the video camera:

“I have seen that look before. It is the look of a man who did not advance enthusiastically to a fight, but did not shirk his responsibility, when the fight was brought to him. ...It was the look of a man who knows he has just risked everything he is, all he has stood for, worked for and loved, for his country. A man resolved to the fight, resigned that it must be him, and though he did not seek it out, he would not waver.”

U.S. Army Chief of Staff, General George “Diversity First” Casey, should take note as well. If the Pentagon’s top brass think that Lt. Col. Lakin’s attitude represents only a small minority among the U.S. military, then they need to think again.

According to an article in the “Army Times” this past January, six out of ten military personnel feel “uncertain or pessimistic” about Obama’s role as CINC (survey run by the “Military Times&rdquoGuiño. One Marine remarked “...nobody has confidence in this guy [Obama] as Commander in Chief.” Many see the current administration and Congress as being rotten to the core, (or in this case, rotten to the Corps). 

POTUS has been blatantly hiding his past from the American electorate

Let’s pretend for a moment that we’re not all being treated like mentally challenged six-year-olds, and that it’s out on the table that the current POTUS has been blatantly hiding his past from the American electorate. Let’s also pretend that neither the media, nor our judicial system, find it laughably funny when “we the people” insist on knowing the REAL history of the person running America’s economy, military, and domestic/foreign policies.

Let’s pretend as well, that America is still a republic, ruled by law as filtered through the U.S. Constitution.

If we pretend all those things, then it makes perfect sense to question Obama’s eligibility to be POTUS, and expect our concerns to be treated as legitimate, vitally important issues .

Unfortunately, in all too many cases, our legal system has been so twisted and perverted over the years, it no longer represents a republic ruled by law, and “we the people” are being treated like dim-witted, unruly six-year-olds, and mocked and ridiculed by the media, pundits, the judicial system, and politicians.

Speaking of twisted and perverted legal systems, Walter Fitzpatrick III (Lt. Cmdr. Ret USN), who single-handedly took on the U.S. Navy’s courts-martial system, has recently taken on the Tennessee grand jury system as well.  Here and here.

Mr. Fitzpatrick considers the military courts-martial system, and Tennessee’s grand jury system to be rigged, corrupt, and stacked against any honest patriot “playing by the rules.”

Commander Fitz’s experiences, claims, and findings, hold profound implications for anyone who has been court martialed (or faces courts-martial), anyone who has dealt with, or is currently dealing with, a Tennessee grand jury, and those seeking to make Obama accountable for his citizenship.

Commander Fitz’s run-in with the Tennessee legal system began when he attempted to have Obama tried on charges of treason. In the beginning of his case against Obama, Commander Fitz was a lone voice crying in the wilderness, and scant attention was paid to his efforts. Such is no longer the case.

According to law, the grand jury in Monroe County (where Mr. Fitzpatrick has filed his complaints), should convene for no more than a year (two years under exceptional circumstances)—the jury foreman supposedly is limited to the same one or two year time-table. Mr. Fitzpatrick informs me that the current grand jury foreman in Monroe County has been in place for over 27 years.

On April 1, while attempting a citizen’s arrest of Mr. Pettway, the Monroe County jury foreman, for “fraud, treason, and forgery,” Commander Fitz was arrested (“kidnapped”in his words) and held incommunicado in jail for almost a week. He was not Mirandized, or supplied with an attorney. 

Most recently, on April 20, Mr. Fitzpatrick had his first day in court since his arrest. At this point Commander Fitz was no longer a lone voice, and people are definitely “sitting up and taking notice.”

According to an email I received from Mr. Fitzpatrick, there were “at least 200 uniformed police present.” There were also helicopters, tactical troops in BDUs, Tennessee State Troopers, and K-9 units. We won’t mention the plainclothes.

I think it’s safe to say that Commander Fitzpatrick has got people’s attention.

Commander Fitz told an assembled crowd of supporters, “It’s just beginning.”

Indeed.

According to Mr. Fitzpatrick, the “Pendleton Eight,” Lt. Behennna, and the three SEALs accused of being too mean to a Muslim terrorist, are victims of military politics, disingenuous propaganda, and corruption within the military legal system. There are, of course, other victims of military injustice.  Herehere, and here 

It looks like the American legal system, in and out of the military, might be in need of a thorough washing, and perhaps squeezed through a wringer afterward.

If you would like to help support Commander Fitz, you can find his website at The JAG Hunter—the jaghunter.wordpress.com

I’ll finish by quoting Pastor James Manning, (at the end of a video in support of Commander Fitz). 

“Praise God, and Boomshakalaka!” (I’m not sure what the “shakalaka” part means exactly, but I’m sure it doesn’t bode well for certain folks).

Laus Deo!


Tags: obama Fitzpatrick

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:21
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Miércoles, 21 de abril de 2010
 

Beyond  Coincidence

By Lynn M. Stuter


MichNews

By Lynn M. Stuter

Posted in: Guest Commentary 

Tuesday, April 06, 2010 - 8:24:48 AM ET

Let us examine what we already know about the eligibility of Also Known As (AKA) Obama. We know that he claims to have been the child of Ann Dunham Obama and Barack Hussein Obama (Sr), a British subject at the time of AKA's birth. We only know what he claims as we have seen no proof.

We know that while AKA claims his birthplace as Hawaii, we don't know that is really true because, while AKA admits that his birth certificate exists — that is, the one issued at or near the time of his birth — all that anyone has seen are pictures of a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) supposedly issued in 2007, printed on a form established in 2001 and printed with a laser printer. We only know what he claims as no one, of authority, has actually seen, handled, or inspected what AKA contends is his COLB.

The state of Hawaii, while issuing COLB's in lieu of a certified copy of the actual birth document, has categorically refused to authenticate the document AKA claims is his authentic COLB. Likewise, the state of Hawaii has been unable/unwilling to produce any documents that would prove AKA actually requested a COLB, a prerequisite to obtaining a certified COLB.

We also know that the pictures that have turned up on the internet of the document AKA claims is his COLB have been photoshopped. We also know that pictures are not proof of the authenticity of a document; the only proof is in examination of the actual document which has not occurred.

We know that AKA claims he was a dual citizen at birth, of both U.S. and British citizenship which became Kenyan citizenship when Kenyan became independent of Great Britain. Of course, dual citizenship precludes his eligibility to the office of president of the United States under Article II, Section I, Clause 5, United States constitution, requiring he be "natural born". This clause was used by the Founding Fathers in reference to Vattel's Law of Nations, Part I, Chapter 19, Section 212, which states:

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

This clause, of course, makes it clear that if Obama Sr is AKA's father, that AKA was a British subject at birth, then a citizen of Kenya when Kenya became independent of Great Britai, following his father's citizenship. This also comports with the British Nationality Act of 1948, Part II, Section 5; much of which was repealed in 1981 but in force in 1961.

The contention has been made that AKA is a U.S. citizen by virtue of his birth in Hawaii to an American mother. Beyond the fact that if Obama Sr is his father, AKA would have followed the citizenship of his father, we do not know that he was born in Hawaii because we do not know that the COLB is authentic and we do not know that he actually was born in Hawaii. He says he way, but AKA has told so many lies, can we believe this is anything other than another lie?

We do know that under Act 96, Laws of the Territory of Hawaii, Regular Session of 1911, Special Session of 1909 and the Organic Act, in effect from 1911 until repealed in 1972, foreign-born children could be birth registered in Hawaii. We also know that Obama's supposed birth certificate number is out of sequence with babies born in the same time-frame; that his birth certificate number is after the birth certificate numbers of babies born after he was supposedly born. We also know that, if born in Hawaii, his name does not exist in the Hawaii birth index, in 1961, before or after.

All of this, of course, raises the specter of who registered his birth in Hawaii and where was he actually born. We know that no hospital in Hawaii has claimed title to his birth, not even the hospital where he now contends he was born, Kapi'olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital. Only inspection of the actual birth document, the one that AKA has but refuses to provide for inspection, will reveal the facts.

Then there are the social security numbers that AKA has used; one issued in Connecticut and one issued in Michigan, neither a state he has ever lived in. These two social security numbers are tied to addresses where AKA is known to have lived in Chicago. True to nature, his mother also used social security numbers that were not hers, one belonging to a western Washington woman who is still living. We know that illegal aliens use social security numbers that are not theirs but that law-abiding American citizens don't need to.

Added in is the matter of AKA's adoption by Lolo Soetoro and his subsequent registration, on January 1, 1967, at the Fransiskus Assisi Primary School in Jakarta, Indonesia, as Barry Soetoro, Indonesian citizen of Muslim faith. We know that in thedivorce papers of Ann Dunham Soetoro vs. Lolo Soetoro, Barack, then over the age of 18, no longer a minor, was listed as a dependent of Lolo Soetoro for the purposes of education. Since step-children are not the responsibility of a step-father, under divorce proceedings, this points to Barry Soetoro actually having been adopted by Lolo Soetoro, of his being an Indonesian citizen. That Barry was mentioned as a dependent of Lolo Soetoro for the purposes of education raises the specter that such was done so Barry Soetoro could receive aid as a foreign student to attend college or university in the United States. AKA's Occidental College records have been sealed, making it impossible to ascertain whether he received aid as a foreign student while attending there. If he did, it is obvious that he was not an American citizen when he attended there.

Beyond this, there has been no proof presented that Barry Soetoro, if even able to do so, reclaimed American citizenship.

And there seems to be a large discrepancy between AKA's Selective Service registration and support documents and other Selective Service registrations and support documents, also from Hawaii in the same time period. By all appearances, AKA's selective service documents have been altered or forged bringing further into question when those documents were actually submitted, in 1980 or in 2008.

As an American, AKA would have been required to register with the Selective Service in 1980; as a non-resident student going to school in the United States, he would not have been required to register. Further, if an American in 1980, if he did not register for the Selective Service in 1980, such would preclude him from ever holding a public office.

The anomalies in his Selective Service registration indicate one of three things: 1) he was not a citizen in 1980; or 2) he was a citizen in 1980 but did not register; or 3) his Selective Service registration was forged in 2008 to make it appear he was an American in 1980.

Many have questioned what country issued the passport on which AKA traveled, in 1981, to Pakistan. In the spring of 2008, the passport files of AKA, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, held by the State Department, were breached. Two contractors were fire and a third disciplined. A key witness in this matter, cooperating with "federal investigators", was found shot to death in his vehicle on April 19, 2008. The shooter has never been found.

Like his Occidental records, his Columbia University records have also been sealed. What we know is that no one, graduating the same year as AKA supposedly graduated from Columbia, can remember him, either in their class or in their classes; nor does he appear anywhere in the Columbia University year books. Reverend David Manningclaims that the years AKA claims to have spent at Columbia were actually spent working for the CIA in Afghanistan. That Dr Manning has had his life threatened by "government types", following his voicing of these claims, lends credence to his claims.

Equally so, AKA's years at Harvard are sketchy with no information forthcoming and his records sealed. Even though he was supposedly the first "black" president of the Harvard Law Review, the articles required of him as president of that prestigious publication don't seem to exist.

Then there is the claim that he was a Law Professor teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago. As it turns out, he was not a professor but a lecturer, big difference; that he was not well-liked by others who viewed his presence as politically connected.

Recently, more evidence has surfaced that brings into question AKA's eligibility. A video has surfaced of a speech given by Michelle Obama on August 26, 2008 at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender (LGBT) Delegate Luncheon during the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado. Michelle Obama's speech was not "off the cuff." Why this is important is because of what she said.

The speech, approximately sixteen minutes in length, can be listened to, in its entirety,here. Toward the end of her presentation, Michelle Obama made the following remark:

"He has also spoken out against the stigma surrounding HIV testing, which is still plaguing so many of our communities, which you all know … a lot of that is due to homophobia. Barack has led by example. When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, we took a public HIV test … for the very point of showing folks in Kenya that there is nothing to be embarrassed about in getting tested." (emphasis added)

This, of course, makes it very apparent that Michelle Obama knows where AKA was born, and that it wasn't in Hawaii or even the United States. She has made similar remarks before. This lends credence to the claim of Obama's paternal step-grandmother, Sarah, that he was born in Mombasa, Kenya; that she was present at his birth.

This also comports with the comments of the Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, Peter Ogego, made to the hosts of the WRIF Mike in the Morning show out of Detroit, Michigan, on November 21, 2008, that AKA was born in Kenya. That conversation was recorded and can be listened to here. (Note: the original website for the Mike in the Morning show and audio transcripts no longer exists.)

One can understand one or two anomalies or coincidences. Coupled with AKA's absolute refusal to produce his actual birth document, all of these anomalies are just a little too far beyond coincidence.

The Senators and Representatives have a fiduciary responsibility to investigate what American citizens have been turning up since November 4, 2008, in spite of AKA's (and the lamestream media's) attempt to squelch all questions concerning his eligibility; and the Senators and Representatives have a fiduciary responsibility to the people of the United States to remove AKA.

Richard Nixon was forced to resign under circumstances far less serious than being ineligible to the office of president, of being an illegitimate usurper in the Oval Office, occupying the White House.

What does this matter?

If the Constitution of the United States does not matter than neither does your freedom.

If the Constitution of the United States does not matter than neither does the rule of law.

But, if the Constitution of the United States does matter, than whether or not AKA is eligible to the office he holds also matters. If he is not eligible, then it is the duty of Congress to remove him. And if he is not eligible, all that he has done, since sworn into office on January 20, 2009 is null and void. And if he is not eligible, not only has he committed a crime but those who aided and abetted him have committed crimes against the American people.

Considering the AKA makes no bones that he is a Marxist, makes no bones about his intent to steal the freedom of the American people, if the Congress refuses to act, the American people are duty-bound to do so.

© 2010 Lynn M Stuter – All Rights Reserved


Share/Bookmark



Website Note: Views expressed by individual authors and/or sources do not necessarily reflect those of MichNews.com.

To submit feedback, news articles, commentary, news tips and suggestions, please Click Here.



By Lynn M. Stuter

Tags: obama eligibility

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:02
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 20 de abril de 2010
 
 

Tancredo urges Tea Partiers to send Obama back to Kenya

By Eric Zimmermann - 04/19/10 02:11 PM ET

Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) urged Tea Partiers this weekend to help "send [Obama] back" to Kenya.

Speaking at a rally in Greenville, S.C., on Saturday, Tancredo cited remarks Michelle Obama made earlier this month in which she called Kenya was the president's "home country."

"If his wife says Kenya is his homeland, why don't we just send him back?" Tancredo said, according to the Greenville News.

Asked about Tancredo's comments, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed them as "lunacy."






"I could probably fill the better part of my afternoons responding to the lunacy of people such as Tom Tancredo," Gibbs said.

Talking Points Memo has more on the fiery rhetoric at the rally.


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

http://www.thestate.com/2010/04/18/1248600/obama-assailed-at-upstate-tea.html

News - S.C. Politics

Sunday, Apr. 18, 2010

Obama assailed at Upstate Tea Party

Bookmark and Share
 

GREENVILLE - Anger and indignation were served up in giant helpings outside the Bi-Lo Center on Saturday as several thousand Tea Party activists cheered speakers who attacked President Barack Obama as a lying, taxing, foreign-born, anti-American socialist.

Waving signs and flags with slogans including, "It's the Constitution, stupid" and "Vote them all out," people gathered around a stage where keynote speaker Tom Tancredo, former Colorado congressman and 2008 candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, said Americans have reached the point where "we're going to have to pray that we can hold on to this country."

As for Obama, Tancredo said, "If his wife says Kenya is his homeland, why don't we just send him back?"

- The Greenville News



Read more:
http://www.thestate.com/2010/04/18/1248600/obama-assailed-at-upstate-tea.html#ixzz0lgz5kGyj


Tags: obama Tancredo

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 21:06
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

The certification of constitutional qualification for the office of president

DC Knows that Obama is Ineligible for Office

 By JB Williams  Tuesday, April 20, 2010

imageMembers from all three branches of the Federal government already know that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible for the office of President. National leaders, to include members of the US Supreme Court, already know that Barack Hussein Obama is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, and therefore, is ineligible for the office he currently holds.

What they don’t know is how long it will take for most Americans to figure it out, or what to do about it.

The diversionary search for an authentic birth certificate is ongoing and Obama has now spent in excess of $2 million in legal fees to keep that search alive.

Eric Holder’s Department of Justice continues to deploy taxpayer funded attorneys around the country to file dismissals on behalf of Obama, denying all American citizens access to the courts as a peaceful remedy, which only fuels the fire of discontent and the questions about Obama persist.

Michelle Obama states that Kenya is Barack’s “home country.” She knows, after twenty years with Barack. The Ambassador or Kenya has confirmed the same  His family friends all know it, and are in fact quite proud of the fact that Americans had no hesitation in electing a “black man from Kenya” as President of the United States.

The US Supreme Court knows what the constitutional condition of “natural born citizen” means. Even the most far left member of that court, Justice Ginsberg, is on record proclaiming that a “natural born citizen” is a birth child of TWO legal US citizens.

Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi knows that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the office of president, which is why she refused to certify the following language when certifying Obama as the DNC candidate for president in 2008.

This is the normal language for certification of nomination for president and vice president, filed by the DNC only in the state of Hawaii…

image

This is the language filed by the DNC in the other 49 states, however…

image

Note that the language which certifies that Barack Hussein Obama meets all constitutional qualifications is missing in the DNC documents filed in 49 of the 50 states. The certification of constitutional qualification for the office of president was filed only in Hawaii. That text is missing in the DNC certification filings for all other states.

Whereas the RNC filed the exact same certification document, including the constitutional text for John McCain in all 50 states, Obama was technically certified in only one state, Hawaii. A mere inconvenient technicality, I’m sure…

The US Congress knows that Barack Hussein Obama is not constitutionally qualified for the office he holds. Although the congress passed a resolution proclaiming Senator John McCain a “natural born citizen” as the son of two US citizens, no such congressional resolution exists for Barack Hussein Obama.

The press knows that Obama is not a “natural born citizen,” having written on several occasions about the “Kenyan born” senator from Chicago. A number of citizens have already been arrested and jailed for asking these questions.

Over four-hundred law suits have been filed across the country asking the courts to force Obama to become the “transparent president” he promised to be, and all four-hundred are being dismissed before discovery, all on the basis that “no citizen has proper legal standing” to ask who and what their president really is…

Over a half-million citizens have now signed a petition demanding to see Obama’s birth records.

Numerous members of the US Military have refused deployment orders from Obama, on the basis that he refuses to evidence his constitutional qualifications to issue such orders. In most cases, the soldiers have simply been reassigned, so as to avoid any disciplinary action that could end in “defense discovery” which might finally force Obama to open up his files once and for all.

Now an eighteen year veteran flight surgeon and active Lt. Colonel faces court martial as he makes his demands for proof that Obama is constitutionally eligible to issue orders as Commander-in-Chief.

Obama’s entire domestic, foreign and national defense agenda has proven to be wholly anti-American

Obama’s entire domestic, foreign and national defense agenda has proven to be wholly anti-American on every possible level. Still, the answers concerning who and what Barack Hussein Obama Jr. really is remain elusive in the face of unprecedented efforts to ask the right questions.

No matter who asks, how they ask or where they ask, not one single individual in Washington DC or even state government seems willing to weigh in on the most important issue of our era. Who and what is the man sitting in the people’s White House?

How in the hell did we get an overtly anti-American resident of the people’s White House without so much as a simple birth certificate to prove who this person really is?

And why won’t a single elected representative of the people engage in the effort to force an answer to this question?

The answers to these and many more questions are likely very simple and equally chilling…

The Speaker of the House does not refuse to certify her candidate as “constitutionally qualified” in forty-nine of fifty states by accident

Nobody spends $2 million in legal fees to hide an authentic birth certificate. The Speaker of the House does not refuse to certify her candidate as “constitutionally qualified” in forty-nine of fifty states by accident. A press that knew he was the “first Kenyan born senator” didn’t forget that he was Kenyan born when he decided to run for president.

Most importantly, the people DO have a right (read - proper standing) to ask who and what their president really is, in any court, any time. And soldiers are court-martialed for refusing orders, unless those orders were issued by an illegitimate Commander-in-Chief.

DC knows what most Americans have yet to figure out…

Obama is NOT a natural born citizen no matter where he might have been born. Obama’s birth father was at no time an American citizen and on this basis alone, Obama cannot be a constitutionally qualified resident of the White House.

They know something else that the American people have yet to figure out…

The US Constitution no longer stands as the governing law of this land. Obama’s many unconstitutional policies, Czars, executive orders and statements provide the proof, and the fact that nobody in DC cares whether or not Obama is constitutionally qualified to be president of the United States should send a shiver down the spine of every red blooded American citizen, no matter their partisan agendas.

The people willing to ask the tough questions are deemed crackpots and conspiracy theorists, racists or bigots. But those tough questions should be obvious questions to all Americans and every president should have to answer those questions, no matter race, creed, color or party affiliation.

I fear that those questions will only be answered at the tip of pitch forks and torches one day. Sooner or later, the people will run out of patience with a system built to exclude them. When that day comes, I fear what methods will be employed and whether or not there will be a country left to save by then.

But sooner or later, one way or another, Obama will have to answer those questions. One day, the world will know who and what this man is and there will be a day of reckoning like no other in American history.

The longer it takes for that day to arrive, the more dangerous the situation will become. A man not even qualified to hold the office is using that office to destroy the greatest nation on earth. How much patience can the people be expected to display?

Obama is not eligible for the office he currently holds and everyone in a position to know - already know.

What they don’t know is how much longer they can keep it all a secret, or what will happen next.  


Tags: obama Ineligible

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:49
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=143021

BORN IN THE USA?

Army officer 'flagged' for challenging Obama

'It means there can be no favorable actions taken for me'


G. Gordon Liddy

An attorney for an officer refusing all Army orders until Barack Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief is documented says his client formally has been "flagged" by the military and the formal filing of charges is expected within days.

Attorney Paul Jensen today was on the radio show of G. Gordon Liddy with his client, Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who has told Obama in a letter that it's up to him to provide the proof.

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 various challenges and lawsuits allege Obama was not born in Hawaii as he has claimed and that the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens – Obama's father was a subject of the British crown at Obama's birth – from being eligible for the office.

The issue has prompted a number of state legislatures to work on proposals that would require presidential candidates to submit proof of their eligibility. A similar proposal has been introduced in Congress by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.

Lakin and his private counsel told Liddy today they are addressing this "important question about the Constitution."

"I've been flagged for missing movement and my intent to disobey all orders. That flagging means there can be no favorable actions taken for me," Lakin said.

He explained that he already had been picked for promotion to full colonel, "which would take place in a little over a year. That's in jeopardy now."

Jensen said his client was given "written notice" Monday of the "flagging."

"How tragic it is his promotion is being stopped," Jensen said.

The attorney said the next steps will be for the government to file charges and for an investigation to be commenced.

"It's by far the most difficult thing I've ever done," Lakin said. "The Lord blessed me with a great family, wife and good upbringing. I've tried to uphold the principles espoused by my parents and do the right thing and not take the easy way out. I just seek the truth."

"My motivation stems from my oath of office to defend and uphold the Constitution," Lakin said. "It's the Constitution. That needs to be upheld."

"We look forward to defending his case as events arise," Jensen said.

He suggested that the president's continuing efforts to withhold documentation that could resolve the question is, in itself, suggestive of a lack of evidence.

He also said that the failings of many of the cases that have been brought – standing or the issue of political question – "do not come into play in any way in Lt. Col. Lakin's defense."

Jensen also expressed confidence that discovery will be possible.
 

G. Gordon Liddy and Lt. Col. Terry Lakin at Radio America studios

"Every criminal defendant has to be allowed the benefit of doubt to discover information relevant or which may even lead to the discovery of relevant information that could support his case," he said.

"It would shocking to me that a defendant in a dock would not be permitted to discover information that would lend itself to proving his [case]," he said.

Lakin told Liddy he tried to resolve the questions through formal channels.

"I did seek out … friends and my chain of command in how to address this issue and hopefully get answers. … Really there was no forthcoming help from legal resources in the military and I did what I could on my own – essentially researching and finding out about a UCMJ Article 138 complaint I attempted to file over a year ago."

But he said he was told his complaint didn't have to be addressed.

Jensen said the military's Article 138 procedure wasn't really mean to solve a problem like this.

WND founder and CEO Joseph Farah and WND senior investigative reporter Jerome Corsi also appeared on the program to offer questions to Lakin, with Farah pointing out a new CBS-New York Times poll revealed only 58 percent of Americans even "think" Obama was born in America.

WND reported last week when the Army confirmed Lakin would be assigned to Walter Reed Army Hospital during an investigation.


Lt. Col. Terry Lakin is the highest-ranking and first active-duty officer to refuse to obey orders based on President Obama's eligibility.

Army spokesman Chuck Dasey told WND Lakin is only "under investigation" at this point.

"Lakin reported to the commander, Medical Center Brigade, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, on Monday, 12 April, after failing to report for duty at Fort Campbell, Ky.," a statement sent by Dasey to WND said.

"Lakin will be assigned to duty at Walter Reed pending investigation."

A spokeswoman for Lakin, Margaret Calhoun Hemenway, told WND that whatever the "assignment" amounts to, Lakin's access privileges were revoked, his computer was confiscated and he "is not permitted to support his Hippocratic oath … and take care of the troops as a doctor and a surgeon."

On the day he was supposed to have reported for deployment, Lakin was read his rights by Col. Gordon Roberts, his brigade commander, who discussed the situation with him and told him he had the "right to remain silent" because he was about to be charged with "serious crimes."

Hemenway said the message was that "he will shortly be court-martialed for crimes (specifically, missing movement and conduct unbecoming an officer) that for others has led to lengthy imprisonment at hard labor."

Lakin earlier released a copy of a letter he sent to Obama saying, "the burden of proof must rest with you."

The letter, posted at the Safeguard Our Constitution website, which is assembling support for the officer, describes how Lakin tried through his chain of command and his congressional office to get answers to questions about Obama's eligibility.

Lakin originally announced his position with a video stating he would not follow orders because he was not sure of their legality under Obama, who has concealed personal information that could confirm he meets the constitutional requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen."

There's a new strategy to get answers to Obama's eligibility questions. See how you can help.

"You serve as my commander-in-chief. Given the fact that the certification that your campaign posted online was not a document that the Hawaiian Department of Homelands regarded as a sufficient substitute for the original birth certificate and given that it has been your personal decision that has prevented the Hawaiian Department of Health from releasing your original birth certificate or any Hawaiian hospital from releasing your records, the burden of proof must rest with you," Lakin wrote.

"Please assure the American people that you are indeed constitutionally eligible to serve as commander-in-chief and thereby may lawfully direct service members into harm's way," he continued. "I will be proud to deploy to Afghanistan to further serve my country and my fellow soldiers, but I should only do so with the knowledge that this important provision of our Constitution is respected and obeyed."

He had noted that every soldier "learns what constitutes a lawful order and is encouraged to stand up and object to unlawful orders." And he noted his orders to deploy include a demand for copies of his birth certificate.

But he said he was troubled by the president's decision to conceal "from public view" records that could easily end questions about Obama's place of birth and "natural born" status.

Lakin concluded: "Unless it is established (by this sufficient proof that should be easily within your power to provide) that you are constitutionally eligible to serve as president and my commander-in-chief, I, and all other military officers may be following illegal orders. Therefore, sir, until an original birth certificate is brought forward that validates your eligibility and puts to rest the other reasonable questions surrounding your unproven eligibility; I cannot in good conscience obey ANY military orders."

The Army earlier informally recommended a mental evaluation and then threatened Lakin in writing with punishment.

"On 30 March 2010, this command became aware of your intentions to refuse to follow deployment orders. Your stated reason for refusal was your belief that the election of the President of the United States is invalid because you believe he is not 'native born' [sic]. This counseling is to inform you that your deployment orders are presumed to be valid and lawful orders issued by competent military authority," said the document from the "counselor," Lt. Col. William D. Judd.

The letter reminded Lakin of his April 12 due date at Fort Campbell, Ky.

"Failure to follow your reassignment and/or deployment orders may result in adverse action including court-martial," the officer was warned.

A statement released by Hemenway noted Lakin is being supported by "hundreds" of people who have donated to his legal defense fund.

WND has reported that the controversy raises the prospect that the government ultimately may not want to pursue a prosecution because a defense attorney could demand in court proof that the orders are issued by an eligible president.

Lakin is not the first officer to raise questions. Others have included Army doctor Capt. Connie Rhodes and Army reservist Maj. Stefan Cook. But Lakin is the highest-ranking officer to raise the question.

 

One of the organizers behind the Safeguard Our Constitution website, serving in emeritus status, is John Hemenway, an attorney who previously fought in the U.S. court system on behalf of a retired military officer, Gregory S. Hollister, who also questioned Obama's eligibility.

Here is the only 'birth certificate store" around! Read about the hunt for Obama's documentation!

The case ultimately was dismissed by Judge James Robertson who ruled that the dispute had been "twittered" during the 2008 election campaign.

In that opinion, Robertson sarcastically wrote: "The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his commander in chief (because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven – to the colonel's satisfaction – that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be president.

"The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court," Robertson wrote.

The judge also suggested sanctions against Hemenway for bringing the case, and Hemenway responded that process then would provide him with a right to a discovery hearing to see documentation regarding the judge's statements – not supported by any evidence introduced into the case – that Obama was properly "vetted."

Hemenway warned at the time, "If the court persists in pressing Rule 11 procedures against Hemenway, then Hemenway should be allowed all of the discovery pertinent to the procedures as court precedents have permitted in the past.

"The court has referred to a number of facts outside of the record of this particular case and, therefore, the undersigned is particularly entitled to a hearing to get the truth of those matters into the record. This may require the court to authorize some discovery," Hemenway said.

WND columnist Vox Day earlier wrote about this very scenario, calling it a "Get out of war" free card.

The comments followed the case of Cook, the reservist who challenged his deployment orders over questions about their legality under Obama.

"Rather than contesting the suit," Day wrote, "the Army took the highly peculiar step of revoking the major's deployment order, suggesting that the Pentagon generals are not entirely confident that they can demonstrate the legitimacy of their purported commander in chief.

"The Pentagon's decision to back down rather than risk exposing Obama's birth records to the public means that every single American soldier, sailor, pilot and Marine now holds a 'get out of war free' card."

Obama's actual response to those who question his eligibility to be president under the Constitution's requirement that the U.S. president be a "natural born citizen" has been to dispatch both private and tax-funded attorneys to prevent anyone from gaining access to his documentation.

Besides Obama's actual birth documentation, the still-concealed documentation for him includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.


"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard helps light up the night at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip.

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?"

The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 500,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

A new effort now asks those in authority regarding the nation's elections to demand the full proof.

The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.

Your donation – from as little as $5 to as much as $1,000 – can be made online at the WND SuperStore. (Donations are not tax-deductible. Donations of amounts greater than $1,000 can be arranged by calling either 541-474-1776 or 1-800-4WND.COM. If you would prefer to mail in your contributions, they should be directed to WND, P.O. Box 1627, Medford, Oregon, 97501. Be sure to specify the purpose of the donation by writing "billboard" on the check. In addition, donations of billboard space will be accepted, as will significant contributions specifically targeted for geographic locations.)

If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND.

Note: A legal defense fund has been set up for Lt. Col. Terry Lakin.

 

 


Tags: obama Lakin

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 18:17
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 19 de abril de 2010
 

Military Veteran tells Army official: Investigate Obama, not Lt. Col. Lakin

IF ENLISTED MEMBERS MUST SHOW THEIRS, SO SHOULD OBAMA

April 18, 2010

This photo, taken from the U.S. Army's official website, depicts new service members taking the oath of enlistment. But who is their Commander-in-Chief?

 

Dear Editor:

The following is a letter sent to Army spokesman Chuck Dasey in regard to the case of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who has refused to take any further orders until Obama shows his original birth certificate:

Dear Mr. Dasey,

With all due respect, sir, may I suggest that rather than investigating Lt. Col. Lakin, an honorable, patriotic officer, who was required to show his birth certificate before deployment, you investigate Barack Obama (aka Barry Soetoro), who, to date, has refused to produce his.

When I enlisted in 1963, I had to produce my long form birth certificate. You did, too.  Why, then, does this standard not apply to the man acting as Commander in Chief?

Barack Obama’s first official act after taking office was to sign an executive order sealing virtually ALL of his records and documents that might shed light on who and what he truly is.  I ask you sir, would a man with nothing to hide do such a thing?

Recently, a video has surfaced in which Michelle Obama herself stated that Kenya is Barack Obama’s homeland.  Even more recently, The Kenyan Parliament (on page 31 of the Minutes) stated that Barack Obama is Kenyan-born.

The U.S. Constitution clearly states in Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5, that no person, except a natural born Citizen of the United States of America shall hold the office of President.  That exempts Barack Obama.

Mr. Dasey, you swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.  I doubt that oath has an expiration date.  Isn’t it about time the military started honoring that oath?  I beg of you… do not investigate Lt. Col. Lakin.  Instead, investigate the man who truly needs investigating… Barack Hussein Obama.

Respectfully,

David Briggs
United States Navy, 1963-69
Task Force 116, 573rd River Division

——————–

Editor’s Note: The appropriate military officials may be contacted as follows:

Army Spokesman Chuck Dasey, (202) 782-7500; email:  chuck.dasey@us.army.mil

Army Spokesman Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, inquire with Pentagon switchboard at (703) 545-6700

Pentagon Public Inquiries – 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday – Friday (Eastern Time Zone) – (703) 571-3343

By surface mail:

Pentagon
1400 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1400
(703) 697-1776

Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
9999 Joint Staff Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20318-9999

For Chiefs of Staff of the Army, Secretary of the Army, etc.:

1400 Defense Pentagon
Washington DC 20301-1400

or complete the Department of Defense web comment form here.


© 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.


Tags: Lakin Obama

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:03
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Sábado, 17 de abril de 2010
 

Saturday, April 17, 2010

 

The Court and Congress Expected the Other to Resolve the Obama Eligibility Question

On Thursday, April 15, 2010, Hon. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was giving testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the issue of the composition of the United States Supreme Court. The hearing was broadcast on C-Span. Subcommittee Chairman, Rep. Jose Serrano, D-NY (now the most senior Member of Congress of Puerto Rican descent), and he were having a pleasant exchange. Rep. Serrano was explaining to Justice Thomas how he feels “a little uneasy” despite much of the dismay of his friends on the “left” about having a hearing for the Supreme Court because of the respect that he has for the Court. He added that it was “humbling” but that the public understood the importance of what the Court does and the impact that it has on the future of our country. Justice Thomas thanked Rep. Serrano for his words. Rep. Serrano then jumped in and commented on Justice Thomas’ view on who can sit on the Supreme Court. The following exchange occurred:

Rep. Serrano: I’m glad to hear that you don’t think that there has to be a judge on the Court because I am not a judge. I have never been a judge.

Justice Thomas: And you don’t have to be born in the United States. So you never have to ask, answer that question (smiling).

Rep. Serrano: Oh, really?

Justice Thomas: Yeah (the audience laughing).

Rep. Serrano: So, you haven’t answered the one whether I can serve as (Justice Thomas interjecting) President but you answered this one (smiling).

Justice Thomas: We’re evading that one (laughter from Justice Thomas and the audience). We are giving you another option (more laughter from Justice Thomas and the audience).

Rep. Serrano: Thanks a lot.

Justice Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Rep. Serrano: Mrs. Emerson.

Mrs. Emerson, Ranking Members, then starts to address Justice Thomas as he continues to laugh.

The YouTube video may be viewed at 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7qEH-tKoXA.
A biography on Rep. Serrano may be found at 
http://serrano.house.gov/Biography.aspx.

What does all of this mean in relation to Obama’s eligibility question? What is the message behind all the joking, laughter, and body language that can be viewed on the video? From Justice Thomas’ first mentioning that one does not have to be born in the United States to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, it appears that Justice Thomas is telling Congress that the Court is angry with Congress for allowing Obama to sit as President even though there is a reasonable doubt as to whether he was born in the United States. Rep. Serrano read the real message of Justice Clarence’s statement and let him know about it, saying “Oh, really.” Rep. Serrano did not like Justice Thomas blaming Congress for the mishandling of the matter so he shoots back at Justice Thomas by telling him the Court failed to answer the Obama eligibility question when it should have but now is answering the question of whether someone who is not born in the United States can sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. From this comment we can conclude that Congress did not believe that it was its job to answer the question of whether Obama is eligible to be President and expected the judicial branch of government to answer that question. This is borne out by the many letters that Congressmen wrote to concerned Americans on the question of what was being done to address the issue of whether Obama was eligible for the Presidency. Justice Thomas then answered that the Court is “evading that one” and giving Congress “another option.” Here we can see that the Court is telling Congress that it avoided addressing the Obama eligibility issue so Congress could resolve it through the political process, giving Congress some other unknown “option” to resolve the crisis. We can only speculate what that other “option” is at this point. Needless to say, it appears that both Congress and the Court are angry at each other for the constitutional crisis that each accuses the other to have caused regarding the Obama eligibility question.

The Obama eligibility issue has run its course through the political process. We can reasonably expect Obama to run for a second term. We surely do not want to repeat during Obama’s second run for President what occurred during his first. We cannot reasonably expect to resolve the question of whether Obama was born in Hawaii and the meaning of the “natural born Citizen” clause by way of Americans voting at the polls. This issue is not going away. It is dividing our nation and needs to be decided as soon as possible. There is now no other way to resolve the question of Obama’s eligibility other than through the legal process. As Chief Justice John Marshall so well taught in many of his important U.S. Supreme Court decisions, there is no doubt that the judicial branch of government is well equipped and capable of deciding this critical issue of constitutional law and by doing so will not interfere in the work of the other two branches of government. 
The Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al case which is now pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia with a tentative merits hearing date of June 29, 2010gives the judicial branch of government the prime opportunity to put this constitutional crisis finally to rest one way or the other.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 17, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

P.S. Read the comments made on March 25, 2010, by Minister of Lands, Mr. James Orengo, Member of the Kenyan Parliament on the issue of Obama's country of birth during a session of the Kenyan National Assembly:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/current-minister-of-kenyan-government.html

Tags: obama eligibility

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 22:53
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
 
 
Friday,April 16, 2010

NewspaperBirth Announcement Ads in 1961 in two Hawaiian Newspapersdo NOT prove Obama was physically born inHawaii.
The two announcements in theHawaiiannewspaper in 1961 only provea birth was REGISTERED there, notthat hewas born there. A registration was allowed under Hawaiianlawin 1961 to be made by any family member via a simple mail-in formtothe state HealthDepartment. No 3rd party or independentwitnesses tothe birth were required. The statement of a family memberregistering anew born child as born home was accepted into theregistration systemwith little or not questions back then. Thus thefamily could lie andregister a birth in Hawaii when it occurredelsewhere, anywhere in theworld, simply to get the child U.S.citizenship, a highly covetedstatus then and now. The falseregistration was not done so he could bePresident
some day. The false registration was done to get the new bornchild
 citizenship for that time. It was a case of birthregistrationfraud to illegally gain U.S. citizenship for a foreign bornchild ofthe family.


Given Hawaii's very lax birth registration laws, as I said, Obamacouldhave been born anywhere in the world and if Obama's maternalgrandmafilled out the form and mailed it in to the birth registrationofficesaying Obama was born at their home in Hawaii, a vital recordwould becreated. And the birth announcement was on the list ofbirthsregistered that week and which lists were sent routinely eachweek tothe two newspapers. With data systems it is GIGO, garbage(falseregistration data) in yields garbage out (fraudulently
created birthrecord in the state's vital record system out). And with a
falsifiedbirth registration in the system, subsequent computer printouts inlater years and carefully crafted statements by Hawaiianofficials thatthey have a record of Obama being born in Hawaii can beobtained andmade. But those printouts and statements are being madebased on afalsified vital record mail-in registration form back in 1961.

WND.com, an online newspaper, did investigations on this first in2009.They also did follow on stories in 2010 into how the newspaper adswereplaced in those two papers in 1961 and the research revealed thatthebirth announcements were placed by the state, not the family. Seethesetwo article links below and many other articles as to how theHonoluluAdvertiser and the other sister pub got the birth announcementsfrom alist from the state each week, not from the families. These werepublicservice birth announcements provided by the state.Garbage/falsifieddata on the available and simple birth registrationmail-in form sentinto the birth registration office in 1961 by afraudulent filing byObama's grandmother to get her foreign born newgrandson U.S.citizenship, illegally but easily given Hawaii's lax lawsback then,yielded a birth announcement in the paper for a birth inHawaii thatwas registered there but did not physically occur in
Hawaii. 
Obamawas physically not born inHawaii, as James Orengo, Member ofParliament, in Kenya recentlyattested to,as have other MPs in Kenya and as havemembers of Obama's paternal linefamily in Kenya. 2009 investigationinto the two Obama Birth newspaper announcements:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104678

2010 follow-up investigationreport in theObama Birth newspaper

 announcements:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=121136


My explanation to BillCunningham on hisnationally syndicated radio show in he summer of2009:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZpwcRf3FQ

The main streammedia isdeliberately lying about how these birth
 announcements got into thosenewspapers when they tell Americathat the family placed the ads andthat someone was anticipating thatsomeday Obama would run forPresident. First the family did not placethe ads, the state did. And the family member simply filed the falsebirth registration data on themail-in form for the obvious purpose ofgaining the child U.S.citizenship, a highly coveted status then andnow. Birth registrationfraud occurs today and it occurred then.And it occurred in with Obama.
The Hawaiian authorities werevictimsof the birth registration fraud by Obama's grandmother back in1961 andnow instead of admitting it, they are covering up that there isnoindependent evidence to verify the false registration that Obamawasborn in Hawaii.
 Nohospital or doctor's nameno medical attendants name at the home.Nothing. Just the falsetestimony of the grandmother on a mail-in formthat no one verified backin 1961.

With the contradictory statements beingmadein Kenya by government
officials there and members of thefamily there that Obamawas born
inKenya and is not a native born American, the true legal identityneedsto be investigated in a court of law. Any reasonable personlooking atthe 
evidence for and againstObamabeing born in Hawaii wouldsay there is reasonable doub the was born in Hawaii and would demand afurther investigation. But themedia is covering up for Obama by makingfalse statements to protecthim. The media created Obama, covered up forhim, and is still a propaganda organ for him. This is a nationaldisgrace.

CDR Charles Kerchner

Pennsylvania


http://puzo1.blogspot.com

http://www.protectourliberty.org

####

Tags: obama announcement

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:28
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/04/obamas-nasa-speech-completely-staged.html

Another Soviet-style performance: Obama's NASA speech was completely staged -- not a single NASA worker was permitted to attend

Interviewed on MSNBC, a visibly shaken Jay Barbree -- the longtime NBC science correspondent --And he couldn't even tell them to their faces.

 

Doug Ross


BARBREE: …I’m a little disturbed right now, Alex. I just found out some very disturbing news. The President came down here in his campaign and told these 15,000 workers here at the Space Center that if they would vote for him, that he would protect their jobs. 9,000 of them are about to lose their job. He is speaking before 200, extra hundred people here today only. It’s invitation only. He has not invited a single space worker from this space port to attend. It’s only academics and other high officials from outside of the country. Not one of them is invited to hear the President of the United States, on their own space port, speak today. Back to you Alex.

WITT: Alright Jay I can understand why that would certainly get you a bit upset. I will say, on behalf of the Obama administration, they contend that 2500 new jobs will be created, even more, they say, than the 2012 Constellation would have created, that program. So I know all this remains to be seen, but understandably we get why you’re upset, right now. Along with many others down there. Let’s see if the President clears that up later today. Jay thanks so much.

Gee, if MSNBC speaks “on behalf of the Obama administration”, I wonder if they get franking privileges for their mail as well?

I think I need a new blogging category called “Broken Promises”, because the old Clinton record was just shattered.


Tags: obama nasa

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:26
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

 
 

How the Media Lied about Obama’s Birth Records


GUEST COLUMN  | BY MARGARET CALHOUN HEMENWAY  |  APRIL 16, 2010


Most people consider a birth certificate as a state or hospital document containing a statement by a hospital and physician, or midwife, with a footprint or other unique identifiers.  But the Obama campaign and today, the White House, refuses to allow Hawaii's Department of Healthto release his original birth certificate. 

Yet another military officer, Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin, has publicly questioned whether the Commander-in-Chief is legal or not, and faces imminent court-martial for refusing to obey military orders until assured of the President's Constitutional eligibility.

Duringthe 2008 Presidential campaign, "mainstream" media confused the public over whether Obama ever released any real proof of his claim to being born in Hawaii. The confusion continues. Jonathan Alter, senior editor at Newsweek magazine, told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on February 20, 2009 that "The Obama campaign actually posted his birth certificate from aHawaii hospital online." 

But Alter lied, since "the Obama campaign" never "actually posted his birth certificate from a Hawaii hospital online."  Remarkably, no hospital in Hawaii yet lays definitive claim to be the birthplace ofthe sitting President.

On July 17, 2009 CNN's Kitty Pilgrim dissembled when she stated that the Obama campaign had produced "the original birth certificate" on the internet and that FactCheck.org had examined the original birthcertificate. The computer-generated Certification of Live Birth (COLB)posted by the campaign and FactCheck.org is not, and by definition,cannot be the original birth certificate or a copy of the original birth certificate. It contains no statement by a doctor or midwife and no reference to any hospital. There is no probative evidence on this Certification that can be verified to see whether it is valid. There were no computer-generated COLBs in 1961, Obama's birth year. 

Obama's original birth certificate (whether filed in 1961 or later) was a very different document from this COLB on FactCheck.org. that Pilgrim, Chris Matthews, Alter, and Olbermann waved around to try to quash the discussion.  On the FactCheck.org website, the claim is made that" FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate." They only saw and touched the COLB. So FactCheck.org lied about this as well.

Why would Factcheck.org tell so obvious a lie and endanger the site's reputation?  In August 21, 2008, when questions about the COLB began to reach critical mass and threatened to enter the public discourse, the mostly pro-Obama TV and newspaper/magazine media needed cover for their collective decision to ignore questions about whether Obama met qualifications for the Presidency set forth in Article II Section I of the Constitution. After Labor Day, swing voters would begin to pay attention to the campaign. With its lie about "how it examined and photographed the original birth certificate,"FactCheck.org helped stifle the birth certificate debate.

Under Section 57 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii (in effect in 1961), a mailed-in form (withoutmention of a hospital, doctor, or midwife) signed by only one of Obama's parents (who could have been out of the country or whose signature could have been forged by a grandparent) or grandparents,would be enough to set up a birth record at the Department of Vital Statistics. This meager birth record would then automatically generate newspaper announcements, and also, a computer-generated COLB in 2008.When juxtaposed with statements by Obama's maternal grandmother,Kenya's Ambassador to the U.S, and now a Kenyan cabinet minister and Parliamentarian, that Obama was born in Kenya, calls for Obama to release his original birth certificate are wholly justified. 

If Obama continues to refuse to release his original birth certificate, a reasonable person might assume he was not born in a Hawaiian hospital or at home with assistance of a doctor or midwife. This is especially true because if Obama was born in a foreign land, his family had acompelling reason to lie about it, given the prestige and benefits of American citizenship. 

In 1961, if a 17-year-old American female gave birth in a foreign country to a child whose father was not a U.S. citizen, that child had no right to any American citizenship, let alone the "natural born" citizenship that qualifies someone for the Presidency under Article II, Section 1of the Constitution. In 1961, the year of Obama's birth, under Sec. 301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Ann Dunham couldnot transmit citizenship of any kind to her son.

If at birth, Obama was ineligible for American citizenship of any kind, he cannot be "natural-born." If a person is not at the time of his birth an American citizen, he cannot be a natural-born citizen and is ineligible for the Presidency. 

LTC Lakin and other patriotic military officers should not face punishment or retribution for adhering to their oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution and for seeking the truth about the President's Constitutional eligibility.

*Mrs.Hemenway is a friend of LTC Lakin.  Her father-in-law filed one of the early eligibility lawsuits in federal court.  


FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing EditorMargaret Calhoun Hemenway is a retired federal employee, having served fifteen years in the U.S. Congress and five years as a White House appointee at DoD and NASA.

Guestcolumns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media orits staff.



Tags: obama media lies

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:55
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 16 de abril de 2010
 

Is Obama Ashamed of his Birthplace?

KENYA’S UNREQUITED LOVE

by Kathleen Gotto

When will the proof be revealed about Barack Obama's birthplace?

 

(Apr. 16, 2010) — The pride, applause and open adulation of President-Elect Barack Obama erupted spontaneously throughout Kenya’s November 5, 2008 parliament meeting. It was the day after Obama’s “election” and the points of order were repeatedly sidetracked as various ministers shouted out Obama’s name and gave flowing tributes to their “son of the soil.”

Several ministers who had submitted points of order were absent from the meeting, celebrating the fact that one of their own will now bless the whole world.

“I know that his victory will assist to improve the economic welfare of the people, not only of the USA, but all over the world.” (The Minister for Public Works, Mr. Obure, page 3262 of the Minutes)

There is no mistaking the numerous acknowledgments from Kenya’s parliament ministers on the birth status of Barack Hussein Obama.  One rather chilling statement made was when Dr. Khalwale asked the Deputy Speaker on a Point of Order, “Could we allow him to move a Motion for Adjournment so that we could also continue the celebrations of having a Kenyan ruling the USA? (page 3260)

A Kenyan ruling the USA? God help us! However, all the evidence points to just that. And Kenya’s official minutes from November 5, 2008 heap tons of more fuel on the fire of speculation.

But, wait a minute, you say. What about Hawaii? Hasn’t that issue already been settled? Wasn’t there a birth announcement about baby Barack published in the local Honolulu newspaper? And didn’t Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, publicly declare that Barack Obama was born there and is a natural born citizen? Why would she say that when it is now common knowledge through the indefatigable efforts of some pretty savvy lawyers that only a natural born citizen, the child of two U.S. citizens, is eligible to serve as the U.S. president? Did someone forget to inform Fukino that Obama’s father was a Kenyan? Well, you could almost excuse her not knowing that because Hawaii is so far out there in the Pacific pond that such details as having an African father must not have reached the island. Or if it did, she must have mistaken “African” for “American.”  Who knows?

You almost have to pity those who are hiding behind the skirts of Fukino, who insists she has seen Obama’s vital records. And yet, Jill T. Nagamine, Deputy Attorney General of the State of Hawaii, publicly stated that her office will not or cannot corroborate any of the Department of Health’s public statements regarding the alleged birth of Barack Hussein Obama in Hawaii. Well, now, where does that leave Dr. Fukino? The chief law enforcer’s office for the state of Hawaii is leaving her out there on a limb. Does the lack of support for Fukino by Hawaii’s Attorney General stymie those hoards of congressmen, journalists, media, and all sundry groups from relying on Fukino’s unsubstantiated and unsupported statement about Obama’s birth? Of course not. The fools who cling to Fukino’s skirts are desperate and have nowhere else to go. The clumsy web posting of what was purported to be Obama’s Certification of Live Birth (not even a birth certificate with identifying data) has been thoroughly examined by at least two forensic document examiners and debunked.

“O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!” Sir Walter Scott could have easily been speaking of the times in which we now find ourselves. But back on November 5, 2008, Kenya’s Parliament ministers had no idea of any deception on the part of their native son, Barack Obama. From the many comments made at that meeting, it appears they truly believed that Obama was the shining beacon on a hill for not just America, but for the whole world. It is easy to see how they could have been carried away by their exuberance and pride. They may have exhibited misplaced hope and expectation for their Kenyan brother, but they could hardly be accused of not knowing the birthplace of Barack Obama. Obama’s close ally, Marxist Raila Odinga, serves as the Prime Minister of Kenya, at least when he is not too busy hunting down Christians to slaughter. Surely he would have set the other ministers right on Obama’s place of birth if it were not in Kenya. There is no evidence he did that.

The preponderance of evidence for a Kenyan birth is mounting. The men and women of Kenya’s Parliament seemingly would possess unimpeachable credentials to be in a position of knowing that Obama was born in Kenya. Then there was also the proclamation made by Kenyan Ambassador to the U.S., Mr. Peter Ogengo, a couple weeks after the November 2008 election.

During the radio program on November 22, 2008 on Detroit’s WRIF 101 FM “Mike in the Morning,” a decision was made to make a phone call to the Kenyan Embassy in Washington, D.C. During the course of the call, Mike and co-host Trudy were connected to the Ambassador’s office. After a short conversation with a secretary of the Ambassador, Peter Ogego [sic] picked up the phone.

Mike’s co-host asked the Ambassador:

“President-elect Obama’s birthplace over in Kenya, is that going to be a national spot to go visit, where he was born?”

Ambassador Ogego [sic] responded:

“It’s, um, already an attraction. His, his, uh, paternal grandmother is still alive…”

Mike’s co-host then interjects:

“But his birthplace, they’ll put up a marker there?”

Ambassador Ogego [sic] responds:

“It depends on the government, it’s already well known.”

Kenyan Ambassador Peter Ogego [sic] had just announced to the whole world on live radio that the President-elect, Barack Hussein Obama, was born in Kenya, his birthplace is already an attraction, and placing a marker is up to the Kenyan government. The location of his birthplace is already well known, intimating the location does not need anything further to distinguish it.

On November 5, 2008, as evidenced from the minutes, the ministers obviously had a misunderstanding of the qualifications for an American president. Several ministers commented how anyone could become an American president. They cannot be blamed for their ignorance, however, because much of America was just as ignorant as the Kenyan ministers were then. At least the Kenyans had an excuse. Their constitution is a fluid document subject to the whims and agenda of those entrusted to write it and rewrite it.

There is something very peculiar that took place during the November 5, 2008 Parliament meeting that needs to be highlighted. On page 3278 of the Minutes, the Vice-President and Minister for Home Affairs, Mr. Musyoka, stated:

At the beginning of this year, Senator Barrack Obama called me at midnight and told me:  “Mr. Vice President, could you make sure you sort out this problem?” I want to assure him that the problem has since been sorted out.

(Several hon. Members stood up)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: You are all out of order!

So, sometime in early 2008 Obama calls Mr. Musyoka and asks him to sort out a problem Obama has. Now what kind of help could a Vice President of Ministry of State for Home Affairs provide? Would not “home affairs” deal with birth data? Did Obama request a seal be placed on his birth certificate in Kenya? Whatever Obama’s problem was, Mr. Musyoka apparently took care of it. But why would several members stand up and create a disturbance to the point they were called out of order? Did it stem from what Mr. Musyoka had just said? If so, why? These are questions that beg an answer. There is another question begging an answer: Is Barack Hussein Obama ashamed to call Kenya his birthplace, or just practicing his usual cover-up and deception?

© 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.


Tags: obama birthplace

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:09
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Thursday, April 15, 2010

Obama's First Motion to Dismiss Quo Warranto was DENIED, Orly's Motion for Judicial Notice was Granted... Got Justice!?

ObamaRelease YourRecords on 10:16 PM

As reported here, Atty Orly Taitz filed a motion to consolidate her quo warranto action with the pending, 13 State, health care lawsuit, which was denied by Judge Roger Vinson on two grounds. Judge Vinson stated in his denial order that Taitz met two of the four steps, which includes STANDING, but Judge Vinson ruled that the case would be "exponentially more difficult" if the cases were consolidated.

It's important to note there is no mention, in the
denial order, that the issue of Obama’s eligibility is frivolous. On 4/9/10, Orly Taitz filed a motion for judicial notice of Judge Vinson's ruling, embedded below is the Judicial Notice filed by Orly Taitz.

Orly Taitz motion for Judicial Notice was was granted by Judge Lamberth on 4/14/10(embedded below).

Barack Hussein Obama's(Barry Soetoro) motion to dismiss the Quo Warranto action was DENIED by Judge Lamberth on 4/14/10(embedded below).

Taitz v. Obama, Civil Action No.: 10-0151 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Defendant's(Obama's) Motion to Dismiss can be viewed
HERE.

Defendant's(Obama's) Corrected Memorandum on Motion to Dismiss can be viewed
HERE.

Defendant's(Obama's) Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction can be viewed
HERE.

WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO FULL
COMPLAINT - Filed 1/27/10 - embedded below judicial notice.

For those who don't know what a writ of quo warranto is, go
HERE.

Below is Orly's full QW
complaint along with Judge Lamberth's latest motions(2).

Taitz v Obama, Quo Warranto; Taitz Motion for Judicial Notice Granted by Judge Lamberth

 



Defendant’s(Obama’s) Corrected Memorandum on Motion to Dismiss can be viewed HERE.

TAITZ v OBAMA - 12 - NOTICE of Filing Corrected Memorandum - 2010-03-01 - Defendants Notice of Filing Corr…





Defendant’s(Obama’s) Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction can be viewed HERE.

TAITZ v OBAMA - 11 - 2010-02-26 - Memo in Support of Motion to Dismiss & Opp to Motion for Preliminary …




WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO FULL COMPLAINT - Filed 1/27/10 - embedded below judicial notice. [David Crockett notice: document not available for public viewing]

For those who don’t know what a writ of quo warranto is, go HERE.

Below is Orly’s full QW complaint [David Crockett notice: document not available for public viewing] along with Judge Lamberth’s latest motions(2).

Taitz v Obama, Quo Warranto; Taitz Motion for Judicial Notice Granted by Judge Lamberth


Tags: obama Taitz

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:45
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 15 de abril de 2010

PRESIDENTIAL VISIT

Obama in Miami on fundraising trip

President Barack Obama came to Miami Thursday to flex his formidable fundraising muscle and to try to appease critics. Photo courtesy of David Naranjo. -

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

While the Estafans welcome the usurper to their home, not far from

them in Ft. Lauderdale this was going on.

http://www.wsvn.com/video/player/?clipId=4706718&clipFormat=flv&topVideoCatNo=#?autoStart%23?autoStart





Tags: obama estefans

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 19:46
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Miércoles, 14 de abril de 2010

Is the Military Brass Aiding and Abetting Obama’s Fraud?

ARE THEY KNOWINGLY SUPPORTING THE INSTALLATION OF A FOREIGN-BORN USURPER?  IF SO, WHY?

by Kathleen Gotto

General James E. Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

 

Several active duty and retired military members last year initiated lawsuits challenging Barack Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to serve as President and their Commander-in-Chief. They got nowhere. As previously reported, we have two more warriors, and our heroes, who are putting it all out there for the sake of truth and the oath they took to support and defend the Constitution. This is the same oath all commissioned officers take:

I, _____ , having been appointed an officer in the (Service) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God. (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

As reported on both WorldNetDaily and The Post & Email, one of the two officers to publicly defend his oath and the Constitution is Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, a decorated Army physician, who takes his oath seriously. Lakin serves as the flight surgeon for 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment and has orders to deploy to Afghanistan for his second tour of duty there. He has reservations about Obama’s legitimacy to serve as president and commander-in-chief because of mounting evidence that Obama was born overseas. In defense of the constitutional requirement that a president must be a “natural born citizen,” and in staying true to the oath he took, Lakin is demanding Obama present proof that he is a natural born citizen and qualified to be his Commander-in-Chief. Until then, Lakin refuses to obey what he believes to be illegal orders. Now the Pentagon has seized his computer, read him his Miranda rights, and informed him that he will soon be charged with serious crimes.

It is beyond hypocrisy that the Army required Lakin to bring copies of his birth certificate upon reporting for duty to Afghanistan but they give a pass to their purported Commander-in-Chief in establishing his own identity. Lakin has remained steadfast to refuse to report for duty until Obama proves he is eligible to serve and thus has de jure authority to issue orders.

It is astounding that an officer with Lt. Col. Lakin’s credentials who is standing tall behind his oath to support and defend the Constitution and to protect it against all enemies, “foreign or domestic,” instead of being treated with support and respect for upholding his oath, is being threatened by his superiors. Lakin has been issued a “counseling form” from Lt. Col. William D. Judd, warning that his deployment orders are valid:

On 30 March 2010, this command became aware of your intentions to refuse to follow deployment orders. Your stated reason for refusal was your belief that the election of the President of the United States is invalid because you believe he is not ‘native born’ [sic]. This counseling is to inform you that your deployment orders are presumed to be valid and lawful orders issued by competent military authority.”

Interestingly, Lt. Col. Judd addresses Obama’s status as “native born,” not “natural born.” This had to have been stated either out of ignorance or a deliberate attempt to “spin” the issue. Judd further states that Lakin’s orders are “presumed to be valid and lawful orders issued by competent military authority.” That begs the question as to why Judd only “presumes” that the orders are valid and apparently has not performed due diligence to ascertain that Lakin’s orders are valid and lawful? Perhaps it is because Judd doesn’t know, doesn’t care, or is just following orders, lawful or not.

When pressed about the issue of Obama’s eligibility, the Army responded with “No Comment.”  The Army brass is circling their wagons to protect an impostor and is pillorying one of their best who is simply doing what they themselves should be doing. How can Americans have any respect for those at the highest chain of command when they engage in a cover-up that will likely go down as the biggest deception to be perpetrated on U.S. citizens? Those military officers who are participating in this huge and immensely shameful cover-up are despicable examples of the integrity, honor and bravery we have come to expect of our military.

Whether Lakin actually gets a trial or not remains to be seen. However, no trial would withstand the scrutiny of the American public unless Lt. Col. Lakin is allowed full discovery in order to defend himself. All of America is waiting for that.

Lakin is within his rights to disobey an illegal order. The onus is on Barack Obama to prove his eligibility to be President and Commander-in-Chief. The military brass are making complete fools of themselves by prosecuting Lakin.  It not only makes Lakin look like the hero America has been waiting for to put it all on the line for the sake of honor, fidelity and the Constitution, but it also casts Lakin’s commanders all the way up the chain of command as unfit to serve and dishonoring the uniform. Instead of those officers upholding their own oath to support and defend the Constitution, they protect and support a man who has provided no proof that he is eligible to be at the top of their chain of command.

It appears the military leadership has bought into the perversion of political correctness. Don’t touch Barack Obama: After all, he is our first black president. Perverted PC has done great damage to America’s finest officers and to the stability and security of this nation. The world watches this Kabuki performance and snicker up their sleeves at the naivete’ of America and her erstwhile military leaders.

The military are not alone in this miscarriage of justice. Just because no Democrat party official, no legislative body, and no judicial action has yet to put Obama’s feet to the fire in support of the Constitution, it relieves none of them from the responsibility to do so. America is still waiting.

The other military officer is Lt. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick III (Ret.). As was reported last week,  Fitzpatrick has been released from jail and is scheduled for a hearing in the Monroe County Courthouse in Madisonville, TN on April 20. Patriots are being called to attend the hearing en masse. This case, too, makes a mockery of justice, and we pray that the rule of law prevails for both Lt. Col. Lakin and Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick. They are our heroes, and America will continue to stand behind our brave active and retired military who swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and are doing so at great risk to their careers and personal freedom. As far as the military brass and others go who are behind the witch hunts, they deserve nothing but derision and disrespect for refusing to support and defend the Constitution and its brave defenders. Instead, they file serious charges against those officers. The military “can do” motto isn’t what it used to be. And the esprit de corps? Only if you see no PC evil, hear no PC evil and speak no PC evil.

© 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.


Tags: obama Military Fraud

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:11
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 13 de abril de 2010
 

Army seizes computer and revokes Pentagon access for challenger to Obama’s eligibility

ARMY FLIGHT SURGEON FACING COURT MARTIAL OVER REFUSAL TO OBEY ORDERS

by Sharon Rondeau

Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who has been informed that he will face "serious charges" for refusing orders from his Army chain of command based on Obama's refusal to prove that he is a "natural born Citizen"

 

(Apr. 13, 2010) — The American Patriot Foundation is reporting that Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, the Army flight surgeon who has refused to follow any orders until Barack Obama produces proof of eligibility to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military, has been read his Miranda rights and informed that he would soon be “charged with serious crimes.”

On Monday, April 12, Lakin was ordered to report to Ft. Campbell, KY in preparation for what would have been his second deployment to Afghanistan.  The report states that “Lakin refused to obey these orders and instead came to work yesterday morning at the Pentagon. Late yesterday afternoon he was confronted by his brigade commander.”

On March 30, 2010, Lakin had released a letter to Obama explaining his decision and why Obama needed to release proof of his eligibility to serve as President.  Lakin, in his 18th year of uniformed service in the Army, also released a video message which stated that the burden of proof as to whether or not Obama is a “natural born Citizen” should be placed on Obama himself, not members of the military.

Dr. Alan Keyes, 2008 presidential candidate and plaintiff in a lawsuit currently being appealed in against Obama for the same reason, stated that Lt. Col. Lakin’s decision to refuse to obey further orders “speaks to the deep seriousness” of Obama’s flaunting of the U.S. Constitution.

Dr. James David Manning, pastor of ATLAH Ministries in Harlem, NY, urged “the patriots in America, the Tea Party people, the Republicans, conservatives, the Rush Limbaughs and others” to support Lt. Col. Lakin and Cmdr. Walter Fitzpatrick III to prevent the further erosion of rights for all American citizens and to oppose Obama’s “spirit, his name, his Marxism, and his hatred for America.”  Dr. Manning also referenced the military’s initial response to Lakin’s refusal to follow orders, which was to imply that Lakin was mentally ill and suggested that he have a “brain scan.”

Dr. Manning claims he has evidence that Obama never attended Columbia University in New York but instead worked for the CIA during the years 1981-83 and that Columbia fabricated paperwork to provide a history for him.  A trial will be held on the ATLAH premises on May 14-19, 2010, about which Manning has released numerous video announcements and flyers.  The American Grand Jury organization will be assisting in that effort.

Donations can be made to Lakin’s Legal Defense Fund here.

© 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

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

13 Responses for “Army seizes computer and revokes Pentagon access for challenger to Obama’s eligibility”

  1. 2discern says:

    We honor our heroes. Presently (and future) Lt. Col.Lakin is an American hero. The many silent military personnel are cowards. Those that have served in proximity to the Lt.Col., know he is a serious officer and is not joking with his high level career. The intensity of fuel this pours on the fire to expose the liar-in-chief, bow-to-all leaders weakling usurper, will ignite more officers. It only takes a spark, as the old song goes, to get a fire going.

    For those of us continuing at grass roots battle stations to compile data, share the news, and present truth we salute the distinguished officers with higher visibility that are standing on Constitutional ground. Together, we keep “pressing on the upward way, with new heights gaining every day”. It is pretty hard to refute the continuity of all the African news lately. For so many governmental leaders affirming the Kenyan roots of barry soetero in their legal discourse it is only a matter of time… yeah, even Chris Matthews will become a “birther” as facts unfold. I doubt he’ll get the thrill up his leg then, it will be more like what is running down his leg when it hits the fan.

    Reply
  2. Joe The Blogger says:

    AT LAST, A REAL AMERICAN HERO, WILLING TO RISK EVERYTHING TO EXPOSE OBAMA’s CONSTITUTIONAL INELIGIBILITY TO BE PRESIDENT.

    Reply
  3. Bob1943 says:

    If you haven’t donated to LTC Lakin’s defense fund yet take a look at this insulting article. If may prompt you to pull out your plastic:

    http://coloradoindependent.com/51156/%E2%80%98colonel-birther%E2%80%99-spokesperson-lakin-accepts-consequences-of-search-for-truth

    Reply
  4. Joe The Blogger says:

    AT LAST – A REAL AMERICAN HERO.

    Reply
  5. nwo37 says:

    I wonder if Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin was read his Miranda rights because he is regarded as an ‘enemy combatant’ by this administration.
    ———————-
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: The first source cited in my article stated that he was, but I found that little consolation.

    Reply
  6. Paula Stern says:

    The only way to salvage The Constituion of the United States is for We the People to defend this great document. God Bless You Lt. Col Lakin.

    The constitutional eligibility to be President and Commander-in-Chief of our Military is not something to dismiss. I know for a fact that I personally can not seek the Office of President of the United States of America because I am not a Natural Born Citizen, but I was born in Washington, DC. My mother is an Italian citizen and my father(born in the USA) is an American Citizen, native born not natural because his parents were legal immigrants from Italy to the United States; I can still get a dual citizenship, Italian and American, because my mother is still an Italian citizen. Article II of The Constitution of the United States, “Natural Born Citizen” Means Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance At Birth. Exactly what obligates me to just allegiance to the United States of America with my citizenship status, nothing obligates me to just allegiance to the United States of America. Barrack Hussein Obama, AKA, Barry Soetoro is not eligible to be POTUS for the very same reason I am not, he is not a Natural Born Citizen. His father was a Brtitish Citizen and his mother was an American Citizen, Barrack Obama has dual citizenship.

    Reply
  7. Birdy says:

    Any adverse consequences suffered by Lt. Col. Lakin at the hands of the military due to this issue should give Lt. Col. Lakin a specific injury which will give him standing to sue. So, even if the military does not bring charges against him, he should be able to take action against them and force discovery, just to show that the military’s actions are unjustified because his behavior in refusing orders is what he is required to do by law.

    Reply
  8. noislamocommie says:

    Tea Party groups need to gather en masse where he is located to show their support whether or not they speak on it or not…

    Reply
  9. Opus64 says:

    The eligibility issue seems to be growing exponentially. I can feel the pressure as I read article after article. The issue has become so defined over the past 6 months. Folks are getting it! LtC Lakin is most likely going to have his case dismissed so as to not allow any potential for a discovery process. Not the 1st time. The key here is to stay focused on the dual citizenship, and not the BC. When I have this discussion with someone, left or Right, and they keep going back to the same argument(s) that he has posted his BC, and the birth announcements in the 2 Hawaiian newspapers can’t be a conspiracy, I simply say, “I don’t care about the BC (although if he provided the long form, it would be quite revealing), but l want to know why you aren’t concerned with o’s own words about his fathers citizenship, which makes o a dual citizen at best?” Now I must say, some folks simply don’t care about this thing called the Constitution, and I think that’s where this issue is making headway. Folks are actually getting curious about the Constitution and its meaning.

    Reply
  10. Katie says:

    A living example of ‘pledging my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor.

    It is humbling.

    Reply
  11. live oak says:

    I am sending a donation today for his defense. He is a hero of the highest order.

    Why won’t the TEA PARTY people stand up and defend this man and the military? They say they will lose their non-profit status? Shame on all of you! If it wasn’t for our brave and courageous soldiers in the military, we would never be free. Support our brave soldiers!!!!!

    Reply
  12. Bob1943 says:

    Please go here to donate to Lt. Col. Lakin’s defense fund, the importance of this is great:

    http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/

    Reply
    • Tina Pablo says:

      who qualifies candidate to run for president………why isn’t OBAMA releasing his birth certificate……..if this is true to the above…….why isn’t the country behind these brave people?

      Reply

Tags: obama Lakin

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 21:14
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
 
Updated April 11, 2010

 

Lieberman: Omitting 'Islamic' Terrorism From Security Document Dishonest, 'Offensive'

FOXNews.com

Sen. Joe Lieberman slammed the Obama administration Sunday for stripping terms like "Islamic extremism" from a key national security document, calling the move dishonest, wrong-headed and disrespectful to the majority of Muslims who are not terrorists. 

  • AP2009

Sen. Joe Lieberman pauses before heading into a Democratic caucus on health care reform in Washington, in this Nov. 18, 2009, file photo. (AP Photo)

Sen. Joe Lieberman slammed the Obama administration Sunday for stripping terms like "Islamic extremism" from a key national security document, calling the move dishonest, wrong-headed and disrespectful to the majority of Muslims who are not terrorists. 

The Connecticut independent revealed that he wrote a letter Friday to top counterterrorism adviser John Brennan urging the administration to "identify accurately the ideological source" of the threat against the United States. He wrote that failing to identify "violent Islamist extremism" as the enemy is "offensive." 

The letter was written following reports that the administration was removing religious references from the U.S. National Security Strategy -- the document that had described the "ideological conflict" of the early 21st century as "the struggle against militant Islamic radicalism." 

Lieberman told "Fox News Sunday" this isn't the first time the Obama administration has tried to tiptoe around referring to Islam in its security documents and that it's time to "blow the whistle" on the trend. 

"This is not honest and, frankly, I think it's hurtful in our relations with the Muslim world," Lieberman said. "We're not in a war against Islam. It's a group of Islamist extremists who have taken the Muslim religion and made it into a political ideology, and I think if we're not clear about that, we disrespect the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are not extremists." 

Lieberman, in his letter, noted that prior Department of Homeland Security and Pentagon documents also did not refer to "Islamist extremism." He expressed dismay that the administration's review of the Fort Hood shooting, in which alleged shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan was said to have had contact with a radical cleric beforehand, omitted the term. 

"Unless we're honest about that, we're not going to be able to defeat this enemy," Lieberman told "Fox News Sunday." "It's absolutely Orwellian and counterproductive to the fight that we're fighting."


Tags: obama Lieberman

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:41
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
 

TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 2010

This consideration is presented in two parts

1. 
submitted in , explores a question. What would America be experiencing, if it had an Islamist and Marxist president?
The following, FreeRepublic.comAnd these video excerpts of Barack Obama are pieced together in YouTube, by "FeelTheChangeMedia." Its point of view is one informed directly by the man himself, in his own words and behavior.


Obama is a Muslim Marxist

by "TheThinker," Saturday, 4/10/2010

Some say that the accusation that Obama is a Muslim is ludicrous and bigoted. But what if it's true? It would mean that Obama has been lying all along. But why would a Muslim be afraid to disclose his faith?

If one is to be a good Muslim, then many, many attitudes and behaviors that are uniquely American would have to be considered evil. He's slipped, admitting his Muslim faith and then recanted. He's stated that the call to prayer is the "prettiest sound on Earth". Obama has bowed (or was it an aborted kneel?) to the King of the Saudis. Obama is hiding his Muslim faith behind the thorny protection of political correctness.

Not convinced yet? Let's use our imaginations for a minute.Let's just suppose for the sake of argument that a random Muslim is sitting in the Oval Office. What, logically would that "good" Muslim do to fulfill the tenants of his faith?

The first target would be the American economy. That was the primary target on 9/11. Militant Islamists like Bin Laden figured that in order to defeat America, it's economic engine had to be stopped. And they are right. America's productivity is the source of America's might. It is buttressed by the American work ethic, faith and family. Of course all these are under attack more each day by Marxist legislators.

Second, America's military might must be curtailed. Funding must be cut. Successful weapons systems axed. Defense systems in particular must be undermined. Islamists want us defenseless as do all Marxists. If America is at a military disadvantage, then it is at a political and economic disadvantage as well.

Third, America's alliances must be broken up. The Europeans are our strongest allies because of the cultural similarities and America's origins. Those bonds must be broken and that puts Europe at a disadvantage as well making it easier for Islamists to colonize Europe.

Fourth, the Israelis must be abandoned both militarily and financially and totally isolated. The end goal would be to conquer Israel. There should be no more settlements. Jerusalem must be taken back to shame the Jews and re-establish Muslim dominance in the Middle East.

It seems to me that Obama is acting just like my hypothetical Muslim President. Like a typical Marxist, he's taking over industries, crippling productivity and wealth creation. He's crippling the military by cutting funding and destroying morale. He's snubbing important allies and the Israelis. He's cutting off weapons sales to the Israelis particularly bunker busters that can be used against Israels greatest threat, Iran. Israel is now at a severe disadvantage visa-vis its adversaries in the region.

Obama is a Muslim and Marxism is his weapon to destroy Islam's enemies, in particular America. He has no past and yet he guides America's future. The Orwellian lash of political correctness and white guilt elected Obama.

The Democrats wasted the mantle of the first black president on someone who won't unite, won't uplift, and won't strengthen America. It is both sad and frightening.
2. 

 
And these video excerpts of Barack Obama are pieced together in YouTube, by "FeelTheChangeMedia." Its point of view is one informed directly by the man himself, in his own words and behavior.



Tags: obama islamist

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:30
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
 

Where are the American Patriots?

BEGGING FOR AN ANSWER!

April 12, 2010

Dear Editor:

How many of us are willing to fight for our country?

 

Why is anyone surprised at the lack of Obama’s commitment to this country? Obama is exactly what he appears to be: an impostor!

Anyone who gives recognition to this usurper has a serious issue with reality, especially those in the military who are taking direction from an uncertified commander-in-chief. Who will be thrown under the bus on the day of reckoning?

So why does everyone on the Hill avoid the eligibility issue except Sarah Palin? Is she the only one with courage to go up against the Alinsky-inspired Obamabots? Are the rest of those on the Hill complicit in what appears to be a coordinated conspiracy?

Where is the outcry and the rage expressed by our friends at The Heritage Foundation, which is purported to be a bastion of righteous freedom. In a pig’s eye. Talk is cheap when an organization is called upon to act on principles.

Speaking of principles, where are our leaders who stand on principle? Where are our leaders with courage? Where are our leaders who respect the rule of law and are permitting this charade to persist on their watch?  Are there any?

  • Where are those who have sworn an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States?
  • Where are those in the government sworn to protect the interests of the American Citizens?
  • Where are our courageous members of Congress?
  • Where are our courageous members of the Senate?
  • Where are our courageous members of the Judiciary?
  • Where are our courageous members of the Justice Department?

Why is No One Asking the Obvious Question that is Just Begging to be Asked?

Why are all members of this government engaged in what appears to be a conspiracy against the American people?  This is a simple, basic question that any reasonable person has a right to have answered, a question that Obama has spent reportedly over $1,000,000 and now perhaps as much as $2,000,000 to avoid addressing?

Instinctively, even the most rational individual has a suspicion of reasonable doubt. Then how can 545 members of our government in good conscience ignore this black elephant standing in the middle of the halls of Congress?

Americans are typically trusting of those who have been elected to represent them, perhaps to a fault, as we are learning the hard way. To add injury to insult, have we been reduced to a level where we are seen as so stupid in the eyes of our elected officials that we do not merit an answer?

Well, I don’t know about you, but when it comes time to contribute to reelection campaigns, the first order of business will be to provide that answer.  No answer?  No contribution!

Sincerely,

Arnie Rosner

© 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.


Tags: obama patriots

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:18
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 12 de abril de 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010

A debate on the adoption of a new Kenyan Constitution took place in the House of the National Assembly of Kenya on Thursday, March 25, 2010. The Official Report of that House, dated Thursday, March 25, 2010, provides the details of that debate. One of the speakers (see pages 29-31) during that debate was The Minister for Lands, Mr. Erengo. Ironically, he expressed that "[i]f we do not live by the values and principles contained in this Constitution, all that is contained in this Constitution will be of no significance...." He continued saying that Kenyans must follow the rule of law and especially the Constitution, stating that the "unmaking of Kenya began by disregard and non-compliance of the law. We ended up in a dictatorship that we had to fight for so many years...." He further explained that under the new proposed Constitution, the "Executive authority of the President . . . is derived from the people...."

He then continued that Kenya must overcome its problem of elements of its population excluding people from participating in Kenyan life because of their ethnicity or tribal affiliations. He asked that all Kenyans unite, regardless of ethnic or tribal affiliations, stating: "The other thing that we are addressing through devolution is exclusion. What has made us suffer as a nation is exclusion. Once people feel excluded, even when you want to employ a policeman or constable or you want to build a dispensary, it must come from the centre. In the colonial days, these things were being done on the ground and they could give bursaries and build roads. I commend devolution. Those who fear devolution are living in the past. They are being guided by their ethnic consideration and objectives. They are living in the past. If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation,
how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America? It is because they did away with exclusion. What has killed us here is exclusion; that once Mr. Orengo is President, I know of no other place than Ugenya. That is why we were fighting against these many Presidencies in the past. I hope that Kenya will come of age. This country must come of age. People want freedom and nations want liberation, but countries want independence."

There we have it clearly stated by
a current Minister of the Kenyan Cabinet that Obama was born in Kenya and is not a "native American." It is unbelievable that a high-ranking member of the Kenyan government would make such a matter-of-fact statement, given the debate that is raging in the United States about whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya. It is also significant that no one in the Kenyan Parliament corrected or challenged Mr. Orengo when he made his statement, given that Obama's place of birth debate must be well-known in Kenya and is important to Obama's legitimacy to be the President of the United States.  Kenya would not only be embarrassed but would also be negatively impacted upon if Obama were found not to be the legitimate President of the United States.  One would also think that Mr. Orengo would share his knowledge with the American people. I surely hope that the American media will immediately fly to Kenya and personally speak to Mr. Orengo to find out why he believes that Obama was born in Kenya. The full House report may be found at http://www.bunge.go.ke/parliament/downloads/tenth_forth_sess/Hansard/RDRAFT25.03P.pdf. The speech of Mr. Orengo starts at page 29 and ends at page 31. The above quote is found on page 31.

For a catalog of evidence concerning whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya, see my essay entitled, Is the State of Hawaii Covering Up Birth Registration Fraud in the Case of Obama? Hawaii Law Makers Contemplating Stopping Concerned Americans from Investigating Whether Obama Was Born There - Plus a Catalog of Evidence for and Against Obama's Physically Being Born in Hawaii and Not Just Falsely Registered There After the Fact, at:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/hawaii-law-makers-contemplating.html

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 11, 2010
Amended April 12, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####
----------------------------------------------

Tags: obama american

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 22:38
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
 

Kenyan Parliament claims Obama born in Kenya

SO WHERE IS THE UNITED STATES MILITARY?

by Sharon Rondeau

Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

 

(Apr. 11, 2010) — A member of the Kenyan Parliament has stated in a meeting of that body on March 25, 2010 that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

The statement, which discussed the concept of “devolution,” or ethnic inclusion, reads:  “If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America?”  A screenshot of page 31 of the Minutes where the statement appears is below.

The Post & Email recently reported the statements of numerous news sources, one of which was NPR, which reported Obama’s birthplace as Kenya, not Hawaii.  The Kenyan ambassador to the United States also affirmed that Kenya is Obama’s birthplace, stating that it was “well-known.”  Obama’s wife Michelle identified Kenya as her husband’s “home country” while addressing a group of gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexuals during the presidential campaign of 2008.

The Kenyan Parliament had previously referred to Obama as a “son of the soil” of Kenya on November 5, 2008, in a meeting convened the day after the 2008 U.S. presidential election (p. 3275, right column).

With numerous sources reporting that Obama was born in a foreign country to a foreign father and only one person in the entire world stating that Obama was born in Hawaii, with no corroborating evidence offered in violation of Hawaii law, where is the U.S. military? What are they doing taking the orders of an apparently illegitimate Commander-in-Chief?

Is there only a small group of men and women out of a force of 2,000,000 with enough patriotism to stand up and demand that the putative president prove himself?

At this point, the entire burden has been borne by a handful of active duty and retired military including Major Stefan Cook, Lt. Col. Easterling, and Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, Captain Pamela Barnett, Cmdr. Charles Kerchner and their attorneys who have taken a stand by refusing to take the orders of someone who appears to be usurping the office of the Presidency.  While the courts have refused to hear many of the cases based on technicalities, the case of Kerchner v. Obama & Congress et al, which is on appeal with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Newark, NJ, has a hearing on the merits tentatively scheduled for June 29, 2010.

But where is the rest of the military?  What is Admiral Mullen doing, and how is he upholding his oath to the Constitution?

Where are the members of what used to be the finest fighting force in the world?  Why will they not come forward  and demand Obama’s documentation?  Do they really think that “we the people” are going to sit by and watch as our Constitution has been violated in the most egregious fashion by the biggest political heist in U.S. history?  Do the Joint Chiefs sit in their offices in comfortable chairs, collecting handsome paychecks and benefits, while the rest of us  are made to suffer under a usurper, a tyrant, and a foreigner?  Do they not care that they and their subordinates are taking the orders of an imposter, a foreigner, exactly the thing that Alexander Hamilton warned us against?

This has gone beyond political.  It has gone beyond “He said he was born in Hawaii.”  It has gone beyond, “I didn’t know.”  The evidence that Obama is a foreigner without any claim to the presidency is overwhelming.  Now it’s time to make the top brass do its job.  For if they have become just like the politicians and will not take action to remove  a usurper, they will also need to be replaced.

The phone number for the Department of Defense is 703-571-3343.  Their mailing address is 1400 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC  20301-1400.

Screenshot of page 31 of Kenyan Parliament Minutes of March 25, 2010 courtesy of CDR Kerchner at www.protectourliberty.org

 

© 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.


Tags: obama kenyan

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 22:10
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 09 de abril de 2010

Open Letter to all U.S. Congressmen

CITIZEN TELLS CONGRESS:  YOU ARE TEARING OUR NATION APART

by Art Phillips

Painting of Thomas Jefferson by Gilbert Stuart. Jefferson was known for his belief in "republicanism," which declares that sovereignty lies with the people

(Apr. 9, 2010) — The reality that I am moved to write a letter with the following content reveals a truth all Americans are beginning to recognize. We are in the midst of an unraveling of the fabric that has bound us together for the past 233 years, a fabric which supports the weight of all which we, as a people, hold dear.

Our Freedoms, Liberty, and Justice, just to name a few, are all supported by and dependent upon the strength of this Red, White, and Blue fabric called the United States Constitution. Creating such a fabric required many different threads, each carefully selected for its ability to withstand time and stress while maintaining its strength, integrity and values. The threads had to be bound together tightly so that they could not be divided so as to prevent compromising the integrity of the fabric. Each thread of this fabric has a name, to mention a few:  Honor, Duty, Loyalty, Morality, Strength, Honesty, Trust, and many more. All the threads in this fabric represent the greatest attributes of the human race, one race, with different shades of one color.

Prior to the 2008 election, the majority of citizens of the United States of America were well on their way to creating a new race, the American race:  a new race of people with only one color, the American color, and only one name; American, not “Asian-American” or “African-American”; simply American, a race bound together by its hopes and dreams and care for each other.

The struggle for this dream has taken over 200 years and millions of lives. It is disgraceful how the actions of those running for the honor of serving in public office have set back this noble achievement by many years. I ask you men and women in the Congress, as well as the men who ran for president, was it worth it? Was your ambition, your pride, your need to be famous or whatever self-serving goal you were seeking worth destroying what millions of Americans gave their lives for?

Do not tell me you don’t know what I am talking about. Each of you knows very well that the despicable use of race in the 2008 election was obscene, and you all share the responsibility for it. The 111th Congress, as well as the 2008 presidential campaign, will be looked upon as the blackest days in American history thus far.

Though I have served my Country and my family has sacrificed much for our way of life, I have failed to do my duty. I took an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. I was not diligent in the exercise of my duty to protect our Constitution from malignant growth known as government. Congressmen, Congresswomen, Senators and putative president, you represent that growth. It is your blind ambition and self-interest you serve rather than the American people and the Constitution you swore to protect.

Actions taken by this regime and legislature amount to a direct attack on the Constitution and the rights and freedoms it guarantees. You have forgotten that it is not your place or your right to tell the people what you are going to do. It is your duty and obligation to ask the people what they want! When I say it is your duty to ask the people, I mean the majority, not the few that simply seek to be coddled.  Ask those who have made and make this nation successful. This government has made too many false assumptions with regard to the reason it was elected.

For too long I have lived under the misguided assumption that individuals elected to the highest offices in the land, individuals that took the same oath to the Constitution I did, would honor that oath. I believed that they could be trusted and things like Honor, Duty, Loyalty, and Morality were as important to them as they are to me. I made a serious error in judgment with regard to many of them. Many in the Senate and House of Representatives do not have the capacity to possess such ideals. Think about it:  people who are supposed to be the guardians of our Constitution are trying to limit free speech, restrict the free exercise of religion, and remove the right to own arms.  Even worse, they refused to vet a presidential candidate who is most likely not even a citizen of these United States, but quite possibly an illegal alien; not one member of the Congress has had the backbone to stand up and demand this usurper’s documentation.  This is the most egregious constitutional affront our nation has ever suffered.

What person in their right mind has the audacity, the arrogance or the ignorance to expect people to apologize for the success of their nation? The only change we need now is to remove such ingrates from office. If our country is such a horrible place to live, why do so many around the world want to come here? Why does our government want to reward criminals and provide them with free medical care, subsistence and free education at the expense of those who can’t afford it for their own families? People who have entered this country illegally and laugh at our laws, many of whom commit crimes in our country, are given property and rights paid for by our citizens even when these same citizens are losing their own homes. If these illegal aliens want to live in a country like the United States of America, then they need only to go back to their own country and pay the price Americans here have paid and build another America of their own.  The world could certainly use more.

Americans owe the world nothing, nothing at all. This nation has always provided for the rest of the world freely and willingly. Our nation has fought and sacrificed more than any nation on earth for those in need around the world. Now some of you in Washington have the nerve to think we should apologize for our success. You are very much mistaken if you think this American feels apologetic, and don’t even think of apologizing for me!

Our nation’s success was purchased with the hard work, sweat, tears, suffering and blood of ordinary people who possessed extraordinary will, courage and values. I am proud of this nation because of citizens who were willing to share that success, along with the blood of their sons and daughters, with the world. I despise any individual calling for or making an apology for the sacrifice of my brothers and sisters in arms, be they living or dead, or any citizen of our great nation. Get it clearly embedded in your conscience that the United States has nothing to apologize for!

Consider this:  why don’t those of you in Washington who have degraded, insulted and slandered our country, its military and many of our citizens start correcting the disastrous course you have taken by making a long overdue apology to America and her allies? Speaking of apologies, the media, those in television mainly, have betrayed their profession, their country, and themselves. What is most discouraging about the media is the fact that they know very well they have lost all credibility and trust. Some journalists even admit that they don’t report news anymore; “We make the news,” one of them stated. You won’t find any honor in this profession any more.  Every single one of them knows the questions swirling about Obama’s eligibility or lack thereof, yet they continue to fawn over him like the sold-out souls they are, completely failing in their duty to report what our government has done and continues to do to its people.

I have a great deal more to say; however, I am sure most congressmen and senators feel they are far too superior to even acknowledge an average citizen, much less read all of this. To those in our government still holding to your beliefs and values, those who still honor the Constitution and believe in freedom over tyranny, I salute you, respect you, and I have your back so long as we stand. But there are indeed very, very few of you there now.

To the rest, look carefully in a mirror. You are just a person like everyone else. There is nothing special about you. There are many in this country who can do your job far better than you ever will. You are only insulting the rest of us and making fools of yourselves acting as though you are any better, any smarter, or any more qualified at what you are doing than a million others are. You were born, you will age, and you will die just like every other person on this earth. Why not leave behind a positive memory and an unselfish legacy? No one is unaware of the mistakes he  has made; each of us knows when we are doing something for the wrong reasons.

I hope I can get through to at least a few of you in government before the betrayal of the American people turns to outright treason. Or has it already reached that point?  Where is your Courage, Commitment, Honor — all those things a leader must possess?

What could be so valuable to a person elected to serve a nation as great as the United States that he or she would betray such a trust? I can’t answer that; however, we are witnessing this very thing in our government. It seems that most of those we trusted to protect our beloved Constitution have betrayed every citizen in the United States. In the past six months we have seen our Constitution, our Military, and many average citizens slandered, threatened and subjected to vicious attacks which were totally unwarranted. The present regime and Congress are by all means and definition guilty of treason. When will one of our many Law Enforcement, Judges, Justice Department or courts find a little of the courage our soldiers have and make these traitors and criminals answer for their crimes? It looks as though the only ones who are going to be punished for our government’s dishonor and criminal activity is US, we the people. Those guilty of betraying the United States Constitution and the American people are absolutely engaging in the crime of treason. At such time as the American people return their government to law-abiding representatives, those guilty of treason now will be brought justice. The justice they will face will be the very laws they are attempting to destroy.

God Bless our great nation!

© 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.


Tags: obama Letter Congress

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:43
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
 
What is KeyWiki?

For the last several months I've been working on a ground-breaking new project.


Together with a growing team we've created KeyWiki - a look at the covert side of politics.

At this stage KeyWiki is focusing primarily on the left in the United States.

We've started profiles on over 35,000 US people and organizations from the
Democratic Socialists of America to the Center for American Progress, and from President Barack Obama to street level cadre communists.

We've got
congressmen in there, "peace" activists, labor unionists, black radicals, "religious" socialists, "greenies", left wing academics , Obama appointees and thousands of card-carrying emocratic_Socialists_of_America">socialists and communists.

In short, all the people who are dragging America down.

Most of the profiles are "stubs", but an increasing number are comprehensive and a few run to several pages.

We hope our ever-expanding KeyWiki will prove a very helpful resource for those fighting to restore the great American republic.

To check us out, visit
KeyWiki.org

Go to search at the top left of the page and type in the name of your favorite US leftist. Press GO. Capitalization and correct spelling are crucial. If you don't find the name you're looking for immediately, type in a surname or keyword and press SEARCH.

Follow the blue links to other komrades.

If you're a bit of a radical yourself, see if we have YOUR name on file. If for some bizarre reason we have not got a profile on you yet, please use
the contact form to send us your details and a recent photograph.

Please pass the link to your friends or post it on your blog or website.

I'll be posting more on KeyWiki in the next few days.

Feedback, comments and criticisms welcome.

- Trevor Loudon
Labels:

 

posted by Trevor Loudon at 4/08/2010 11:29:00 AM 8 Comments
 
Links to this post

 


Tags: obama KeyWiki

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:36
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
 

A Prescription for Conservative Inconsistency

THE ENTIRE U.S. CONSTITUTION MUST BE ADHERED TO, INCLUDING THE SECTION ON PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY

by Sally Vendée

Page 1 of the original U.S. Constitution

 

(Apr. 9, 2010) — Now that Obamacare has passed, pundits write and politicians argue about its impact on our nation, its key provisions, implementation and enforcement details, and whether its many elements are in fact Constitutional.

One famous conservative writer, David Horowitz, editor of FrontPage magazine, on the night of Obamacare’s passage in a blog entry he called “Obamacare Bill: A Declaration of War,” lamented:

…The Democratic Party has in the course of the nine-month health care debate revealed itself to be an anti-democratic Party and an anti-liberty party…that has demonstrated its contempt for the Constitutional framework, for the democratic process, and for the expressed will of the American people. Its brazen contempt for the compact that holds the diverse factions of this country together has initiated a political war at home that will extend not only into the next elections but into the next generations that will be encumbered with the trillions in debt and oppressive government controls that the socialist majority in Congress has demonstrated that it is intent on inflicting on this country. The people of this nation are still sovereign, and their voice will be heard. Tonight’s vote was lost but it is not the end of the battle. It is the beginning.

Many readers may recall another Horowitz piece from last April he titled: “Get Over Your Obama Derangement Syndrome” which opened with: “My fellow right-wingers, calm down. The new president is not the antichrist, Stalin or even a radical.”

Horowitz wrote that the Dems’ “massive government giveaways” were bad, but didn’t make

…Obama a closet Mussolini, however deplorable the conservatives among us may regard it. Moreover, he’s already run into political resistance even within his own party. Charlie Rangel has made it clear that the itemized deduction tax hike is not going through his committee — and that should tell you that the American system, the one the Founders created, is still in place…In other words, while it’s reasonable to be unhappy with a Democratic administration and even concerned because the Democrats are now a socialist party in the European sense, we are not witnessing the coming of the antichrist.

But less than a year later, we find Horowitz asserting that Obama and the Democrats have declared a war on the Constitution. Most Conservatives and Republicans have had similar epiphanies with the unseemly process used to pass Obamacare as well as the bill itself. The Constitution has now become the centerpiece of their attention. Several states and private citizens have filed lawsuits. Republicans plan on using repeal as their main campaign platform.

The Tea Party has always had the Constitution as its primary focus, although yet to be determined is whether those Republicans who have rediscovered our nation’s founding principles will embrace the Partiers. The Tea Partiers themselves may be reluctant to accept these advances. Although expressing loyalty to the Constitution, the Partiers’ patriotism, unhindered by any political party affiliation, allows them to be skeptical. They will be looking for consistency in fundamental principles and ideas. And not just with issues like Obamacare.

In Mr. Horowitz’s defense, one is always entitled to change one’s mind. But as we explore consistency of principles, especially among conservative writers, we find that Horowitz penned another essay he also titled “Obama Derangement Syndrome,” in 2008, just after the elections. As copied below, but with one key phrase (actually the real topic of the original article—which will be disclosed in a moment) replaced with “Obamacare,” a portion of it would read as follows:

Conservatives are supposed to respect the organic nature of human societies. Ours has been riven by profound disagreements that have been deepening over many years. We are divided not only about political facts and social values, but also about what the Constitution itself means. The crusaders on this issue choose to ignore these problems and are proposing to deny the will of 64 million voters by appealing to five Supreme Court Justice (since no one is delusional enough to think that the four liberal justices are going to take [Obamacare] away from Obama). What kind of conservatism is this?

It is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation. Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election, and get over it; and get on with the important business of reviving our country’s economy and defending its citizens, and — by the way — its Constitution.”

The phrase that was substituted with “Obamacare” was “the Presidency.” The original article was actually an attack against the “birthers.” Yet Horowitz now argues that conservatives (“sore losers” also?) should fight against Obamacare and its rejection of the Constitutional framework. Most of this framework is important to him, apparently, while Article II eligibility is not. Horowitz must find Obama as special as our Narcissist-in-Chief thinks himself—too important to have his reign encumbered by those pesky eligibility provisions. But now that the chickens of Obamacare have come to roost on Horowitz’s own doorstep, he seeks the shelter of the Constitution.

Presidential eligibility is arguably one of the Constitution’s most straightforward provisions, unlike the subjective “general welfare” or interstate commerce clauses or the Tenth Amendment, which are the basis of the lawsuits against Obamacare. The Framers penned our Constitution in only four pages—not 3,000. One can imagine that every single word they included was considered to be of utmost importance.

Democrats forge ahead with liberal and radical ideas that range from stunning ignorance to complete disregard of the Constitution, and to even what seems utter contempt. Republicans and Conservatives like Mr. Horowitz seem to pick and choose among its provisions. The Tea Partiers remain as the only ones who appear to understand that the framers meant all of what they said.

If the “will of the people” is considered a “political question”  — even when this “will” is arguably unconstitutional — a matter that should never be adjudicated by the Supreme Court, then the third branch of government is rendered powerless and the Constitution itself, meaningless. Because, simply put, that is exactly one of the reasons the Supreme Court is appointed—to judge whether actions of the other two branches are in fact Constitutional. Its justices, when they donned their robes, swore to uphold the Constitution, not to rule along predictable ideological lines. There is a prescribed process to be followed when society desires to amend the Constitution. Sixty million votes in a popular election do not overrule eligibility law.

You know that, Mr. Horowitz, et al, yet now you propose we fight this Healthcare reform, justified by your opinion that this is the “will of the people.” The Democratic Congress begs to differ as to what exactly this “will” is—they and Obama “won,” remember? Yet both sides of this argument seem to ignore the fact that we do not live in a Democracy, but rather, a Republic. The wise, “radical” Founding Fathers clearly understood the fickleness of society and created a form of government supported by laws and checks and balances. Simple majority opinion, especially when it is uninformed, uneducated, and purchased with handouts, does not trump the law.

The outright rejection of our laws results in a loss of liberty and ultimately in tyranny. The only defense is to be bound by the Constitution. Not a weakened version, perforated by political correctness, marred by the whims of society, or trampled by a hell-bent Democrat-run Congress and ideological usurper.

The remedy for “sore-loserism” or “Obama Derangement Syndrome,” David Horowitz, Andrew Breitbart, Mark Levin, Michael Medved and friends? The Constitution, consistently applied, in its entirety. And yes, Glenn Beck, it does matter.

© 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.


Tags: obama eligibility

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:26
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

 Statement  for American media

April 8, 2010
New York City

 

 Barack Obama's communist  regime is based on my "White House Special Handbook" written for Bill Clinton in 1996 at CIA request. Besides, I was spying on the U.S. Congress and it was obviosly President  Clinton's idea. For that  Clinton pardoned John Deutch, DCI at the time, and a suspected Russian "mole" later.

 In  2008 Obama made the following statement :" We can't continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We got to have a civilian national security force that just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded".
 Many people, including Paul Broun, a Republican Congressman, are sure  that Obama wants to establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship, but in fact he means KGB with its totalitarian control methods , the ones I've instructed Democrats about.

 I'm very sorry, America and  I'm ready to make a statement at Congress hearing.
CIA is still pressing me in every way to get me back to "work" . Current CIA Director Leon Panetta served as Chief of Staff to President Clinton and  it's clear that espionage on Republican Senators and Representatives is in progress. I demand an independent counsel's investigation into CIA anti-American conspiracy, and if President Barack Obama is personally involved, he has to resign or be impeached and removed from the Office immediately.

 I've received an invitation for a dinner with President Barack Obama and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi from Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (signed by Ian Sugar, Director of Development). On May 13, 2010, at 6.00 PM I have to come to St. Regis hotel, New York, but I've changed my mind . I don't dine with enemies of state.

I also want to thank Mrs. Hillary Clinton, a former U.S. Senator, for help.

 

For additional information write to:

CIA Director Leon Panetta
Central Intelligence Agency
Office of Public Affairs
Washington, D.C. 20505
phone: (703) 482-0623

 

Mikhail Kryzhanovsky
a former KGB intelligence officer  and KGB special "Nabat" group member (a sniper)
a former CIA  "Filament"
 

____________________________________________________________________

Share Twitter Facebook

Attachments:

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Bill Hallbert Permalink Reply by Bill Hallbert on April 4, 2010 at 9:57am
Thanks for the heads up !

Reply to This

New Orleans Sam Permalink Reply by New Orleans Sam on April 7, 2010 at 8:24am
A very large majority are ignoring this problem, thinking it will go away on its own. If we do not take very serious steps to dissolve Communism in America, we will lose this country, and they will re-name it "Soviet America," out of gloating of their big prize of our former world power that was brought down by aggressive propaganda tactics, exploiting minorities and taking over our trade unions with a false message of "The Greater Good."

Wake up America. Defend our country! Before we all become political & financial slaves.
Marxism is the new misunderstood "Black Plague," and we are making nice with diseased rats and fleas.

Reply to This

Bill Hallbert Permalink Reply by Bill Hallbert 14 hours ago
They Nazi's rose to power because the majority of the German people stood by and hoped the Nazi "problem" would just go away. The American people must openly reject the Obama program for America to avoid suffering the same fate.

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. ~ G.S

Reply to This

Doc Hudson Permalink Reply by Doc Hudson 1 day ago
What can we/i do to help you get your message out ?

Reply to This

Mikhail Kryzhanovsky Permalink Reply by Mikhail Kryzhanovsky 17 hours ago
Every American, everty Senator and every Representative has to see this message. We need independent investigation and if Obama is linked to CIA conpiracy, it's a federal crime - he will resign.
Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 in the face of his role in Watergate scandal, remember ?
Attachments:

Reply to This

Janette Permalink Reply by Janette 20 hours ago
Is there a Congressional hearing coming up?

Reply to This

Mikhail Kryzhanovsky Permalink Reply by Mikhail Kryzhanovsky 18 hours ago
I'm sure it is.
Attachments:

Reply to This

stang289 Permalink Reply by stang289 13 hours ago
thank you its people like you that give me hope . i will pass along the information .

Reply to This

Mikhail Kryzhanovsky Permalink Reply by Mikhail Kryzhanovsky 10 hours ago
Stang, thank you very much for your help. Obama proved to all that he is the enemy of America. He has to resign and we have to help him make this decision. And we will !

Reply to This

stang289 Permalink Reply by stang289 9 hours ago
keep us informed on what we need to do to help . you are the expert . mikhail .

Reply to This

Bobbie Permalink Reply by Bobbie 13 hours ago
I don't mean to be rude, but I'd like to know how we can know that this is "real". This is quite scary and I feel that if we write letters to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Panetta, they will be ignored. Besides, I know that they "hold" all mail coming to them for a period of time. If this is truly real, what other route can we take to get the ball rolling!!

Reply to This

Mikhail Kryzhanovsky Permalink Reply by Mikhail Kryzhanovsky 10 hours ago
I'm real , Bobbie, but don't be scared - Obama's weapon is lie, our weapon is truth and organization. The truth has to be widespread enough to make Obama resign. Do it, get the boll rolling.
And - thanks a lot.

Reply to This


Tags: obama KGB Kryzhanovsky

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:45
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 08 de abril de 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010 at 10:10PM

Well, now we know why Gloria and Emilio Estefan are hosting that lavish fundraiser for the DNC and Barack Hussein Obama. The cat is not just out of the bag, it's sprung out like a hungry tiger.

According to campaign laws, any proceeds collected from fundraisers like the one the Estefans will be hosting must held and used within the state it was collected. SflaConservative has received confirmation that this warchest is being collected to use against what Democrats perceive as a clear and present danger to their fall agenda. They will use this warchest almost exclusively to wage unrestricted war against Republican Senate candidate and former Florida Speaker of the House: Marco Rubio.

Apparently, Mr. Rubio is a mortal threat to whatever plans Obama, Gloria and Emilio have for Florida. They feel intimidated enough to launch this full tilt lefty love fest before the primary is even played out.

A fair political question for the Estefans would be: do you feel the same way about Governor Charlie Crist, or is this fundraiser aimed solely at Marco Rubio?

Let there be no mistake. Gloria and Emilio are absolutely one hundred percent behind the Obama agenda and have now been co-opted as celebrity fundraisers for the cause. It's time to eliminate any doubt you may have had as to what they believe and where they choose to back up with their substantial wealth.

Again, they have every right to support Obama or chairman Mao if they wish. However, do not pretent that you are a friend of liberty if you promote, support and contribute to those that want to see our founding principles destroyed.

I'll say this, you as musicians and artists will be one of the first to take it in the chin if they - with your full support - succeed in irreparably altering this Republic. Let me refer you to the movie a friend of yours made called "The Lost City" that told of an artist named Fico Fellove and how socio-marxism destroyed everything he had built in the name of socialist progress.

Quick pause. If you have not seen "The Lost City" by all means do. It is a perfect example of what the marxist end game is when it comes to totally dominating their victims.

If you believe that socialism is the way to prosperity, I refer to only a few nations that suffed socialism's handiwork: the Soviet Union, East Germany, Czekoslovakia, Romania, Poland and how about a country closer to home...uh...CUBA.

"The ends justify the means..." Che Guevara. Be prepared to embrace that like a down quilt blanket.

When universal healthcare bankrupts the United States, will it justify destroying insurance for the overwhelming majority that are happy with it now? Will destroying all incentive to create jobs with a Cap and Tax system justify "going green"? Will destroying the right to a secret vote justify the implementation of "Card Check"? When businesses flee the Unites States because they fear the Timothy Geithner will confiscate their business due to "excessive risk taking" will that justify catastrophic business reforms?

The policy initiatives of the Obama administration are a modern day example of Che's philosophy of the ends justifying the means. It doesn't matter what consequences await our Republic, so long as the socialist / marxist framework is permanently installed.

You are raising money to support those who believe in these economic atrocities that have ravaged the world over. You are now actively against a candidate that embraces smaller government, low taxes, free markets, small business, entrepreneurs (you were one of those once) etc. You are free to make that choice. We thought it our duty to advise you of the consequences brought on by the "means", before the "ends" come crashing down on the heads of the American public.

I would like to end this article - Gloria and Emilio - with Fico Fellove's own words of wisdom...and of warning.

Posted by VILLA GRANADILLO at 7:59 AM 4 comments

Tags: obama estefan

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:44
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
 
 
Limbaugh: Obama Plan Should Outrage 9/11Victims

Wednesday, 07 Apr 2010 10:07 PM
Rush Limbaugh used his radio programWednesday to lash out against President Obama’s plan to censor the word“Islamic radicalism” from a National Security document that deals withthreats confronting America.

Obama advisers say the new version emphasizes that the U.S. does notview Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism.

But the change is a radical shift in the National Security Strategy, adocument that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventive war.It currently states, "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalismis the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21stcentury." 

Limbaugh, America’s number one rated conservative host, thinks theObama initiative is dangerous.

On his show Limbaugh said:

  • ”Obama and his idealists, young whippersnappers,think the United States is the problem. We are attacked because wedeserve to be. We have been imperialists, we've overstepped our boundsin the world, it's totally understandable why they would attack us andcommit acts of terror against us. So what do we need to do? We need togo in there and build them schools, and we need to get them healthcare, and we need to talk to them about science. Meanwhile, we do nothave the money for this.”
  • ”I ask a question? Maybe somebody can help me withthis. What are we doing having relationships with the Muslim worldanyway? Do we have a relationship with the Catholic world? Do we have arelationship with the Buddhist world? Do we have a relationship withthe Jewish world? Well, if we did, Obama's taken care of that. But wedon't have relations with religious worlds.”
  • ”If we can't call Islamic radicals ‘Islamicradicals,’ we shouldn't call rapists "rapists." We should call them‘uninvited perpetrators,’ or ‘penetrators,’ if you wish. Murderer? Doyou think people like being called a murderer, even if they are? Do youthink that's going to forge a decent relationship with murderers?”
  • ”So the premise is we deserve it. We should have beenhit. It's time we face the facts, and to prevent them from hitting usagain, we have to acknowledge that. Stop calling them Islamic radicals,stop calling them terrorists, instead build them hospitals. I can'timagine what it must be like to be in a family who lost someone in 9/11to hear about this guy's plans for the Muslim world. I can't imaginewhat it was like when they found out that this government was willingto spend $200 million a year in security for the people who blew up theWorld Trade Center in a civil trial. I can't imagine the anger theymust have felt.”

    © Newsmax. All rightsreserved.

    Tags: obama Limbaugh

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:45
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     




    between the 
lines Joseph Farah

    Why doesn't Obama deny he's a socialist?

    Posted: April 07, 2010
    1:00 am Eastern

    © 2010 

     

    Have you noticed the way Barack Obama loves to talk about the crazy people out there in America who think he's a socialist?

    He did it again last week during an interview on NBC about the tea-party movement.

    "There's still going to be a group at their core that question my legitimacy," he explained. "There's some folks who just weren't sure whether I was born in the United States, whether I was a socialist."

    Let's get down to brass tacks. I don't know anyone in the tea-party movement who has any doubts whatsoever that Obama is a socialist.

    If Obama isn't a socialist, why doesn't he come out and deny – just once? Why doesn't he swear publicly that he absolutely is committed to fostering free enterprise and market capitalism. Have you ever heard him say such a thing? Of course not. Even better, of course, would be if Obama would actually govern like he believed in those principles. Yet, to date, he has done the opposite – governing like someone who believes the state has all the answers and needs all the power.

    The only one of its kind in the world -- check out what's new at the WND Superstore's "Birth Certificate Store"

    I don't have even a grain of doubt that Obama is a socialist. If he walks like a socialist and talks like a socialist and governs like a socialist, he is probably a socialist.

    • Obama appoints avowed socialists to key positions in his Cabinet.

    • He talked in the campaign about the need to "spread the wealth around."

    • He belonged to socialist organizations during his community-organizer days.

    • As president, he has nationalized automakers, the entire health-care system and redistributed more wealth than any other president in history.

    Whether or not he calls himself a socialist is really immaterial and beside the point.

    If I rob banks, I'm a bank robber – no matter what I call myself.

    Words actually mean things. If you look up socialist in the dictionary, you ought to see a picture of Barack Obama.

    Notice, though, how Obama cleverly confuses the settled facts of his economic philosophy with the open question of his origins.

    I don't know anyone who is certain Obama is foreign born. However, his steadfast refusal to provide any meaningful evidence of his bona fide birth in the United States and, thus, his constitutional eligibility to serve as president certainly has many of us wondering – at last count, about half the country.

    What we are certain about is that the Constitution requires presidents to be natural-born citizens. We are also certain Obama has never proven anything of the kind. He's never shown a willingness to be forthright, open and honest about his origins. Instead, he has aggressively fought every legal attempt to force him to produce the evidence.

    I've been a journalist for a long time. One thing I learned in 30 years was that when politicians hide something there's a reason for it. They don't conceal documents, birth records, school records, college transcripts, health records, etc., unless they have something to hide.

    Contrary to the opinions of non-journalists like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck, who never investigated a story in their lives, politicians don't hide papers as a means of distraction or as a tactic to divert the interest of the public from "the real issues."

    Whether or not Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible, fit and qualified for office is the ultimate issue facing his presidency.

    We know after experiencing a year of his governance that he has no respect for the Constitution whatsoever. Isn't that exactly what we would expect of a man who sought and won the office illegitimately?

    Why would it be so hard to believe Obama deceived the America people from the start?

    I would find it harder to believe that he actually has a long-form birth certificate that reflects the life story he has told us. If I were him and I had such a document, I would pull it out and shut up those annoying critics once and for all.

    Of course, he's never going to do that – not willingly. He will continue to bob and weave and play games as long as the Matt Lauers, Bill O'Reillys and Glenn Becks of the world keep falling for them.

    That's because he's a socialist – and for socialists, the ends justify the means, rules are meant to be broken, there are no absolutes, there is no truth.

    If you're not a socialist, Obama, what are you?

    Are you a free-marketeer? Do you expect anyone to believe that?

    If you're not foreign born, which Hawaiian hospital were you born in – and where is the proof?




    Tags: obama Socialist

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:30
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     
    Posted by Steve Cooper at 04-07-2010 | View Comments (52) | Add Comment

    Nuclear Surrender, The Dream of THE LEFT


    Barry Soetoro aka Obama is signing a nuclear treaty that would make all of the communist hippies that protested in the 60's and 70's very proud. THIS is the voluntary surrender of the United States by an illegitimate President that has allegiance to a global communist government, rather than for the safety of America.

    It has been a goal of the Russians and China to convert us to communists without even firing a shot and this goal has been achieved. I give them
    credit, they pulled it off by "spoon feeding us socialism" for the past 50 years, just like Nikita Khruschev said they would. 

    Why is Obama disarming US as Iran, Russia, China and N. Korea are building up their weapons? Is he he is a
    trojan horse, communist agent sabotaging us from within? Of course he is.

    Many thousands of brave young American soldiers gave their lives to fight the spread of communism all over the globe, but in 2006 and 2008 elections, the American people betrayed them ALL. I tried to warn repeatedly, but I was laughed at...NOW we all shall pay the consequences for your ignorance. Your children and grand children will be slaves, mark my words. I was right before and I will be right again.

    Obama is basically telling our communist, rogue enemies in Russia that "I do not see you as a threat, because I am on your side" when he signs this treaty. Make no mistake about it, ALL global terrorism is being orchestrated out of Moscow. Do not be fooled by the Moscow attacks that were possibly staged by the FSB/KGB, they have staged terrorist attacks in the past.

    Now our enemies can attack us with bio and chemical weapons without fear of a nuclear retaliation. These terrorist organizations are "state sponsored" folks. We are not fighting bare foot Muslims in a cave and you are naive if you still believe this nonsense.      

    Keep talking about "the issues"?

    Brainwashed Fox News puppets would parrot their talking point "Lets focus on the issues". Keep talking about issues that will not remove this
    fraud and you will have nothing left by 2012. You talked about health care and it did not stop one damn thing. I was right all along, read my archives under the "Economy" and "Editorial" categories.

    I would say "Health care is passing, nothing is stopping them" and people would then parrot the Fox News talking points once again "They do not have the votes, they would have voted already" or "health care is dead". I can not tell you how many times I heard these two statements. 

    Oh yeah? Ya think? Ya think you know the enemy? I do not recall hearing "the great" Glenn Beck writing the bold prediction that I made about health care passing on his blackboard.  
    Our enemies are benefiting greatly by Obama and they do not want the Republicans taking back anything. I would not be shocked if there was a staged event to implode the Republicans somehow. The media is going to go full force against the Tea Parties and the Republicans.  

    The only issue that is important right now is that we have an illegitimate president signing laws and treaties that are not worth the ink and paper that they are ON. Obama's ineligibility is the only issue and the only people that can help put this to an end is the officers in the military that are speaking up. This could spark a mutiny in the military against the Joint Chief's for violating their oath to defend the American people from "domestic enemies". 

    The Congress, Senate and Supreme Court are part of the cover up and they refused to do anything about this issue BEFORE the election when they had a chance to. Lawsuits were already filed BEFORE the election and the requests were denied by corrupt judges they betrayed this nation. Where were the Beck's, Hannity's and O' Reilly's before the election? They betrayed the people as well. 

    Once Obama was elected the judges used the excuse that "the people have no standing to challenge Obama's eligibility". The fix was in folks, the elite protect their own.

    The ONLY thing that will save US is for more officers to question Obama's illegal orders and the PEOPLE need to defend their actions, because they will be targeted by the left and the Fox News puppets. Many of the people on the Internet that are "anti-birthers" are paid operatives of the Obama administration, Glenn Beck puppets or just plain useful idiots doing it for free.

    The health care bill and this nuclear treaty are INVALID documents and the people need to demand that Obama step down immediately, because we the people have deemed him a danger to national security.

    news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Barack-Obama
     
       



    Share this story

    Bookmark and
 Share


    Tags: Obama Surrender

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:05
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    How long can a nation sustain itself when its president, its government, and its news media tell a thousand lies every day?

    A Thousand Lies

     By Alan Caruba  Tuesday, April 6, 2010

    The question is, how long can a nation sustain itself when its president, its government, and its news media tell a thousand lies every day?

    Americans are drowning in lies. The biggest lie is the budget, burdened with trillions in debt, and behind that are the virtually insolvent entitlement programs, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

    Despite the judgment of legal scholars, the healthcare “reform” is unconstitutional and will be challenged in the courts by many of the States affected by it. These are, however, the same courts that have resisted addressing Obama’s eligibility to be president.

    A thousand lies every day.

    Americans must now get ready for a new flood of lies. These are already coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency, now completely in the control of radical environmentalists. The big lie is that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” and, as such, can or should be regulated by the Clean Air Act. The EPA has already moved to increase its demand for more mileage from autos when it is common knowledge that lighter cars just mean more deaths from collisions. People will die.

    So we are being lied to regarding entitlement programs, regarding the budget, regarding environmental issues, and then there is the biggest lie of all, that the man sitting in the Oval Office is a natural-born American citizen qualified under the terms of the Constitution to hold the presidency.

    I spent decades since the 1980s being called a “denier” and a “skeptic” as I wrote repeatedly that global warming was a complete fraud based on bad science. In November 2009, leaked emails revealed it has been based on deliberately falsified data by a handful of British and American scientists colluding together to maintain the hoax.

    The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been the vehicle for this fraud, but the president, members of Congress, and various U.S. agencies continue to speak of “climate change” as the code word.

    Now I and many others are being derided as “birthers” because we know Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural-born citizen. The issue was important enough for a congressional hearing to determine if Sen. John McCain, born in Panama where his father was serving in the U.S. Navy, qualified as a natural-born citizen, but not for his opponent whose Kenyan grandmother says he was born there.

    As Michelle Obama so eloquently said in a recent speech, “When we took a trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya…” Many Americans can claim a foreign heritage, but unless they are recent immigrants, they do not refer to their “home country” except in the past tense.

    Then there is the question of why Obama would reportedly spend more than a million dollars in legal fees to ensure that his alleged Hawaiian birth certificate would remain, as it is, under seal. Almost anyone can find and produce their birth certificate with ease; anyone other than the man pretending to be president.

    A thousand lies every day.

    Meanwhile our southern border, long neglected as a route for illegal aliens and drug smugglers, worsens as word of increased murders drive some Mexicans to flee and seek asylum here, and Americans living near the border to fear for their lives.

    No word of any action regarding the 10 to 20 million illegal aliens living here except for the intention of the Obama administration to grant them all amnesty, the implications of which hold little good for the millions of native and naturalized Americans, an estimated 16 million of whom are currently unemployed or have given up seeking employment.

    A thousand lies every day.

    There are some signs of hope.

    Newly minted Massachusetts Republican Senator Scott Brown was elected because he told the truth.

    The new Republican governors of Virginia and New Jersey were elected because they told the truth.

    Four out of every ten members of the Tea Parties are self-identified Democrats and independents who joined because they want the truth and want an end the depredations of this administration. The majority of members are women, but the mainstream press continues to depict them as violent, racist vigilantes.

    Neither the White House, the Congress, nor the arrogant press understand that it is their lies that will defeat them. They hold Americans in contempt, but Americans are determined to rid themselves of these liars.

    Obama appoints hard-core socialists to positions of power throughout his administration

    In the meantime, though, Obama appoints hard-core socialists to positions of power throughout his administration.

    This is a time in which courage is required until America can be saved by November’s midterm elections. Are Republicans perfect? No, but they are not socialists.

    © Alan Caruba, 2010



    Tags: obama lies

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:57
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    Obama Administration Whitewashes Islamic Jihad

    2010 April 8

    Apparently, the new buzz phrase in the Obama administration to describe our fight against radical Islamic terrorism is “countering violent extremism.”  Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair used the catch-phrase twice in a speech he delivered yesterday.

    Notice that there is no reference to the source of most of the terrorist “violent extremism” around the world today - radical Islam.  This “soft power approach” is deliberately designed to avoid offending the Muslim world - an extension of Obama’s apologia last June in Cairo during which he told Muslims how sorry the United States was for all of the supposed wrongs we committed against them.  

    It is also forbidden in Obama-land to use the term “jihad” to describe the Islamic ideology we are fighting.  Last year John Brennan, Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, said it was inappropriate to use “jihad” in such a negative context because in the Islam religion, he claims, jihad means “to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal.”

    But when one examines the real meaning of jihad according to Islam’s prophet Muhammad from primary sources such as Bukhari (the Hadith, which are oral traditions relating to the words and deeds of Muhammad), Brennan’s assertion is overwhelmingly disproved. The fact is that 97% of the jihad references are about war and 3% concern an inner struggle. Also, the Koran itself is full of hate-filled violent passages.

    The Obama administration is helping to whitewash the words and deeds of the radical Islamists’ own warrior prophet, which these mass murderers of innocent civilians use today to justify their jihad of terror.

    Laura Ingraham, who filled in for Bill O’Reilly on “The Factor” last night, minced no words in piercing through this semantical, politically correct nonsense.  Her guest, Nancy Soderberg (who served in the Clinton administration, including as Alternate Representative to the United Nations), tried to defend the whitewash by dumping on the Bush administration’s more direct approach to fighting the war against terror.

    Not only did Ingraham point out that Bush had repeatedly gone out of his way to describe Islam – rightly or wrongly – as a peaceful faith.  She also reminded Soderberg that Bush has been out of office for more than a year and that it was time for the Obama administration to be held accountable for its failures.  Maybe Ingraham should host “The Factor” more often.

    Nothing that Obama has done so far in trying to whitewash the radical Islamic source of the terrorist threat our country is facing today has worked.  The problem has gotten worse.  Before you can effectively fight the enemy – whether on the military battlefield or in the war of ideas – you have to understand who they really are and expose their true ideology to the world.

    • Share/Bookmark

    Tags: Obama Islamic Jihad

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:38
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Miércoles, 07 de abril de 2010


    Now This Really Took Some Thinking!  

    CLICK ON IMAGE



    The object of the game is to destroy American capitalism by having the government take over everything!
    Wanna Play?

    No?!
    Too bad, you're already playing...
        
                


    Tags: OBAMOPOLY

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:07
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    WND ON THE AIR

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=137513

    Kupelian on Hannity: Obama staging 'socialist coup'

    Critics attack 'How Evil Works' author for 'poisonous, inflammatoryrhetoric'


    Posted: April 06, 2010
    10:19 pm Eastern

    © 2010 WorldNetDaily

    "Is there any limit to the poisonous, inflammatory rhetoric that isallowed on Fox News?" fumed left-leaning bloggers following "How EvilWorks" author David Kupelian's appearance on Sean Hannity's popularprimetime Fox News show.

    "Not so long as it's directed against a Democrat or the left, itwould seem," charged the anti-Fox News Newshoundssite. "Last night (4/5/10), on the 'Great American Panel' segment onHannity, WorldNetDaily's David Kupelian said, 'We're looking at anattempted socialist coup d'etat in Washington, D.C. … the thing aboutBarack Obama, here's a guy who has been steeped in Marxist ideology forthe past 30 years."

    At which point Kupelian was challenged angrily by Democraticpundit Bob Beckel, who compared Kupelian to Joe McCarthy and demandedhe apologize to Obama.

    The author of the culture-war classic "TheMarketing of Evil" and its just-released blockbuster sequel, "How EvilWorks," Kupelian was joined on the panel by Town Hall columnistAshley Herzog, as well as Beckel.

    In the first of two segments (below), Kupelian and Beckel clashover Kupelian’s allegation that Obama is a socialist who has been"steeped in Marxist ideology" for most of his life:



     
     

    During the second segment's discussion of celebrity narcissism,Tiger Woods and a newly released study concluding the Clinton-Lewinskyaffair popularized oral sex with young people, Kupelian said, "Ibelieve Bill Clinton corrupted a whole generation of young people. …The message was this: The kids of America were saying, 'If it is goodenough for the president of the United States, it is OK for me. And –it’s not sex. '"


     

    "How Evil Works" was introduced to the nation in February by Hannity, who told his audience at the time, "This is a powerful book ... I couldn't put it down." 

    Hannity's assessment of "How Evil Works" mirrors that of others, like legendary radio talk-show host Barry Farber, who said: "With the unapologetic outrage of a saint and the fearless fury of a General Patton, here comes David Kupelian turning a blowtorch of good upon the putrid cobwebs of evil. Do you remember removing the back of a clock to look into the workings? In 'How Evil Works,' Kupelian lets us look directly into evil itself. There it is – every tick, every tock, every trick, every shock. Kupelian doesn't rest with 'Sunlight is the best disinfectant.' He prefers the scorch-light."

    Chuck Norris praises "How Evil Works" in his column, "I believe in the resurrection of America," saying: "David Kupelian, in his new insightful treatise on what truly lurks behind the troubles in government and America, 'How Evil Works,' notes that we've been "seduced" to believe that "'the self-evident truths’' the founders relied upon are just outdated and dangerous myths." "No wonder," Kupelian says, "millions of Americans have gradually been demoralized into depending upon government to solve all of their problems, fueling today’s uncontrolled, cancer-like growth in government."

    No. 1 New York Times best-selling author Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., says: "'How Evil Works' is fresh, original, and startlingly insightful. David Kupelian reveals the hidden mechanisms that allow lies and deception to take root in modern America. A truly important book."

    And WND founder and Editor Joseph Farah, in his review of "How Evil Works," says: Read this book. Share it with your friends. Bring it to the attention of your family members. I promise you it will embolden your faith, strengthen your worldview and prepare you for the challenges that evil will confront you with throughout your life.

    Order your copy of "How Evil Works" by David Kupelian – autographed and discounted – at the WND Superstore!

    New! "How Evil Works" is also available as an audiobook version on eight CDs.

    If you prefer to order by phone rather than online, call our toll-free customer service line at 1-800-4WND-COM (1-800-496-3266) between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.


    Tags: obama WorldNetDaily

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:46
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Martes, 06 de abril de 2010
     

    Why is the Supreme Court failing to uphold the Constitution?

    The lack of proper recognition of the average citizen’s

     grievances causes me to raise questions that
     have led me to the Declaration of Independence.

    It states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident,
    that all men are created equal, that they are endowed

     by their Creator with certain unalienable
    rights, that among these are life, liberty and the

    pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights,
     governments are instituted among men, deriving their

     just powers from the consent of the governed.”

    At this point, dear Justices, I see nothing in place

     today within our government which remotely
     resembles the above passage. In fact, in my opinion,

    had things been as they should have been,
     perhaps Mr. Stack would still be with us today.

    Faced with an impossible situation where many of

    us see we are in danger of being deprived of
    and denied our unalienable rights and can no longer

     easily secure our rights of life, liberty
     and the pursuit of happiness, we again turn to the

     Declaration of Independence, which then states,
    “That whenever any form of government becomes

    destructive to these ends, it is the right of the
     people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new

    government, laying its foundation on such
     principles and organizing its powers in such form,

    as to them shall seem most likely to effect
    their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed,

    will dictate that governments long established
    should not be changed for light and transient causes;

    and accordingly all experience hath shown
    that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while

    evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
     abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
     pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design

     to reduce them under absolute despotism,
    it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such

    government, and to provide new guards for their
     future security.”

    So here we are, dear Justices. I fear many of us

    loyal citizens are beginning to reach the point described
     above.

     We have been patient; we have been persistent.

    In return, we have been denied proper access to redress

    our concerns. We have been denied our
    First Amendment rights as freedom of the press

     has been compromised.  Government domination
     over the television networks has also marginalized

    our free access to news and information, and we
    are routinely subjected to propagandized influence

    biased by both government and foreign interests.

    As citizens, we have been subjected to a manner

     of character assassination, personally delivered
     by high-ranking members of Congress.  For example,

     Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, presented
     in the form of public criticism, ridiculing and vilification,

    right out of the Saul Alinsky book “Rules for Radicals.”

    Homeland Security has issued the following:

     WASHINGTON – A newly unclassified Department of
    Homeland Security report warns against the possibility

    of violence by unnamed “right-wing extremists”
    concerned about illegal immigration, increasing

    federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the
    loss of U.S. sovereignty and singles out returning

    war veterans as particular threats.

    I take exception to this condemnation from people

     who purportedly work for the citizens of this great nation.
    Is this indeed the proof that the inmates at Homeland

    Security are running the asylum? Wouldn’t any reasonable
    person be concerned about the issues raised in this notice?

     Is this to be taken as a declaration of war upon
     any citizen who dissents against the current government

     policies? Is this Constitutional? Oh, excuse me, dear
     justices…I must have missed something on this, too.

    Isn’t this another attack on everyday concerned citizens?

     Isn’t this simply a continuation of an earlier effort to
     vilify anyone seeking to restore the Constitution and the

     rule of law? Is this part of a preconditioning strategy
     to brainwash citizens to accept an ever-increasing

    threat of martial law by a government bent on replacing our
     free society with socialism?

    How much are we citizens expected to endure at the

    hands of this oppressive government? How many of
     these abuses to our Constitution are considered reasonable?

    It does not seem to get better. Our Tea Party citizens

     have been described as Nazis; our returning veterans
     have been classed as possible terrorists; those who

     staunchly support the Second Amendment have also been
    branded and vilified as right-wing fringe elements.

    Those demanding the eligibility issue be resolved are ridiculed.
    There are many more examples of legitimately concerned

     citizens being denied rightful recognition of their
     respective grievances.

    Concurrently, along with other quietly-executed

    administrative activities, clandestine executive orders

    issued
     in the dead of night dramatically affect the sovereignty

    and security of this nation. International agencies
     are provided excessive access to U.S. interests

    and immunity from U.S. authority. This has produced
     a dire set of circumstances, presenting the specter

     of international police elements potentially exercising
    controlling authority over American citizens.

    The creation of special administrative organizations

     has provided sweeping new collective authority to
     the office of the president, a position currently

    occupied by an individual with unknown credentials
    and possibly conflicting loyalties. This poses a

    clear and present danger to the vested interests of this country.

    Under the guise of forming protective units

    against terrorism, Homeland Security has extended its authority
     to encompass the coordination of local and state police

    authority. Many see that a danger exists for
     potentially planned government incursions to violate

     the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

    Add to all of the above, we have so many folks out

    of work, the economy is rapidly failing, the stability
     of our currency is under attack and the daily revelation

     of gross government corruption make for a very
    unstable view of our prospects.

    Under these potentially explosive conditions, it is hard

     to imagine just how much more tolerant our loyal
    American citizens will remain.

    Meanwhile, dear Justices, I still have no answers for

    my family, but in researching all of these concerns,
    it appears that things are far worse than I had ever anticipated:

    • In summary, we have three branches of government
    •  that all swear oaths to faithfully execute their
    •  responsibilities, but don’t.
    • We have three branches of government that take an
    •  oath and swear to protect the Constitution,
    •  but don’t.
    • We have a case where we the people are ignored and
    • denied due process by a judicial system that also
    •  fails to honor its oath of office and to deliver equal
    • justice under the law.

    Excuse me, dear Justices, please tell me…am I out of line?

    Granted, I know little about the legal status of the above

     issues, but even as a simple unsophisticated citizen,
    I find the very existence of these conflicts to be very

    disturbing. Tell me, your honors, how do you sleep at night?

    To attempt to tie all of this together, it appears to me that

    collectively, as a group of like-minded citizens,
    we create a government that follows the tenets of the

    Constitution and the founding documents. As part
    of this process, we empower our representatives to

     provide a system of administration by which to guide our
     daily lives.

    We voluntarily agree to obey the reasonable rules and laws

    created for us by our servants in the government.
    However, if those empowered to make the laws and

    maintain the system of justice do not abide by the very
     same laws, then by what manner of hypocrisy can

    those to be governed be expected to continue to agree to
     obey laws of such a corrupt system? What incentive

    is there to continue to live by laws that pertain only to
    those who are governed but not to those empowered by

    the governed?

    Given today’s circumstances, it would seem very clear

     to me that once the question of responsibility to
    insure compliance to the Constitution was answered,

    then we could begin ferreting out the violations
    and the violators and begin to apply the principles of the

    rule of law.

    This would seem to offer a path by which to restore

    the values and ideas of the original Constitution, 
    values and concepts that would encourage a stable and

     vibrant nation with an equally enthusiastic financial
    and economic outlook, a nation capable of regaining

     its former glory to again take its rightful position as
     America, the home of the free, the home of the brave;

    the leader of the free world.

    As I see it, the burden of proof is on Obama to prove his

    eligibility, not the responsibility of the people to
    prove he is not eligible. Why have the courts ignored this

     critical part of the legislative process? This is a
    matter of law, not politics.

    As I see it, the Supreme Court is responsible for resolving

     this crisis. Every citizen is involved; therefore,
     the issue of standing has been made.

    So, dear Justices, the question begging to be answered

    is, simply, “When do the members of the Supreme
     Court do the job for which they are being paid?” If not the

     Supreme Court, who is in charge of protecting
     the sanctity of the Constitution?

    Sincerely,

    Arnie Rosner

    Copies to:

    John Paul Stevens, Associate Justice
    Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice
    Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice
    Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice
    Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice
    Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice
    Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice

    © 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless
    otherwise specified.
     To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice
    on the subheader of every page,
    along the left margin.


    Tags: obama Oath Court

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:31
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 2010



    Talk show host Jeff Kuhner, on 570 WTNT, who two months ago said on his program that he thought that Obama was probably born in Hawaii, just said that Obama is a USURPER and an illegitimate president of the United States! This story breaking minutes ago!

    Kuhner characterized the Obama "presidency" as one of the biggest cons ever!

    Kuhner calls O'Reilly STUPID! "Murdoch and Fox 
    in bed with 
    the Saudis...birth certificate 
    issue off limits because 
    Saudi Arabia buying up access and influence in the UnitedStates!"

    Tags: obama usurper

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:19
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Para su divulgacion, cartaabierta a Gloria Estefan. de
    Miriam Mata

    Abril 6, 2010

    Gloria

     Llevo esperando mas de cincodias  para que algun medio noticioso te entrevistesobre tu abnegada admiracion por BarrySoetoro, conocido para  ti comoBarck Obama y no se ha efectuado.Siempre te admire desde tus comienzoscuando eran el sonido de Miami y
    cantabas con tu prima en diferentesactos politicos que frecuente. En mientender tu mejor cancion fue  "Con Los Añ
    osQue Me Quedan"  pero desde el 2005 cuando diste una entrevista  dijistes algo
    que  leerse en:
     
    "-Habrápersonas que tengan en su mente ir y tratar de recuperar todo
     lo que les quitaron, pero en gran parte todos sienten que hay quehacer borrón
     y cuenta nueva. Son 50 años de castrismo.
    Es imposible, es otro país, otra cultura. Cuba tiene que ir a unfuturo nuevo,
     no hacia atrás."

    Fue tu opinion como la tienen otros tambien, pero no es la mia ya quetendra que haber justicia en una Cuba Libre no por los
    añosque me quedan por vivir sino por los añosde sufrimiento que ha vivido el pueblo cubano por mas de medio siglo. No hablo derecuperacion de bienes sino de
    la perdida de la libertad, muerte, horror y sufrimiento por el terrorimplantado por el mal gobierno cubano.

    Dos años despues en el 2007 digistes en este video


    http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/275613/0/gloria/estefan/bush/

    "¡Imagínate!No estoy con Bush, estoy contra la guerra.
    No soy ni demócrata, ni republicana.
     Los partidos limitan mucho y yo no tengo partido.
     Es complicado el momento que vivimos allí desde el 11- S.
     Es la primera vez que nos enfrentábamos al terrorismo y
    ojalá encontremos la forma de acabar esa guerra."

    Fue tu opinion aceptada, es cierto los partidos limitan y no tenias
    partido.

    Cuando defendistes la Participacion de Carlos Santana quien era
    un activo activista no solo contra el presidente Bush, el Vaticanotambien
    y mostro orgullosamente la imagen del Che a nivel mundial, en tu disco
    90 millas dijistes lo siguiente en tu nota de prensa:

    "Por losúltimos 32 años de nuestra carrera ha sido extremadamenteclara
    nuestra posición anti-Castrista frente a Presidentes, La Realezade varios países,  el Papa Juan Pablo, la prensa mundial y cualquier persona que haya tocado el tema de Cuba con nosotros. Incluso cuando hubiese sido masfácil callar hemos expresado nuestro desacuerdo con la dictadura en Cuba y hemos tratado detransmitir el dolor del pueblo Cubano a través del mundo.

     

    Jamás hemoscolaborado ni colaboraríamos con ninguna persona que apoye elrégimen de Fidel Castro ni al Che Guevara.


     Eso debería estar completamente claro al ver nuestra trayectoria."


    No fue de mi completo agrado, pero diste tu explicacion.


    No les escuche apoyando a algun candidato  antes de las eleccionespresidenciales pasadas en el 2008 esta vez si se  callaron  sus sentimientos pero  despuesfuiste a Hawaii a celebrar la victoria del Ultra Izquierdista Obama y dijistes en este video
     
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DVYVtJCWL0


    que se escucha bien mal algo como:

    "Si seguro Hwaii tenemos mucho quecelebrar, tenemos a un hijo de Hawaii  lidereando en nuestro pais.
    Estamos viviendo tiempos interesantes, el mundo ha cambiado y es mas importante ahora que antes de hecho, estaba supuesta a estar en la ignaguracion gente peroestoy aqui con ustedes."

    Convocastes el 25 de Marzo a una marcha divulgando la tragedia cubanapersonalizada en las damas de blanco que todos te apoyamos y agradecimos. Y equivocadamentesolo cinco dias despues sale en la noticia que agazaran a Obama en tu casa para recoger fondospara el partido democrata.

    No se si una cosa tiene que ver con la otra, espero que  haya sido la casualidad el poco tiempo transcurrido entre el bien y el mal de tu actuacion.

    Si digo el bien y el mal, pues este pais se encuentra en un mal momento no solo por ser Obama un ultra-izquierdista  sino que su obra en el tiempo que lleva enla Casa Blanca nos lleva al camino de la perdida de la Republica y existe una grave crisis Constitucional ya que no se sabe quien es realmente Obama, todo lo tiene sellado, ni tansiquiera se ha comprobado
    en corte alguna que nacio en Hawaii. De por si no es ciudano oriundo o natural como nos dicta la Constitucion ya que ambos padres no eran ciudadanos al nacer.

    O sea quien sera tu invitado sera alguien quien miente a sabiendas todo el tiempo, ya que ha dicho en Junio del 2007  que los Estados Unidos no era mas una nacion Cristiana a pesar que casi el 80% de los
    americanos lo son aqui el video donde lo expreso
    :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmC3IevZiik


    Joan Swirsky publico un articulo en

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10784


    que le hice la traduccion titulado: El presidente queodia a su pais en

    http://usurpador.blogcindario.com/2009/05/00092-el-presidente-que-odia-a-su-pais-obama.html


    " Todavía en mis décadas de comentar en la escena política, no recuerdo a un solo líder de ninguna país o régimen quien haya hablado negativamente de su país o tolerado que otros hablen mal de la tierra o la gente que representa. "

    Pero para ustedes Gloria y Emilio , Obama  es digno de una invitacion, ya hace un tiempito que le admiran, entrevistan y comparten. Sera todo un exito, no recuerdo otro acto de Obama en casa particular sino cuando comenzo su carrera politica en casa del no arrepentido terrorista Bill Ayers vease :

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html

    Ese es su derecho de apoyar y de invitar a su casa  a quienes deseen, pero
    tambien deben  instruirse un poco mejor de quien es su invitado y lo que
    representa en estos momentos para preservar la propia libertad en los
    Estados Unidos y su grave crisis Constitucional.

    Han escuchado el caso del abogado Mario Apuzzo?  El ha publicado
    varios anuncios en el Washington Times donde explica que Obama
    no es un presidente Constitucional y tiene un caso en corte Vean
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

    Se han enterado del caso del Doctor y Teniente Coronel  Terry Lakin aqui
    el video donde explica sus razones antes de aceptar ordenes de Obama
    pide ver su certificado de nacimiento.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea9JVnck_-E&feature=player_embedded

    Y quieren darle terapias de electro  shock al Dr. Lakin que parece mas cuerdo
    que los que defienden a Obama en el Congreso.

    En fin son tantas las cosas que pudieramos decir, pero deseo tengan
    un exito pleno y de paso si logran averiguar por que Obama usa un
    numero de seguro social de alguien quien nacio en 1890, y cual es el
    secreto para su longividad. Vease

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/obamas-social-security-number/

    Atentamente,

    Miriam Mata
    Abril 6, 2010
















    Tags: obama Estefan

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:56
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Lunes, 05 de abril de 2010

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=135781
    BORN IN THE USA?

    Eligibilitychallenger: Don't touch my brain!

    Flightsurgeon questioning Obama rejects Army's suggestion of 'help'


    Posted: April 04, 2010
    6:28 pm Eastern

    By Bob Unruh
    © 2010 WorldNetDaily



     


    Lt.Col. Terry Lakin is the highest-ranking and first active-duty officer


    to refuse to obey orders based on President Obama's eligibility



    A U.S. Army flight surgeon who posteda video indicating his complete rejection of all orders from themilitary unless Barack Obama documents his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is now refusing an "unofficial" suggestion from the Army for a medical evaluation.



    WND reported this week the Army was hinting that Lt. Col Terry Lakin should undergo a brain scan and medical review.


    A spokeswoman involved with thedeveloping case said the recommendation was delivered to Lakin by anunnamed officer who implied those higher up the chain of commandthought it was a good idea.


    The suggestion was described to WNDby spokeswoman Margaret Calhoun Hemenway, a veteran Washingtonappointee and now volunteer spokeswoman, as being presented in a"solicitous" manner.


    Officially, the U.S. Army says it hasno plans for formal action at this point against the officer. ButCalhoun Hemenway told WND that Lakin's "no" meant "no."


    "He is not taking any suggestedmedical evaluation or brain scan. He is refusing to obey all ordersincluding deployment orders," she confirmed.


    "It is interesting this suggestion ofa medical exam should arise now given he was only a couple of weeksfrom deployment and obviously judged to be fit for deployment with hisbags packed," she said.


    See the movie Obama does not want youto see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidentialeligibility mystery!


    But as WND reported, the controversy raises theprospect that the government may be unwilling to pursue a prosecutionbecause of the possible ramifications – which could include a defenselawyer's demand for a court-ordered discovery process that would targetObama's historical documentation


    Even participants in a forum on theleft-leaning Huffington Post website seemed to agree in part.


    "Freakin' Brilliant!" said one. "Theycan't court-martial him [without] the defense getting the judge toorder the the (sic) birth-certificate be produced! Either Obama willhave to produce or they can't prosecute. Genius."


    Another forum page poster on the samesite said the military of days gone by never would have allowed suchstatements.


    "During my military service withinthe Army (in the 1970s, 80s and 90s) before retirement, this type ofbehavior would NEVER have been tolerated and most of all, would neverhave made the MSM news cycle. That's because Larkin (sic) would beimmediately remanded for a general court-martial and would likely facepretrial confinement by the first general officer within hischain-of-command."


    "It's troubling that the Army has notprosecuted this man immediately instead of making an MSM event out ofit."


    Dr.Terry Lakin, the flight surgeon for 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment,examines the partially amputated finger of an Afghan man who assists incollecting unexploded ordnance at Kandahar Airfield. Lakin was selectedas the Army Medical Department's Flight Surgeon of the Year for2004. 


    As WND reported, Lakin is an active-duty flightsurgeon charged with caring for Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey'spilots and air crew.


    He said he's refusing all ordersuntil Obama releases his long-form, hospital-generated birthcertificate to prove his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.


    "I feel I have no choice but thedistasteful one of inviting my own court martial," Lakin said in astatement. "The Constitution matters. The truth matters."


    He continued, "For the first time inall my years of service to our great nation, and at great peril to mycareer and future, I am choosing to disobey what I believe are illegalorders, including an order to deploy to Afghanistan for my second tourof duty there. I will disobey my orders to deploy because I – and Ibelieve all servicemen and women and the American people – deserve thetruth about President Obama's constitutional eligibility to the officeof the presidency and the commander in chief.


    "If he is ineligible, then my orders– and indeed all orders – are illegal because all orders have theirorigin with the commander in chief as handed down through the chain ofcommand."


    Lakin is not the firstactive-duty officer to raise the challenge. Others have included Army doctor Capt. Connie Rhodes andArmy reservist Maj. Stefan Cook. But Lakin is the highest-rankingofficer to raise the question.


    In a statement yesterday to WND,George Wright of Army Public Affairs said the Army has "no reaction" toLakin's statements, and "at this point, the Army will take no formalaction."


    He said, "Lt. Col. Lakin has statedhis intent to violate Articles 87 and 92 of the Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice, but has not done so. Whether his actions to dateviolate any law or policy is for his chain of command to determine."


    Wright said the Army had noinformation on in-channel concerns Lakin reported raising twice during2009. There was "no comment" on whether Obama needs to document hiseligibility to serve as president under the U.S. Constitution'srequirement that the commander in chief be a "natural born citizen."


    Although a "natural born citizen" isundefined in the Constitution, many legal analysts believe therequirement was put there to prevent dual allegiances on the part ofthe president. Some believe those with dual citizenship would beineligible. Obama wrote in his book his father was a subject to theUnited Kingdom, making Obama likely a dual citizen.


    "Lt. Col Lakin is free to express hispersonal views. The Army has no comment on his concerns, nor the viewsthat he espoused," Wright told WND.


    But the background already has beenassembled in the case, should there be a prosecution, for the defenseto come to court with specific demands for proof of the validity of thechain of command, up to the commander in chief.


    Support for Lakin is beinggenerated at the Safeguard Our Constitution.comwebsite, established by the AmericanPatriot Foundation.


    One of the organizers behind thegroup, serving in emeritus status, is John Hemenway, an attorney whopreviously fought in the U.S. court system on behalf of a retiredmilitary officer, Gregory S. Hollister, who also questioned Obama'seligibility.


    The case ultimately was dismissed by Judge James Robertsonwho ruled that the dispute had been "twittered" during the 2008election campaign.


    In that opinion, Robertsonsarcastically wrote: "The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Forcecolonel who continues to owe fealty to his commander in chief (becausehe might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is tortured byuncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from BarackObama because it has not been proven – to the colonel's satisfaction –that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under theConstitution to be president.


    "The issue of the president'scitizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, andotherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama'stwo-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants itresolved by a court," Robertson wrote.


    The judge also suggested sanctionsagainst Hemenway for bringing the case, and Hemenway responded thatprocess then would provide him with a right to a discovery hearing tosee documentation regarding the judge's statements – not supported byany evidence introduced into the case – that Obama was properly"vetted."


    Hemenway warned at the time, "If thecourt persists in pressing Rule 11 procedures against Hemenway, thenHemenway should be allowed all of the discovery pertinent to theprocedures as court precedents have permitted in the past.


    "The court has referred to a numberof facts outside of the record of this particular case and, therefore,the undersigned is particularly entitled to a hearing to get the truthof those matters into the record. This may require the court toauthorize some discovery," Hemenway said.


    WND columnist Vox Day earlier wrote about thisvery scenario, calling it a "Get out of war" free card.


    The comments followed the case ofCook, the reservist who challenged his deployment orders over questionsabout their legality under Obama.


    "Rather than contesting the suit,"Day wrote, "the Army took the highly peculiar step of revoking themajor's deployment order, suggesting that the Pentagon generals are notentirely confident that they can demonstrate the legitimacy of theirpurported commander in chief.


    "The Pentagon's decision to back downrather than risk exposing Obama's birth records to the public meansthat every single American soldier, sailor, pilot and Marine now holdsa 'get out of war free' card. Not only every deployment order, butevery order issued from an officer in the line of command can now bechallenged in the knowledge that the top brass are afraid to respondfor fear that their commander could be exposed for a fraud.," he wroteat the time.


    "It is one thing for Obama to denythe curiosity of the American public by hiding behind the courts. It isvery much another for him to deny the right of the men and women of theArmy, Navy, Air Force and Marines, who are sworn to risk their livesupholding the Constitution of the United States of America, to becertain their orders are legitimate," he said.


    Calhoun Hemenway, whoseparately writes for FamilySecurityMatters.org, told WND she is anunofficial spokeswoman for the case and that Lakin's legal counselorshave suggested he not comment a great deal at this point while he is onleave and before he returns to his duties.


    Calhoun Hemenway, a former WhiteHouse appointee serving in the Department of Defense and at NASA, saidthe Lakin case presents a problem for the Army, since it cannot simply"rescind" orders as it has in previous military disputes over ordersunder Obama's chain of command. That's because Lakin has indicatedplans to reject all orders.


    In his video message now posted on YouTube, Lakin, an 18-year veteran,personally pleads with the president to stop withholding the keydocument which would put to rest many of the doubts that continue tolinger more than a year into Obama's term.


    "President Obama, I ask you torespect and uphold the Constitution. Be transparent and show yourhonesty and integrity. Release your original, signed birth certificate,if you have one, thus proving your birth on American soil, and thusassure the American people that you are lawfully eligible to hold theoffice of the presidency and serve as commander in chief of the ArmedForces."


    Obama's actual response to those whoquestion his eligibility to be president under the Constitution'srequirement that the U.S. president be a "natural born citizen" hasbeen to dispatch both private and tax-funded attorneys to preventanyone from gaining access to his documentation.


    Besides Obama's actual birthdocumentation, the still-concealed documentation forhim includes kindergartenrecords, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, ColumbiaUniversity records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records,Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University ofChicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as anIllinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, anybaptism records, and his adoption records.


    WND has reported on a multitude ofcases that have been brought over the issue of Obama's eligibility.Some are by critics who have doubts about whether he was born in Hawaiiin 1961 as he has written, and others are from those who questionwhether the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dualcitizens – Obama's father was a subject of the British crown at Obama'sbirth – from being eligible for the office.


    The issue has prompted a numberof state legislatures to work on proposals that would requirepresidential candidates to submit proof of their eligibility. And a similar proposal has been introduced inCongress by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.


    The Constitution, Article 2, Section1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen ofthe United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,shall be eligible to the Office of President."


    However, none of the cases filed todate has been successful in reaching the plateau of legal discovery, sothat information about Obama's birth could be obtained.


    The White House has not replied tonumerous requests for comment.




     

     


    Tags: obama Lakin

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:19
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Sábado, 03 de abril de 2010


    Limbaugh responds to Obama: 'Never in my life have I seen a regime like this'



    By: Byron York

    Chief Political Correspondent04/02/10 9:40 AMEDT




    In his new interview with CBS, President Obamarefers to the "troublesome" talk and "vitriol" of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
    "Keep in mind thatthere have been periods in American history
     where this kind of vitriolcomes out,"
     Obama says.  "It happens often when you've got an economythat is making people more anxious, and people are feeling like there is a lotof change that needs to take place. But that's not the vast majority ofAmericans. I think the vast majority of Americans know that we're trying hard, that Iwant what's best for the country."

    Iasked Limbaugh what he thought about the president's comments.
    His program's popularity is undeniably soaring now, but has it risenand
    fallen with economic anxiety -- that is, was he less popular duringtimes
    of economic security and more popular in times of economic worries?Since
    Limbaugh has been broadcasting nationally for more than 20 years, there
    ought to be some sort of pattern, if what Obama says is accurate.

    "Ihave yet to have a down year at the EIB Network," Limbaugh responds.
    "I and most Americans do not believe President Obama is trying to dowhat's
     best for the country. Never in my life have I seen a regime likethis, governing against the will of the people, purposely. I have never seen the mediaso supportive of a regime amassing so much power. And I have never known as many people who literally fear for the future of the country."

    The point, Limbaugh says, is not that listeners arefeeling anxiety about the
     economy, although many undoubtedly are.  It's that they arefeeling anxiety
     about the Obama agenda. 




    Tags: obama Limbaugh

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:27
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     
    Friday, April 2, 2010

    In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen. ” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.”

    David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786.  He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). “During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task….” http://www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay/. In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay's History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. “The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,'' Professor Smith concluded, “are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.”

    In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.

    Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a “natural born citizen.” Given his position of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined “natural born Citizen.” Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time would have known how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and he told us that definition was one where the child was born in the country of citizen parents. In giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined a “natural-born citizen” the same as did Ramsay in his highly acclaimed and influential,
    The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English). We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a “natural born Citizen” the same way the Ramsay did, for being a meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that existed at the time.

    Ramsay’s article and explication are further evidence of the influence that Vattel had on the Founders in how they defined the new national citizenship. This article by Ramsay is one of the most important pieces of evidence recently found (provided to us by an anonymous source) which provides direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and that there is little doubt that they defined one as a child born in the country to citizen parents. This time-honored definition of a "natural born Citizen" has been confirmed by subsequent United States Supreme Court and lower court cases such as The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States;” Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (“the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations” are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted from the same definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)).

    The
    two-citizen-parent requirement would have followed from the common law that provided that a woman upon marriage took the citizenship of her husband. In other words, the Framers required both (1) birth on United States soil (or its equivalent) and (2) birth to two United States citizen parents as necessary conditions of being granted that special status which under our Constitution only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military (and also the Vice President under the Twelfth Amendment) must have at the time of his or her birth. Given the necessary conditions that must be satisfied to be granted the status, all "natural born Citizens" are "Citizens of the United States" but not all "Citizens of the United States" are "natural born Citizens." It was only through both parents being citizens that the child was born with unity of citizenship and allegiance to the United States which the Framers required the President and Commander in Chief to have.

    Obama fails to meet this “natural born Citizen” eligibility test because when he was born in 1961 (wherever that may be), he was not born to a United States citizen mother and father. At his birth, his mother was a United States citizen. But under the British Nationality Act 1948, his father, who was born in the British colony of Kenya, was born a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC)
    which by descent made Obama himself a CUKC. Prior to Obama’s birth, Obama’s father neither intended to nor did he become a United States citizen. Being temporarily in the United States only for purpose of study and with the intent to return to Kenya, his father did not intend to nor did he even become a legal resident or immigrant to the United States.

    Obama may be a plain born “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment or a Congressional Act (if he was born in Hawaii). But as we can see from David Ramsay’s clear presentation, citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. Hence, Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," for upon Obama's birth his father was a British subject and Obama himself by descent was also the same. Hence, Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Obama lacks the birth status of natural sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States which only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military and Vice President must have at the time of birth. Being born subject to a foreign power, he lacks Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance to the United States from the time of birth which assures that required degree of natural sole and absolute birth allegiance and loyalty to the United States, a trait that is constitutionally indispensable in a President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Like a naturalized citizen, who despite taking an oath later in life to having sole allegiance to the United States cannot be President because of being born subject to a foreign power, Obama too cannot be President.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    April 2, 2010
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
    ####
    Share/Bookmark

    Tags: Obama Ramsay

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:39
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Viernes, 02 de abril de 2010
     Gloria Estefan said in 2007  "

    "¡Imagínate! No estoy con Bush, estoy contra la guerra. No soy ni demócrata, ni republicana.
     Los partidos limitan mucho y yo no tengo partido. Es complicado el momento que vivimos allí desde el 11- S. Es la primera vez que nos enfrentábamos al terrorismo y ojalá encontremos la forma de acabar esa guerra."

    " Imagine! I am not with Bush, I am against the war. I am neither democratic, nor republican.
     The parties limit much and I do not have party. The moment is complicated that we lived there from the 911. Is the first time that we faced the terrorism and hopefully we find the form to finish that war."

    http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/275613/0/gloria/estefan/bush/


    On today's Miami Herald

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2008/09/09/679539/dolphins-unveil-stadium-designs.html

    Cuban-born singer Gloria Estefan and her husband, Emilio, will host President Barack Obama at their Miami Beach home April 15  for a Democratic National Committee fundraiser. - 9:16 AM ET

    -----------------
    I heard on the radio this fundraiser will be $30,000.00 per couple.

    The Estefan's organized a rally  last March in favor of the ladies in white,
     on the video the demostration in Miami held more that 250,000 also  the video show the ladies in white in Cuba when they were taking into custody.





    And then just less than two weeks later  they invite Obama to their home.

     No one can hurt the cause of freedom in Cuba or in America  more than they are at this time.  America has an Usurper at the white house who is destroying our Republic and because of his actions at present or past will not do anything  to rescue the Freedom of Cuba. At least half of  Americans people  are trying to preserve the  Freedom granted by God , the Usurper is  celebrating with  the  Estefan's  to help the Democratic Party, the party which in Congress has been proved wants us to be slaves under socialism like in Cuba under Castro.




     

    Estefans Hosting Obama in Miami

    Pricey fundraiser at music star's Miami Beach mansion

    By BRIAN HAMACHER
    Updated 12:04 PM EDT, Fri, Apr 2, 2010

    The Commander in Chief will be hosted by Miami's music queen when he visits the Magic City later this month to attend a Gloria Estefan fundraiser.

    President Obama will be attending the $30,000 cocktail reception at the Miami Beach mansion of Emilio and Gloria Estefan on April 15.

    Obama's appearance in Miami will be his first since last October, when he talked health care and Guantanamo at the Fontainebleau.

    After last week's massive rally for Havana's Ladies in White in Miami, no doubt Cuba will be discussed at the Estefan household. 

    Miami's Elite Flock to the Boca Tanning Club Opening Bash

    The Estefan fundraiser will benefit the Democratic National Committee. Obama will also be holding a less expensive fundraiser ($250 and $1,250 per ticket) at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts in downtown Miami, also on April 15.

    First Published: Apr 2, 2010 6:46 AM EDT
     



    Share/Bookmark

    Tags: obama Estefan

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:13
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Jueves, 01 de abril de 2010
     
    FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU

    Shock claim: Obama encouraged Palestinian 'resistance'

    Violence targeting Jews aimed at pressuring Israel into splitting capital


    Posted: March 31, 2010
    9:55 pm Eastern

    By Aaron Klein
    © 2010 WorldNetDaily

    Rally of Hamas in Gaza

    JERUSALEM – The Obama administration has encouraged "resistance" by Palestinians to protest Israel's presence in eastern Jerusalem, a senior Palestinian Authority official claimed to WND.

    The senior PA official, speaking from Ramallah on condition of anonymity, said that in recent meetings with U.S. envoys to the region, the American diplomats supported and encouraged the concept of Palestinian protests to pressure Israel into evacuating eastern sections of Jerusalem.

    The PA official's claim follows a meeting in Jordan last week between PA President Mahmoud Abbas and George Mitchell, Obama's envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At a press conference immediately following the meeting, Abbas declared the Palestinian "right" to "resistance" against Israel.

    The U.S. has come down hard on a decision by the Jerusalem municipality to approve 1,600 new homes in Ramat Shlomo, an already-existing Jewish community in eastern Jerusalem. The decision was made public during Vice President Joe Biden's visit to the region earlier this month.

    The Palestinians claim eastern Jerusalem as their future capital, while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made clear he does not intend to give up the Jewish sections of the city.

    Netanyahu has stated that he had not been aware of the decision to build in Ramat Shlomo and that the announcement was not timed to coincide with Biden's visit.

    Still, Obama senior adviser David Axelrod called the Ramat Shlomo announcement an "insult." Other administration officials called the Jewish neighborhood expansion an impediment to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

    Yesterday, Netanyahu's office made public a U.S. demand for a four-month freeze of Jewish construction in Jewish neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem. In exchange for the freeze, the U.S. said it would coax Abbas to hold direct negotiations with Netanyahu regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state.

    The Palestinians have been engaged in riots and street violence targeting Jews in Jerusalem.

    Two weeks ago, Israel rededicated an ancient synagogue in the main Jewish quarter of the Old City. The structure had been badly damaged by Jordanian forces that overran the Jewish Quarter in the 1948 Middle East war.

    The Hurva synagogue is hundreds of feet from the Western Wall and is in no way connected to the Temple Mount. Israel did not conduct heavy construction on the synagogue, a structure that had been in the Jewish quarter since the second century.

    Still, the PA and Hamas claimed Israel's rededication ceremony was a threat to the al-Aqsa Mosque. Hamas called for a "day of rage," prompting Palestinians throughout eastern Jerusalem to hurl stones at police. There were also reports of rocks and Molotov cocktails aimed at Israeli buses.


    If you would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today's WND Poll.

     


    Tags: obama Israel

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 22:58
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar



    Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace

    Posted: April 01, 2010
    1:00 am Eastern

    By Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.
    © 2010 

    The following discussion assumes President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a United States citizen.

    The purpose of this article is to highlight judicial and historical evidence suggesting that a "natural born citizen" must be born in the United States to parents who are citizens.  By that definition, Obama is not eligible to be president.  Therefore, his presidency and official administrative acts remain subject to being rendered void by the Supreme Court.

    The relevant Obama admission

    At the official Obama campaign website – Fightthesmears.com – just below the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) – the following admission was also published:

    When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children.

    This was republished from a Factcheck.org, article which further stated:

    In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

    The constitutional question presented is whether a person born with citizenship in and allegiance to a foreign nation can be considered a "natural born citizen" of the United States as required by Article II, Section 1.

    The U.S. State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual discusses problems associated with dual citizenship:

    7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:

    (e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.

    This helps explain why the definition of "natural born citizen" as one born in the nation to parents who are citizens makes perfect sense in that such a person will not be infected by dual-allegiance problems.  If the parents are citizens, neither will confer allegiance to a foreign nation.  Additionally, if one is born on soil foreign to the parents, that nation is likely to recognize the person as a citizen.  Owing allegiance to more than one nation is an unnatural circumstance of citizenship. 

    While the Constitution requires representatives, senators and presidents to be citizens, Article II, Section 1, additionally requires that the president's citizenship be "natural born." A natural born citizen is not a higher level of citizen.  "Natural born" simply describes a circumstance of citizenship.

    Now watch the red-hot eligibility story on DVD: "The Question of Eligibility: Is Barack Obama's presidency constitutionally legitimate?"

    There are multiple circumstances that create "citizens at birth." Some require a federal statute for citizenship while others rely on the 14th Amendment.  Had the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to deem every person born in the United States a natural born citizen, they certainly could have included such plain, unequivocal language.  But they didn't.

    In 1790, the first Congress deemed all persons born of two United States citizen parents abroad to be "natural born citizens," but the words "natural born" were repealed in 1795.  Congress never again legislated the definition of "natural born citizen," and no United States statute currently defines the term or even mentions it.

    The citizenship of a person born in the United States to parents who are citizens is self-evident and has never required naturalization, a federal statute or an amendment, and the Supreme Court has indicated that such persons are the only citizens who satisfy the natural born citizen requirement of Article II, Section 1.

    Origin of the natural born citizen clause

    The strict constitutional requirements were enacted to exclude citizens for the sake of national security in safeguarding the office from inexperience and from persons who may not have sole allegiance.  It appears the clause was first introduced for constitutional consideration in a letter from John Jay to George Washington dated July 25, 1787:

    Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

    Jay underlined "born" which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.  The "natural born" requirement renders irrelevant that a person – born to foreign or dual allegiance – may not have renewed his foreign citizenship upon reaching maturity.  One is either eligible to be president at birth, or one will never be eligible.

    An important historical definition of "natural born citizen" comes from a 1797 translation of the "Law of Nations," a 1758 text by Emerich de Vattel, which summarized that body of international law known also as the "Law of Nations":

    The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

    Note that a child of former aliens can be a natural born citizen under this standard if born in the United States to parents who were naturalized prior to the child's birth.  That was made clear by the Supreme Court's opinion in Perkins v. Elg.

    It appears from James Madison's notes of August 1787 that the delegates used the terms "native" and "natural born citizen" synonymously.  Additionally, Ben Franklin stated that the framers frequently consulted Vattel's text.  Also consider that Article I, Section 8, grants Congress the authority to "punish ... offenses against the Law of Nations."

    In the case of The Venus 12 U.S. 253, 289 (1814), Chief Justice John Marshall stated:

    Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. ..."

    Chief Justice Marshall relied upon a pre-1797 edition of Vattel's text.  The 1797 translation was adopted by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), where Chief Justice Waite stated:

    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. ...

    It's significant that this decision was issued six years after the 14th Amendment was enacted.  As such, Minor illustrates that the 14th Amendment simply defines who is a citizen, not which citizens are natural born.

    If Obama had run for president in 1874 – six years after the 14th Amendment went into effect – he wouldn't have been eligible since he doesn't fit the Minor Court's standard for a natural born citizen.

    The strange case of Chester Arthur

    The holding in Minor v. Happersett must have given Chester Arthur nightmares when he ran for vice president in 1880, six years after Minor.  Arthur, a prominent New York lawyer, managed to conceal from public view that his father didn't become a naturalized citizen until 14 years after he was born.  Therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth.

    Arthur's deception in concealing this fact involved numerous lies to the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper concerning his father's heritage, immigration and age.  He also quite famously burned most of his papers and lied about his own age.

    Historical records bear witness that this issue was never discussed in relation to Chester Arthur's eligibility until recently.  Helping to cloud the issue all these years was a famous conspiracy theory expounded by a New York lawyer named Arthur Hinman who alleged  Chester Arthur was born in Canada and was therefore not eligible.  This sensational and unfounded conspiracy theory took the spotlight and unfortunately provided a smokescreen to conceal the true eligibility defect.

    Chester Arthur is the only president prior to Obama who – after the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, expired – was not born in the United States of two citizen parents.  As such, Obama supporters have sought to use Chester Arthur as precedent for justifying Obama's eligibility.  Such reliance is unfounded because it wasn't known at the time Chester Arthur held office that he was born with dual nationality.  That this was concealed from the general public is confirmed by two important law review articles.

    In the September/October 1884 issue of The American Law Review, George C. Collins discussed the citizenship status of persons born on U.S. soil to foreign parents.  In the concluding paragraph, Collins stated:

    Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and it is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth.

    It's ridiculous to imagine the sitting president wouldn't be mentioned when the article concerns the issue of whether a person born of an alien father is even a United States citizen.

    Chester Arthur's true eligibility defect doesn't appear to have been mentioned in any historical record until December 2008 when it was exposed at my blog.  Clearly, Chester Arthur's deception cannot serve to validate anyone's presidential eligibility.  He got away with it, but that doesn't make it right.

    U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

    In 1898, Justice Horace Gray wrote one of the most controversial opinions in Supreme Court history wherein a man born in the United States of Chinese alien parents was held to be a citizen.  Wong Kim Ark is the precedent relied upon for the assertion that any person born on United States soil, regardless of parentage, is a citizen.  But that's not accurate.  The holding in Wong Kim Ark appears to require for citizenship that a person be born on United States soil to parents who are permanently domiciled here.  If the domicile requirement is upheld in future cases, anchor babies will no longer be assumed to be United States citizens.

    Regardless, the holding in Wong Kim Ark did not state that such a citizen was "natural born." In fact, Justice Gray reiterated the definition of natural born citizen as one born on United States soil to parents who are citizens when he favorably discussed Minor v. Happersett:

    That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship), reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. ... At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens. ..."

    While the dissent feared the majority holding would make Wong Kim Ark eligible to be president, Justice Gray's restatement of the Minor Court's definition of a natural born citizen as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens stands in direct contrast to the dissent's fear.

    A few years after Wong Kim Ark was decided, the Albany Law Journal published an article by Alexander Porter Morse entitled, "NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT" (Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905)):

    If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, "no person, except a native-born citizen"; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase "native-born citizen" is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, "native citizen" should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are  essential  to intelligent discussion.

    The term "native born citizen" has been erroneously substituted for "natural born citizen" by numerous commentators.  Mr. Morse correctly points out that the two are not synonymous.  His article also proves once again that Chester Arthur's dual nationality was hidden from the public.  There would have been no point in writing the article – which doesn't mention Chester Arthur – had the nation previously condoned a president born with dual allegiance.

    The argument against Obama being eligible rests on multiple Supreme Court cases that define a "natural born citizen" as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens.  This is not a political issue.  It's a legal issue faced by a nation where nobody is supposed to be above the law.  As such, it deserves judicial review.

    [For the most comprehensive etymological deconstruction of the term "natural born Citizen," I strongly recommend, "What Is A Natural Born Citizen Of The United States?" by John Greschak.

     


    Leo Donofrio is an attorney with 20 years' experience.  He is a partner in the law firm of Pidgeon & Donofrio and he authors the Natural Born Citizen blog.


     


     


    Tags: obama Donofrio

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