S?bado, 29 de mayo de 2010
 

Obama is now ‘leading’ only the Marxists and the intellectually challenged

Obama’s Pretense of Leadership When and Where there is none

 By Sher Zieve  Saturday, May 29, 2010

There are a number of dictionary definitions for “lead.”  But, the primary ones are “to go before or with to show the way; conduct or escort: to lead a group” and “to act as a guide; show the way.”  Therefore, a leader—by logical and implicit understanding—must have followers. 

 



















EckankarTo learn more about "Eckankar -
What's It Really All About?"

youtube.com/EckankarOfficialSite

During Obama’s campaign for POTUS, his strong dictator-like shouts were followed by broad smiles and an almost imperceptible soothing hiss as he told Americans that he would redistribute (aka steal and give to himself and his minions) our possessions to others.  He said it was “only fair” and that we should learn to deal with less and that it was good for us.  Note:  But, Obama & Co will now be learning to deal with more…and more. 

Obama and this rather doltish running mate Biden even said that it was even “patriotic” to deal with less and less (more taxation) and give what little we had remaining to Obama’s government.  Insanely, the equally psychotic thought this was good.  They blindly and hypnotically followed The Obama over whatever cliff he desired. 

But, even the comatose sometimes wake up.  And in the case of hundreds of thousands of US citizens, this apparent awakening has been nothing short of phenomenal—if not miraculous.

Obama is now ‘leading’ only the Marxists and the intellectually challenged.  But, the Marxists want their own individual power base, so they sit back and watch until the time is right to strike and seize what they can in an upcoming internal coup.  The intellectually challenged?  They seem to be waiting solely for the next handout from “Obama’s Stash.”  Today and for the past 4-6 months or longer, Obama seems to be truly leading no one except himself.

Obama’s recent catastrophe is an almost unprecedented—at least in the USA—one.  The BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico and subsequent pumping of thousands of gallons of oil daily into Gulf waters for over a month, hardly elicited—until recently—a response from the shallow and uncaring Obama.  Of interest is the fact that BP contributed more money to Obama’s POTUS campaign than to any other US candidate. 

Note:  In actuality, The Obama and his regime were too busy trying to crush AZ Republican Governor Jan Brewer and the State of Arizona for daring to attempt to stop the rape and pillage of their lands and citizens by invading hordes from across our Southern border.  Obama refuses to stop the illegals, terrorists and drug cartels from entering our country and now, also, refuses to allow any US State to stop them.  This is the highest form of treason.  But, lest we forget, treason is no longer applicable to anyone from and on the far…far Left.

Therefore, instead of making any attempt to help Louisiana and the other Gulf Coast US states—The Obama even refused to get back with Republican Governor Bobby Jindal after he had made multiple desperate attempts to gain approval for Louisiana to enact their own sand bagging program—he virtually yawned and ignored the entire situation saying it was “BP’s problem” and not his.  Obama simply didn’t (and doesn’t) care.  He has only recently (within the past few days) begun to feign any sympathy for those whose lives are being destroyed—largely by his disregarding the human and ecological disaster.  And then, reluctantly and only after continued prodding and begging from members of his own Democrat Party.  The Obama even fired back at his Marxist-Democrat critics!  No one dare criticize anything he does or doesn’t do! 

This is how dictators—who are growing ever larger and more powerful in their own minds—react to condemnation about anything.

It also appears that the Gulf disaster took second place to the DC Police who may have even escorted 400-500 (14 school busloads) Obama’s SEIU thugs to the home of a Bank of America lawyer.  SEIU members then proceeded to trample his lawn, terrify his young son and even set up their shouting from his front porch.  It is against the law—trespassing and disturbing the peace—for anyone to affect this sort of behavior, let alone a 500 member mob!  Nothing has been done about the SEIU members illegal behaviors.  But, these are Obama’s people and the police will not dare go against the tyrant.  The police appear to have purposefully stayed away from the scene until SEIU was ready to leave.  It sounds to me as if they were being intentionally instructed to do so.  At some point, we surmise that—if the Obama Regime is allowed to continue in its criminal and totalitarian ways—his thugs will be allowed to break into private homes and the police will do nothing to stop it!  In fact, they may even encourage and participate in it.  Thuggery and intimidation of We-the-People is more important to the Obama than is possibly the greatest environmental disaster in our country’s history; a disaster made much worse by his practiced inattention to it This is a patent lack of any leadership, whatsoever.  It is, instead, a preview of what is to come as Obama & Co continue to mobilize its American Gestapo.         

However, to give him some credit, Obama has been accomplishing his mission—that of destroying OUR country and our way of life.  And he’s STILL being allowed to get away with it by our elected officials.  Anathema! 

Democratic strategist James Carville upset about oil spill; White House pushes back:
Frustration, Fury Greet Obama in Gulf :
DC Police escort SEIU thugs to banker’s house (updated):
Did Police Escort SEIU Mob?:


Sher Zieve
-News and Commentary-
In all things, trust God
“Thou Shalt have no other gods before me”

JUST LIKE IN CUBA



Obama Sends Out SEIU Thugs To Protest A Private Citizen


Tags: Obama Marxists

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:57
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
CSPAN Placed a flag that it was not on the video. CSPAN coloco una bandera que no existio en el video.
 
 
President Barack Obama addresses a news conference ...
 
 
 
 
 

Obama is the first ever American President to give a press conference without the American flag.

by DFX May 28, 2010 22:47
From Blogsphere. I guess the Flag Pin was enough.

 

Obama is the first ever American President to give a press conference without the American flag.

Barack Hussein Obama will be known as the first ever American President in the history of the modern marvel - the television - to give a press conference without the presence of the American flag.

Just days prior to Memorial Day and he appeared before the American public with no American flag.

Not very subtle, is he?
 
Two videos of the Press Conference on May 27, 2020
 
 

Tags: obama no flag

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:14
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 27 de mayo de 2010
STRATEGY NEEDED: How to help Sarah Palin and her family with their stalker, and new neighbor, Creepy McGinniss

We want you to put your thinking caps on today, and to help think of ways to defeat the Palins’ stalker, Creepy McGinniss — an author who has rented the house next to theirs so he can peep into little Piper’s window, spy on the Governor as she works in her garden, and generally be gross and stalkerish for the next five months. Maybe he’ll even pose for Playgirl, too. That’s what the louses who normally stalk the Palins do.

Here’s the dilemma:  our gut is that book publishers love controversy, so Random House, which is funding this misadventure, would love any publicity it can get for McGinniss’ upcoming tome.  Therefore, we don’t know how much good a big letter writing campaign to Random House would do…especially if it makes the execs there think they’ve got a hit on their hands, with all these people generating buzz about the project.

Our next thought is to maybe go a side route here, and organize some kind of boycott of Rand House’s current titles…to show the company that its support of McGinniss is detrimentally impacting the sale of other Random House authors.

But, boycotts are hard to launch and manage, and Random House has so many titles in print, we don’t know how effective this would be in terms of targeting which particular authors.

Can a lease be ended early if a homeowner wants to end it?

That’s our next thought:  who owns the house next to the Palins…perhaps that person can be shamed into evicting McGinniss, for being so creepy.

Maybe THAT’S who should be receiving mail from thousands of people coast to coast…the person who rented this house to the creep.

Because the creep isn’t going to budge on his own.  We doubt Random House is going to budge on its own.  So, we need to find a creative angle upon which to apply pressure if we want to help the Palins have a decent, Wasilla summer free from peepers and whackadoodles next door.

Any ideas?

*************************

UPDATE: The part that really bothers us about all of this is that this man, Joe McGinniss, has been seen with binoculars trying to peep into Piper’s window.

Random House SHOULD have a real problem with that.

Does McGinniss have any family that could possibly talk to him about how this whole project is coming off?

What does McGinniss’ family have to think of him peeping into a prepubescent girl’s window?

Can’t someone he know talk some sense into him to abandon this effort, just to end the impression he’s up to something truly very creepy like this?


Tags: Palin Stalker Random

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:07
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Now, under Obama's regime, we see the first "acts of repudiation" in New York, Maryland and Washington, DC. (read the article below of the INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY).  Learn about this communist technique used also in Cuba and Venezuela and be informed.  Wake up America, it is happening here!

 “ACT OF REPUDIATION" as practiced by the Cuban government, is the official use of public intimidation and repression against individuals and their families because of their views, through the used of trained mobs and violence, akin to those employed by Nazi Germany and the Ku Klux Klan.

 Agustin Blazquez's 58 min. documentary ACT OF REPUDIATION is the story of the Act of Repudiation directed at internationally renowned concert guitarist Carlos Molina and his family.  Molina and daughter Maritza, a child at the time of the assault, describe the acts of the Cuban communist government-incited mobs that attacked their home and the resulting trauma they still feel today.

 For a preview of my 2007 documentary ACT OF REPUDIATION and how you can purchase, visit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB16zN2OiQA

 For previews of my other documentaries about the reality of socialism and communism and the complicity of the U.S. liberal mainstream media to keep Americans uninformed, visit my channel at: http://www.youtube.com/Jaums and click on "see all."

 

Agustin Blazquez




Available at www.CubaCollectibles.com This is the story of the Act of Repudiation directed at internationally known concert guitarist Carlos Molina and his family. Molina and daughter Maritza, a child at the time of the assault, describe the acts of the government-incited mobs that attacked their home and the resulting trauma they still feel today. The Act resulted from Molinas request to emigrate, with his American-born wife, Marisa and his three daughters, to the U.S. Molina, lauded as founder of the Cuban School of Guitar, began his performing career in 1969, the same year he graduated from the School of Law at the University of Havana. Daughter Maritza, an artist, relates the trauma she suffered by the Act of Repudiation directed at her family, which is shockingly reflected in her artwork.

ACT OF REPUDIATION / Mob Rule From SEIU

http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=ODQ5NzA4MQ==

 

May 24, 2010

Mob Rule From SEIU

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Labor: Does belonging to the service workers' union give you the right to invade private homes, terrorize children and smear anyone questioning such tactics? Apparently so, based on recent events in Maryland.

On May 16, Washington, D.C., police escorted 14 busloads full of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) members at least part of the way to storm the Chevy Chase, Md., home of Bank of America's deputy legal counsel, Greg Baer.

Some 500 protestors affiliated with SEIU and their allies in the community organizing group National Political Action (NPA) trampled his lawn, blocked his doorway to his home and screamed "greed." Legally, it was burglary, trespassing and, possibly, assault.

But Maryland cops didn't enforce the law. And Baer had to brave the insult-hurling mob alone to rescue his 14-year old son who, home alone, had locked himself in the bathroom in fear.

But there was one thing these thugs didn't count on a credible journalist next door who reported what happened.

Fortune Magazine's Nina Easton wrote about what happened and asked SEIU spokesman Stephen Lerner to explain.

His response was chilling: "People in powerful corporations seem to think they can insulate themselves from the damage they are doing," Lerner said, implying that physical intimidation was indeed the intent.

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. Aggressive, personalized protests have been a fact of life in the world of unions and community organizers influenced by the radical philosophy of Saul Alinsky.

But they're now growing in frequency as SEIU officials top the White House visitors' list and union influence grows.

It started in earnest last year, when SEIU thugs gave a "beat down" to a black trinket seller at a tea party protest with no consequences.

It also was seen when the SEIU teamed up with its community-organizing ally Acorn to set up bus harassment tours of AIG executives' homes during last year's insurance bailout.

In recent weeks in New York and Washington, SEIU and NPA protestors invaded and shut down banks, frightening customers.

What's important here is that these mobs act with near impunity and lash out at critics like Easton. What Stern calls "the persuasion of power" is identical to the violent means of maintaining political order in Cuba and Venezuela.

It's going full blast in the U.S. now as the party in power loses popularity. That's a bad sign that democracy itself is under attack.

 


Tags: obama SEIU Cuba

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:51
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
 

* (Video) Gov. Jindal ready to go to jail / Feds threatening military arrest of officials
in New Orleans over oil spill cleanup?

BOB MARSHALL/THE TIMES-PICAYUNE Oil from the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico seeps into a brown pelican nesting area in Barataria Bay on SUnday. Thousands of pelicans, along with some terns, roseate spoonbills and herons, are nesting on a series of small mangrove and grass islands on the eastern side of the bay.

 

video via  liberteaparty 

Jefferson Parish Homeland security director Deano Banano stated that he was warned that because of his actions Monday that military troops could be sent to arrest him and parish president Nungesser!!!



liberteaparty
 
 
May 26, 2010 
— 
Jefferson Parish Homeland security director Deano Banano
stated that he was warned that because of his actions Monday that military troops could
be sent to arrest him and parish president Nungesser!!!

*BP oil spill pushes Louisiana to desperate, massive ‘berm’ plan*

New Orleans – Increasingly defiant of BP executives and federal officials, state and local officials in Louisiana say they are prepared to take emergency measures into their own hands to protect the state’s wetlands from encroaching oil from the BP oil spill.

Some marine scientists, however, say that Gov. Bobby Jindal’s plan to dredge sand onto coastal barrier islands to keep the spill offshore may take too long to be effective, could possibly damage the coastal environment, and could undermine long-term efforts to rebuild the state’s eroding coastline.

Over the weekend, Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell sent a letter to the US Army Corps of Engineers stating that Louisiana has the right to dredge sand to fight the oil spill without the corps’ approval. Caldwell cited the 10th Amendment to the Constitution to argue that the federal government does not have the authority to deny a state the right to act in an emergency. The 10th Amendment states that powers not explicitly given to the federal government or prohibited to the states are given to the states and the people.

For nearly two weeks Governor Jindal has asked the Corps to approve a plan to dredge sand berms off the coast in an attempt to keep oil from reaching inland marshes.

Sixty-five miles of the state’s coast were affected by oil over the past week, and leaders of coastal parishes say that BP and the Coast Guard have not responded to their calls to contain the oil before it washes ashore.

Local officials make ultimatum

In Jefferson Parish over the weekend, local officials on Grand Isle commandeered 30 private fishing vessels that BP had commissioned but had not sent out to combat the encroaching oil. The boats laid down protective boom as the oil came ashore. Jindal told reporters Sunday that he supported the decision and was willing to go to jail with parish leaders if federal authorities tried to step in.

“For four days we were watching it come in and gave the coordinates to BP and they didn’t do anything,” said Jefferson Parish Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness director Deano Banano. “Heavy oil came into Barataria Bay, and it was not kept out of the marshes, so it’s a cleanup operation now, not a containment operation. Promises that were made over the past weeks were not kept. We were let down.”

Plaquemines Parish president Billy Nungesser said Monday he was giving BP and the Coast Guard 24 hours to take more effective measures to protect the parish from oil before he began acting on its own.

Continue reading here.

See also: Frustration mounting over BP delays, lack of progress in Gulf of Mexico oil spill

Excerpt: 

“Parish leaders and Gov. Bobby Jindal emerged from an afternoon strategy session at a Venice fishing harbor to complain about a lack of urgency from federal agencies and BP to address the oil washing into coastal marshes day after day.

Jindal said he supported a decision by local and Jefferson Parish leaders on Grand Isle on Saturday to commandeer about 30 fishing vessels that BP had commissioned but hadn’t deployed to lay down protective boom as the oil came ashore.

The normally dispassionate Jindal even joked that he would go to jail with the mayors of Grand Isle and Jean Lafitte if federal authorities tried to stop them.

More than 65 miles of Louisiana’s shoreline has now been affected by oil, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — more than the total sea coastline of Delaware and Maryland combined, Jindal said.”


Tags: obama New Orleans Jindal

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:22
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Is President Obama, in essence, encouraging harm against the very country that he swore an oath to protect?

Obama’s Arizona Stance Borders Treason

 By Neil Braithwaite  Wednesday, May 26, 2010

imageWithout a hint of hesitation after Arizona passed their new immigration law, President Obama immediately condemned our 48th State by calling Arizona’s new immigration law misdirected, troubling, and potentially discriminatory. What followed was an onslaught of protests and proposed boycotts against Arizona from New York to Los Angles filled with allegations of hate and racism over their new immigration law. So the question that remains is; by standing idly by while all this is taking place, is President Obama, in essence, encouraging harm against the very country that he swore an oath to protect?

A reading of the United States Constitution, Article IV section 4 should leave no doubt as to the President’s duty and obligation to each and every state in the union: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

President Obama has purposefully chosen not to intervene with Arizona’s Governor to try and resolve this volatile issue nor has he spoken out against any financial sanctions currently imposed or proposed against the state of Arizona. Neither has the President commented on, spoken against, nor tried to quell the incendiary hate speech and acts of violence that occurred at several protests across the country. The President has kept silent while both domestic and foreign leaders continue their overt condemnation of the state of Arizona and its citizens.

Adding insult to injury, President Obama stood on the lawn of the White House and not only listened to Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon make allegations of discrimination against Arizona and its citizens, but whole heartedly agreed with President Calderon’s statements.

The President then had the audacity to allow President Calderon to address a joint session of congress and reiterate his charges of discrimination where Obama’s administration accomplices, along with a majority of Democrats, rose to a standing ovation as President Felipe Calderon condemned the state of Arizona and its people.

In the face of all these actions against Arizona and its citizens, the President continues to reiterate his original allegations regarding Arizona’s new immigration law at every chance he gets, thus allowing what was originally only a spark of racial dissent and anger against the state of Arizona and its citizens, to grow into a full raging fire across our nation and around the world.

By choosing not to intervene to peaceably resolve the potential crisis and allowing anger and racial fervor to continue to escalate across the country and around the world against the state of Arizona and its citizens, President Obama becomes willfully complicit in any and all social unrest, possible violence, and economic harm to Arizona and its citizens that may result from this point forward.

Not taking seriously the sovereignty of the United States of America and the constitutional obligations to protection its borders is a serious enough indictment against President Obama and his administration, but total compliance by President Obama of unjust and imminent harm, in any aspect, to any state or citizen of the United States of America, is at the least despicable, and at the most treason.

Whether he likes it or not, Barack Obama was elected President of “the United States,” not President of “the select states,” and he swore an oath as president to protect and defend the constitution and citizens of the entire United States of America.

These kinds of brazen and incendiary tactics may have been acceptable to Barack Obama as a local community organizer in Chicago, but there may be very serious consequences for using them in the executive office of the United States of America.

Author
Neil Braithwaite  Bio
Neil Braithwaite Most recent columns

Neil Braithwaite writes political commentary and satire and resides in Charlotte, NC.

Neil can be reached at: [email protected]


Tags: obama Arizona Treason

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:00
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 26 de mayo de 2010
Barney Frank wants tosee Rep. Djou’s birth certificate – What about BarackHussein Obama’s

As Djou (pictured here) was being sworn into office,Frank walked the hallway of the Speaker’s Lobby off the House floorcalling on the media to “do your job” and review Djou’s papers. 

It was a small bit of payback for the enormous amountof attention some conservatives (and the media) paid to theis-the-president-really-from-America controversy.

But, unlike the commander-in-chief, as Frank knows,being born outside the U.S. does not preclude you from becoming amember of Congress.

So what about Barney Frank demanding to see the BirthCertificate of Barack Hussein Obama, the illegal undocumentedforeigner, who has spent in excess of $1.6 million to prevent any ofhis personal records from seeing the light of day. Barack Hussein Obamahas been using forged papers and a fabricated past in his deception ofthe American people. Barack Hussein Obama is not an American citizen!


Tags: obama Djou Barney Frank

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:48
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
 

Bertha Lewis Arrested at Immigration Protest

by Morgen Richmond

It’s only a trespassing charge, but there is something really gratifying about seeing the corrupt, race-baiting Bertha Lewis being led away in handcuffs. This happened just yesterday, at an immigration rally in NYC. Skip ahead to the 7:30 mark to see the arrest (Lewis is dressed in all white, at the far left of the still image below):



Their attempt to feign patriotism by singing the national anthem is despicable, as the immigration “reform” movement is only the latest front in the ongoing war socialists are waging against our nation.

But don’t take my word for it, Bertha Lewis outlined the whole strategy just a couple of months ago:




Tags: ACORN SB1070

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:15
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Monday, May 24, 2010

New Ad - Obama's Lack of Eligibility - The Three Enablers of the Cone of Silence in Washington DC - 24 May 2010 issue Washington Times National Weekly - Page 5

New Ad - Obama's Lack of Eligibility - The Three Enablers of the Cone of Silence in Washington DC - 24 May 2010 issue Washington Times National Weekly - Page 5.

This "
The 3 Enablers of the Cone of Silence in Washington DC" ad shows us who are the three enablers in our American system of government who are permitting Obama's usurpation of the Office of the Presidency in violation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Obama was born a British Subject under British Nationality Laws since his father was a British Subject in 1961 and was only visiting the USA.

Obama's father was never a U.S. Citizen, nor even an immigrant to the USA. Just like McCain obtained U.S. Citizen when he was born in Panama because his father was a U.S. Citizen,
Obama was a British Subject when born no matter where he was born since Obama's father was a British Subject. How can a person who is born a British Subject ever be considered a "natural born Citizen" of the USA? The answer is simple, he cannot. The founders of our nation would be shocked that Obama, as subject of Great Britain, was allowed to take office as the de facto President and Commander of our military. The founders of our Republic and the framers of our Constitution intended that a "natural born Citizen" is without any doubt a person born in the country to parents who are both Citizens of the country when their child is born. That was also confirmed in a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1874 named Minor vs Happersett. Any other status for the parents results in a child born with multiple citizenship and thus foreign claims to the allegiance of the child by birth. Most American citizens are "natural born Citizens". Obama's father was never a Citizen of the USA. Thus, Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen" of the USA.

The caricatures of the institutions
in the ad depict the ancient Asian proverb. It exemplifies those who are enabling Obama with his fraud on the American people by their See, Hear, and Speak no Evil do nothing mode on the constitutional eligibility issue. The proverb and image it calls forth is classically known in the USA to depict situations where people are turning a blind eye to the obvious. The ad depicts the situation we are in where the Congress is turning a blind eye and will not "look" at or investigate the merits of the charges. The Courts will not "hear" in a trial the merits of the charges. And the Main Stream Media will not "talk" about the merits of the charges and discuss the Constitutional eligibility issues involved with the American people nor will they dig into Obama's sealed and hidden early life records. Their ignoring the questions and concerns of the People in this matter endangers our liberty by demonstrating that those in power, once in power feel they do not have to obey the Constitution and/or listen to the People.

Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff,
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
http://www.protectourliberty.org/

Tags: obama Usurper eligibility

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:05
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 21 de mayo de 2010
 
May 21, 2010

Castro Brothers Back Democrats Against Arizona

Topics: Political News and commentaries

As STACLU points out, despite overwhelmingopposition from the American public,Dems do have support in their campaign against the enforcement ofimmigration law. It isn't only Felipe Calderon in their corner; they'vegot theCastro Brothers too.

So we've got the president of abroken country and two communist dictators backing a liberal U.S.political party that all but encourages illegal immigration (Demssee them as future Democrat voters) and refuses to enforce U.S.immigration law and the law of a state desperate to stop the illegalalien physical and financial assault on its citizens and resources.
It doesn't seem necessary to spellout the message here. It's crystal clear. One party represents theAmerican people; the one backed by the leaders of Mexico and Cubarepresent nothing what appears to be nothing more than their own thirstfor power and a severely distorted preference for open borders at thecost of national security and national sovereignty.
Related video: Democrats andAdministration officials give Mexico's Calderon a
standing ovation onhis speech before Congress condemning Arizona
Immigration Law:


 

Laura over at Ace of Spades aptly 
suggests thatthe above clip should be used by the campaign of every border stateRepublican running this year. I think it's so telling of the Dems'attitude toward border security and amnesty that every Republicanrunning this year should make an ad that includes it.
Also related: Drug-crazedMexican pirates terrorize boaters onTexas lake:
With machine-guns in hand, Mexico'sdeadliest cartel is patrolling the waters of a Texas border lake.These pirates have already ambushedthree, possibly four boats, operating with virtual impunity as theymake off with cash and electronics.
It's happening on Falcon Lake inZapata, 200 yards from the Mexican border.

  

Tags: Arizona Castro Cuba

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 18:17
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Arizona's 1070 Law Is Leading TheCountry And Reshaping The Country

 (by Dave Levine)

Posted by The Dave Levine Show on May 21, 2010 at 2:30am

View The Dave Levine Show's blog
As of today, May 21, 2010, 18 states are planning1070-style anti-trespass bills of their own. 1070 authors Prof. KrisKobach and Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce have to be feeling goodabout the popularity of their bill-now-law not only among Arizonans butamong Americans across the country. There would be 30 states by nowwith mirror bills but for the ACLU class action suit having alreadybeen filed. Hopefully, a decision on that frivolous suit will berendered shortly.
While 1070 is the talk of the nation, it has broughtthe horrors of the Invasion (aka illegal immigration) to the mainstreammedia and has the left backpedalling. This thing is so popular that to speak outagainst it is making those who do quiteunpopular! Whereas inyears past cries of "racial profiling" and "racism" would cause thosewho might support such a bill to "cower in a corner", now the worm hasturned and it's theleftists and reconquistas who are reeling! Theircries of "racial profiling" and "racism" are falling on deaf Americanears. Why? Because thanks to leaders like Russell Pearce and GovernorBrewer in Arizona, Daryl Metcalfe in Pennsylvania and so many otherslike them--along with the wonderful vehicle of American talkradio--Americans are finding out just how deadly and vicious anddetrimental the Invasion by 40 to 50 million foreign nationals (most ofthem Mexicans) really is. Not just Rob Krentz' murder by a cowardlyillegal alien but also the 25 Americans killed by DUI accidents causedby illegals and murdered daily by illegals across the country, thehundreds of thousands of rapes, child molestations, kidnapping,burglary, battery, the massive document fraud committed by millions ofillegals against Americans and our continuing to get them "bennies"while all this is going on! Something had to "crack" and it was Arizonathat said "No more!".
So how is 1070 "reshaping" the country? What it hasdone and is doing is bringing back therule of law, bringing law and order back where there was onlylawlessness. We've been a country on the verge of anarchy where thereare already many communities controlled by illegal alien gangs.Americans have to ask themselves this question: Do we want anarchy ordo we want law and order? Dowe want to plunge towards civil war? Because a lawless country is ripefor such conflict and because the Federal government has purposelydropped the ball--some would say to foment a revolution that they couldthen shut down with martial law and end our free country. 1070 in astrange but beautiful way is leading us away from such an inner conflictand tyranny that most Americans don't want and some Americans fear. Theelite who want the divisions and class warfare so they can control useven more are losing because of 1070! 1070 has awakenedthe spirit of what this country was founded on--a nation of laws,not of men. 1070puts the multicultural, New World Order genie back in the bottle. Whydo I say that? There are those in power--both Democrat andRepublican--who want to see us become like Europe. They don't care howmany illegal aliens flood into the country. They want to remain inpower at all costs. They hate the Constitution and all it stands for.They fear American nationalism at the grass roots most of all. But theEU is disintegrating under the power of world socialism. People thereare waking up to what they've allowed happen to their countries. Therewas a story yesterday about "infighting" among the One Worlders,between traitors like Brzezinski and the other Bilderbergers and CFRelitists...
http://www.infowars.com/brzezinski-decries-global-political-awakening-during-cfr-speech
This kind ofstory has never been seen before. Thereason is Socialism has gone too far there and the world recession iscausing a lot of problems and discontent among those under that ironfist. Also, the tsunami of Muslim immigration intothe EU has changed those countries for the worse. Sharia law is already prevalent andallowed in the UK as it is in Canada and that's a pretty scary thing.Those horrible French riots in 2005 weren't caused by law abiding whiteFrench citizens. They were caused by rioting Muslim immigrants andillegals together with French middle class leftists fomenting civilunrest in the usual "divide and conquer" mentality. The world watchedas France burned, the police unable or unwilling to stop it. It waspitiful. Is thatwhat Americans want here? Itwon't be American Muslims rioting, however as they're pretty well offcompared to their compatriots in France. It will bethe illegalaliens pushed byLa Raza and other hate groups who will take to the streets as they seetheir future here crumbling under this 1070 wave of law and order fromthe grass roots and the states. They're already protesting but not yetwith mass marches and riots. But thesemarches may never be seen again. 1070 has donesomething else to the country, somethingperhaps its authors hadn't intended--it's removed the illegal alienmass marches from center stage. Theycan march if they dare, but probably not in Arizona. And this at a timewhen those "marches" were supposed to be going full bore. Could it bebecause the illegals are starting to keep a low profile due to the lawand order talk around the country? Could this be an unintendedconsequence of 1070? We shall soon find out.
Sadly, the effects of the Invasion from Mexico aren't going to "go away" becauseof 1070, even should it pass in all 50 states. Anchor babies are stillbeing "knocked out", becoming supposedly "instant U.S. citizens" atgreat cost to the taxpayer. More Americans are going to die at thehands of illegals. We aren't arresting masses of illegals and deportingthem. Attrition thru enforcement isn't happening as Obama has cut backon ICE raids on businesses to almost nothing. There are still at least8 million illegals earning a paycheck and many millions more workingunder the table paying no taxes. The $200 million a year being senthome to Mexico and other countries is probably down to $125 million.Americans are still out of work and have lost their businesses becauseof unfair competition with illegal alien-owned and illegal alien-mannedbusinesses.
We on the law and order side of things aren't kiddingourselves; the effects of of illegal immigration are going to be withus for a long, long time. But now we have something we can look to thatis growing by the day, something that is gaining support even fromDemocrats...
http://thedavelevineshow.ning.com/profiles/blogs/rhode-island-democrat-lawmaker-1
...something that is transforming "a country out ofcontrol" back to where it once was asmany of us remember it, a country where "the rule of law" is once againrespected and revered. And that "something" is 1070.

Tags: Aizona 1070

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:49
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
 

 

For National Release: 17 States Now Filing Versions of Arizona’s Immigration Bill SB 1070

17 States Now Filing Versions of Arizona’s Immigration Bill SB 1070

May 21, 2010

For National Release

CONTACT: Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC)
(866) 703-0864 
[email protected]
www.alipac.us

One of America’s national organizations fighting against illegal immigration is announcing that 17 states are now filing versions of Arizona’s SB 1070 law which is designed to help local police enforce America’s existing immigration laws.

Numerous national and local polls indicated that 60-81% of Americans support local police enforcing immigration laws.

“Our national network of activists have been working overtime trying to help the state of Arizona and the brave Arizonans who have passed this bill,” said William Gheen, President of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC. “Arizona no longer stands alone and we have now documented state lawmakers filing, or announcing they will file, versions of the Arizona bill in seventeen states! We will not stop until all states are protected from invasion as required by the US Constitution.”

ALIPAC has documented the following 17 states are following Arizona’s lead in response to citizen pressure.

ARKANSAS, IDAHO, INDIANA, MARYLAND, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA, TEXAS, UTAH

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) has helped to pass some form of immigration enforcement legislation in over 30 states, while the group has also gained a national reputation for defeating legislation designed to give licenses, in-state tuition, and other taxpayer benefits to illegal aliens in 20 states.

ALIPAC’s President, William Gheen is a former campaign consultant, Legislative Assistant, state lobbyist, and Assistant Sgt-At-Arms staffer in North Carolina who has turned his local experiences into a political battle plan by driving the national operations of ALIPAC.

“The Federal government has been hijacked by special interests that are neglectful of their duties and even hostile towards the rightful citizens of America,” said William Gheen. “It is incumbent upon our states to protect American lives, property, jobs, wages, security, and health, when the Executive Branch fails to honor its Constitutional responsibility to do so by enforcing our existing border and immigration laws.”

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC lobbied state lawmakers and AZ Governor Jan Brewer to pass SB 1070, which strictly prohibits racial profiling while empowering local police officers to enforce immigration laws.

ALIPAC’s activists have been working for almost four weeks now to encourage state lawmakers across the nation to file versions of SB 1070, to help alleviate boycotts and other political antagonism towards Arizona. Citizen activist are being asked to call, e-mail, visit, and fax their state lawmakers to encourage them to support existing SB 1070 type bills or to file them as soon as possible.

For a list of the 17 states joining Arizona’s push for this kind of legislation, and to view the associated documentation, please visit our tracking link for updated information at….
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-196989.html

###

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC ALIPAC | PO Box 30966 | Raleigh | NC | 27622


Tags: Arizona SB1070

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:41
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 20 de mayo de 2010
 

Seal of The City of Los Angeles    This page is currently unavailable.

To search for service information, please visit the online Citywide Services Directory.

If you wish to contact the City regarding non-emergency services, you can call the 3-1-1 Call Center:

Within the City of Los Angeles:  Dial 3-1-1

Within the greater Los Angeles area:   Dial toll-free 866.4LA.CITY (866.452.2489)

Outside the greater Los Angeles area:  Dial 213.473.3231

For the hearing impaired:  Dial TDD Number 213.473.5990
 

California Largest Welfare State

Look at the chart below. This is one of the big reasons why California is in trouble.
California accounts for 12% of the U.S. population but 33% of all of the U.S. welfare rolls.

New York state has 6.8% of the U.S. welfare rolls. Even Texas
(the next most populous state in the country) has a small fraction
 of the number of welfare rolls as California.

What Grassroots, Constitutional, Fiscally Responsible
 Candidates are you backing in California?

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

Subject: PLEASE RE-CONSIDER ARIZONA  TO LOS ANGELES COUNCIL MEMBERS
Date: 5/20/2010 11:29:32 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
 
 
Honorable Council Members City of Los Angeles
 

 [email protected] ,

 [email protected] ,

[email protected]

,
[email protected] ,
 
Have you read:
 
 
Please remember:
 
 
"I  pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. "
 
Sincerely,
 
Miriam Mata
 
 
 
 

Tags: California Welfare State

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:16
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
 
The real reason Obama is attacking Arizona...

Posted by GrassfireNation Updates on May 19, 2010 at 6:14pm

View GrassfireNation Updates's blog
From the Deskof:
Steve Elliott, Grassfire Nation

Obama's Attorney General is attacking Arizona's
immigration law -- without reading the bill!
The Obama team's goal is to set the stage for
amnesty while discrediting the grassroots Tea
Party movement. The ramifications are enormous.
See below.
--Steve

Dear Patriot,

Last week Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX), poked a Texas-sized hole in
the push to stop Arizona's reasonable immigration law (SB 1070).
During a hearing with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who
has threatened legal action to block SB1070's enforcement,
Poe asked, "Have you read the Arizona law?"

Holder stammered, "I glanced at it."

Poe, a former prosecutor and judge then turned up the heat
on Holder, questioning his snap to judgment regarding the
constitutionality of the statute without having first read
the law. Poe then chided Holder by pointing out that the
16-page bill was much shorter than the healthcare bill -- 
which Holder claims to have read.

Had Holder read the law, he would have concluded
that SB1070 simply states that violating federal immigration
law is now a state crime as well.

+ + Why the Left is attacking Arizona...

Without even reading the new law, Holder and the pro-amnesty
Left are on the attack. And their reasons are clear...

The Obama team and pro-amnesty advocates are trying
to label anyone who supports border security as
a racist, xenophobe or hate monger -- and then
use this platform to pass amnesty and rally
their base in November.

Never mind that 70 percent of Arizona residents support the
law, or the fact that as citizens we have a right to have
our borders secured. If the Left can succeed in framing the
border issue in hate and xenophobia, they will have created
the political justification they need to pass amnesty while
discrediting their political opponents in the upcoming election.

+ + 100,000 Grassroots Americans Standing With Arizona!

Grassfire Nation is launching a national petition to give
Americans an opportunity to show support for Arizona's
reasonable immigration law and to oppose the efforts to
demonize those who stand for border security.

Over the next two weeks, we want to rally 100,000 citizens who
applaud what governor Jan Brewer has done -- and oppose the
attacks and threatened boycotts of Arizona. As soon as we
reach our goal, we will deliver the petitions to the Governor
in a strong show of national support.

Go here to express your support of Arizona's sensible
stand on immigration and to oppose the outrageous
attacks on those who stand for border security:

http://www.grassfire.com/132/petition.asp?ref_id=500064

+ + We are Arizonians...

Sarah Palin said recently in giving her support for SB1070,
"we are all Arizonians."

She's right. Regardless where you live in the U.S.,
Arizona's problem is really OUR problem, and as Americans,
we must react to these attacks by supporting SB1070.

If we allow President Obama, Attorney General Holder and
the Left to use the Arizona law to incorrectly frame the
immigration issue in terms of "race" and "hate," we will
be handing them the political key to passing amnesty and
discrediting the grassroots, Tea-Party movement which
threatens to undermine their power this November.

Click below to read the Arizona law for yourself and sign
our petition:

http://www.grassfire.com/132/petition.asp?ref_id=500064

Thank you in advance for takinga stand on this issue.


Steve Elliott
Grassfire Nation

P.S. If we let the Arizona attacks go unchallenged, we will
give the Left the key to passing amnesty AND winning in
November. After reading the law and signing our petition,
please take a few additional moments to alert your friends -- 
urging them to follow your lead by clicking on the link below:

http://www.grassfire.com/132/petition.asp?ref_id=500064

Tags: obama Arizona attack

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:55
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 19 de mayo de 2010
 

Arizona Is Fighting Back: Arizona Official Threatens to Cut Off Los Angeles Power as Payback for Boycott

Posted on May 19th, 2010 by David-Crockett

By Judson Berger

- FOXNews.com

A member of Arizona’s top government utilities agency threw down the gauntlet in a letter to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, threatening to cut off the city’s power supply as retribution for the city’s boycott of Arizona.

If Los Angeles wants to boycott Arizona, it had better get used to reading by candlelight.

That’s the message from a member of Arizona’s top government utilities agency, who threw down the gauntlet Tuesday in a letter to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa by threatening to cut off the city’s power supply as retribution.

Gary Pierce, a commissioner on the five-member Arizona Corporation Commission, wrote the letter in response to the Los Angeles City Council’s decision last week to boycott the Grand Canyon State — in protest of its immigration law — by suspending official travel there and ending future contracts with state businesses.

Noting that a quarter of Los Angeles’ electricity comes from Arizona power plants, Pierce threatened to pull the plug if the City Council does not reconsider.

“Doggone it — if you’re going to boycott this candy store … then don’t come in for any of it,” Pierce told FoxNews.com.

In the letter, he ridiculed Villaraigosa for saying that the point of the boycott was to “send a message” by severing the “resources and ties” they share.

“I received your message; please receive mine. As a statewide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the ‘resources and ties’ we share with the city of Los Angeles,” Pierce wrote.

“If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation.”

Appearing to tap into local frustration in Arizona over the raft of boycotts and threatened boycotts from cities across the country, including Los Angeles, Pierce warned that Arizona companies are willing and ready to fight boycott with boycott.

“I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands,” Pierce wrote. “If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.”

Pierce told FoxNews.com that he was speaking for himself, not the entire commission, though he has the support of at least one other member. But Arizona has some serious leverage over Los Angeles, as well as the rest of California. The state and city get electricity from a nuclear power plant outside Phoenix, as well as from coal-fired power plants in northern Arizona and two giant hydroelectric power generators along the Colorado River.

Despite that, the Los Angeles City Council voted overwhelmingly last week to ban future business with Arizona — a decision that could cost Arizona millions of dollars in lost contracts.

Los Angeles officials were furious with the Arizona immigration law passed last month and joined local officials in cities across the country in pushing boycotts to register their dismay. Critics say the law will lead to racial profiling and civil rights abuses.

Arizona officials have defended the law, saying the state needed to take its illegal immigration problem into its own hands. Pierce said he’s “supportive” of the state’s efforts to control the border.

The law requires local law enforcement to try to verify the immigration status of anyone they have contact with whom they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. It empowers them to turn over verified illegal immigrants to federal custody. The legislation explicitly prohibits screening people based solely on race or national origin.


Tags: Arisona HB1070

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:37
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
S?bado, 15 de mayo de 2010
 

Obama’s Lies And Fraud Can Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald Open An Investigation? - By Devvy

Posted on May 15th, 2010 by David-Crockett

DevvyBy: Devvy
May 14, 2010

Worldnetdaily carried a headline earlier this week regarding Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, aka Barry Obama, aka Barack Dunham, aka Barry Dunham using a social security number issued in the state of Connecticut.

NEW YORK – “Two private investigators working independently are asking why President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state.

“In addition, the records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama’s earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins ice-cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii.

“WND has copies of affidavits filed separately in a presidential eligibility lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia by Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John N. Sampson.

“The investigators believe Obama needs to explain why he is using a Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants that was issued at a date later than he is known to have held employment.”

This issue has been around for quite some time; I wrote a column about it November, 5, 2009:

“In a letter from licensed investigator Susan Daniels to Judge Carter, Ms. Daniels states:

“I am the private investigator who contacted Dr. Orly Taitz when I found that Barack Obama has been using a bogus social security number for years, which is a felony. I have been a licensed investigator for almost fifteen years and recognized it immediately as fraudulent.”

“While this may well be true, without any documentation to prove Obama used all those SSNs (For what purpose? Tax evasion, fraud regarding business transactions or campaign cash?), we just don’t know. Several months ago, I had email exchange with an individual (I will not name for privacy), who believes Obama used his former home address for fraudulent reasons. This person seems to have good grounds support his allegation. However, only a full blown criminal investigation by law enforcement (like DOJ) would provide evidence.”

Long ago, Neil Sankey was once attached to elite Scotland Yard units which hunted down IRA bombers and other high level criminals. He is now semi-retired from a life long career as a private investigator. Sankey collected hundreds of SSNs belonging to dozens of Barack Obama’s, Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama’s mother) and Michelle Obama. As they were in no order, I put them in three separate files:

Barack Hussein Obama
Stanley Ann Dunham(his deceased mother)
Michelle Obama

Due to a corrupt Congress that stood mute and accepted the Electoral College vote, even though the issue of Obama’s citizenship was a raging issue in this country, the communist occupying the White House has done enormous damage to this republic. The entire Congress who sat there without raising a single objection demonstrated the greatest act of cowardice in my life time. I expected nothing less from the Democrats in Congress. There isn’t one of them with an ounce of integrity or honor. I can only assume the cowardice displayed by incumbent Republicans was either fear or “we lost, get over it.” Either way, it was and is inexcusable.

There’s no need to cover all the lawsuits. There are still two remaining: (1) Appeal in the Kerchner v Obama case -  filed last November 2009. A motion for leave to file supplemental Appendix was filed April 20, 1010.  It is astounding that the courts feel no urgency in dealing with usurpers.

The same putrid situation is dragging on regarding the removal of usurper, Marxist Hillary Clinton [1] That lawsuit was filed January 29, 2009. The appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed December 31, 2009. In the meantime, Clinton is running around the globe playing Secretary of State. This is an outrage. The courts are over loaded, but when it comes to high level public officials like Obama/Soetoro and Clinton, the courts, must put those cases ahead of others for obvious reasons. Instead, they’re sitting on them. Now, there is another grossly unqualified candidate (Sotomayer the other) nominated to the high court, Kagan. These games are sickening and the American people should be outraged.

The second case is the Leo Donofrio and Stephen Pidgeon lawsuit on behalf of the Chrysler dealers. That one will take time. But, time is not on our side. The date for Lt. Col. Lakin’s Article 32 hearing is set for June 11, 2010. Everyday Comrade Obama remains in office is a crime, yet an honorable 18 year veteran of our military faces court martial and prison because he is entitled to the truth about the commander in chief. The dark forces who own Washington, DC., will go to any lengths to protect the big lie.

I don’t know for a fact that Obama/Soetoro has been using one or more fake social security numbers, but where there’s smoke, there’s usually a fire.

Rev. David Manning, has been on Obama since he became aware of the serious, constitutional question of Obama/Soetoro’s citizenship. Dr. Manning is chief pastor at the ATLAH World Missionary Church in NYC. Because Congress and the courts (never mind the lackey media and that includes cable networks like FAUX, CNN and MSNBC) refuse to stop the fraud of Comrade Obama occupying the White House, Dr. Manning decided to hold a trial:

“Starting Friday and for a full week, the Atlah World Missionary Church will hold in essence a citizen’s court in what it bills as “the greatest trial in American history.”

“The trial, which will include legal scholars and retired court officers, will examine several issues, including Obama’s birth place, his citizenship status, his academic credentials and alleged ties to the Central Intelligence Agency as a student.

“The Atlah World Missionary Church, headed by Rev. James Manning, says the proceedings are not a mock trial and are permitted under the U.S. Constitution:

“A number of Americans have been gravely concerned about the eligibility issue of Barack Obama… We have been able to look at the briefs filed by several attorneys and the courts have just refused categorically to allow any access or due process on the matter… We are going to call a 10th Amendment sanctioned trial. It is not a grand jury, it’s not a hearing, it’s a trial and we are going to follow all the rules and practices of both federal and state jurisprudence… We are going to adjudicate this trial in such a way that it will be historically respectful and appellate proof.”

The trial begins Saturday. On Friday, May 14, 2010, Rev. Manning will lead a protest march at Columbia University. The entire trial will be filmed and media will there in full force; there will be transcripts. Of course, you won’t hear anything about it on ABC, NBC or CBS. Likely any mention on CNN or MSNBC will be a slam against “the birthers.” Master gas bag, Bill O’Reilly, will simply label Rev. Manning a loon and move on to some sex story.

Apparently there is at least one law professor who doesn’t believe Manning’s effort has any clout:

“Meanwhile, a Constitution law professor at Southern University in Baton Rouge says the American Grand Jury  doesn’t hold the clout the Manning team espouses. This professor, who wants anonymity, and when asked about Justice Antonin Scolia’s opinion of the court in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), says he wouldn’t accept anything Scalia says and despises all people on the far left and the far right. Yet, this position the professor takes goes completely against what the Supreme Court found in their decision in that 1992 case; the power is placed in the hands of the people in the American Grand Jury as the Fourth Branch of Government.”

The case referred to here is: United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992)

“This Court’s cases relying upon that power deal strictly with the courts’ control over their own procedures, whereas the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside….”

And:

    “[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,” Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It “`is a constitutional fixture in its own right.’” United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed. Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a).  [504 U.S. 36, 48]

    “The grand jury’s functional independence from the Judicial Branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing and in the manner in which that power is exercised. “Unlike [a] [c]ourt, whose jurisdiction is predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury `can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’” United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc.,498 U.S. 292, 297 (1991) (quoting United States v. Morton Salt Co.,338 U.S. 632, 642-643 (1950)). It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 282 (1919). The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, see Hale, supra, at 59-60, 65, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. See Calandra, supra, at 343. It swears in its own witnesses, Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(c), and deliberates in total secrecy, see United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S. 418, 424 -425 (1983).”

Now, going back to fraud. Besides the issue of Comrade Obama using fake or multiple SSNs, there is also the issue of did Nancy Pelosi and others commit fraud when they submitted Comrade Obama’s candidate certification to the 50 Secretary of State’s prior to the election? I believe the answer is yes. I also obtained the “official” documents submitted here in Texas to our Secretary of State. There’s no question of fraud. Now, where’s law enforcement?

Obama/Soetoro has always known he was ineligible due to his father’s citizenship status at the time of his birth, yet he solicited over $600 million dollars in campaign funds and is guilty of wire fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343. That’s down the line, but he knows.

What can be done about this? We all remember when Ken Starr was appointed Special Counsel to investigate Marxist Bill Clinton about Whitewater, the death of former White House Counsel, Vince Foster and then lying about Monica Lewinsky servicing him in the Oval Office. At that time under the statute, a three-judge panel was charged with administering the Independent Counsel Act.

The Office of Special Counsel in the United States Department of Justice replaced the former Office of the Independent Counsel in 1999. The updated version is charged with investigating alleged misconduct in the federal government’s executive branch. The Office of Special Counsel is supposed to be an independent agency; it is also charged with protecting civil service employees from unfair personnel practices. The current Special Counsel is Patrick Fitzgerald, who was appointed in 2003 by Deputy Attorney General  James B. Comey.

Eric Holder is the Attorney General; a corrupt political animal guilty of obstruction of justice in the Michael Trentadue murder.

Could Patrick Fitzgerald in his capacity as Special Counsel open an investigation into the allegations of social security fraud and all the testimony and whatever hard evidence comes from Rev. Manning’s trial taking place right now? Comey, due to a conflict of interest in the Valerie Plame affair with Ashcroft, appointed Patrick Fitzgerald under Department of Justice regulation 28 CFR Part 600.

In a second letter to Fitzgerald from Comey dated February 6, 2004, he crystallized the authority of the Special Counsel: “…further, my conferral on you of the title of ‘Special Counsel’ in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600.”

It goes without saying that Eric Holder will never give up Obama/Soetoro, which means he will never authorize Fitzgerald to act in his capacity as Special Counsel to open an investigation into:

1. Fraud: Obama/Soetoro and social security numbers
2. Fraud by Nancy Pelosi and others to ballot qualify Obama/Soetoro for the 2008 presidential election knowing full well he was not constitutionally eligible
3. Any and all real evidence in the possession of Rev. David Manning and testimony of witnesses.
According to Rev. Manning, two could blow this wide open:

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.”

Dr. Manning is nobody’s fool and he has put his reputation and credibility on the line big time.

4. Any and all employees regardless of level of Occidental College and Columbia University who altered records to protect Obama/Soetro.

Fitzgerald is very familiar with Comrade Obama from investigations originating from his office which put Tony Rezko, big bud of Obama, in federal prison. On-going is Fitzgerald’s investigation of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. I would bet a lot that should a real investigation as Special Counsel be opened and conducted by Fitzgerald, all of the above and more would be exposed to the world.

How could this happen? I don’t know because I’m not an attorney. Can Fitzgerald open a RICO without Eric Holder’s permission? Can he as Special Counsel open a full investigation and convene a federal grand jury without Eric Holder’s permission? The Office of Special Counsel is supposed to be an independent agency, but reading § 600.4  Jurisdiction. from 28 C.F.R. PART 600—General Powers of Special Counsel it says:

(a) Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.

Do I read the fox guarding the hen house? When you have an AG as dirty as Eric Holder, where do we the people go for justice? We the people need the advice of some good constitutional attorneys. There has to be a way to have the Special Counsel investigate fraud and other crimes even if the Attorney General doesn’t want to do it to protect an individual who has usurped the office of president of these united States of America.

If there is a way, then we the people need to go into overdrive in putting the heat on Fitzgerald to open an investigation. If it means marches and demonstrations in front of his office, then it gets done. If it means a massive campaign like Worldnetdaily.com has been doing with bill boards and petitions, then we get it done and we keep the pressure on until an investigation is opened. No more secrecy. No more protecting the criminal syndicate out in Washington, DC. This is our country, not theirs. We have a right to a legitimate president and opening a full blown investigation will not only expose the fraud, but also the cover up regarding Obama’s past.

The issue of his dual citizenship at birth, by his own admission, still has to be settled by a court. One step at a time. First, we need to find out if Fitzgerald in his official capacity as Special Counsel can open an investigation. This is one of the greatest frauds in the history of our republic. We can’t give up. I am hopeful this column will spur on some of these larger organizations who have attorneys they can consult with about the statues governing the Special Counsel and make their qualified opinion available on the Internet. Then we the people will go into action.

Footnote

[1] Judicial Watch lawsuit to remove Clinton
Appeal filed January

Implementation of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Special Council Regulation

Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law
of the Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
February 26, 2008
Serial No. 110-172

Pay particular attention to the testimony beginning on page 123 - 126 and
Patrick Fitzgerald’s testimony beginning on page 128.

B-302582, Special Counsel and Permanent Indefinite Appropriation
September 30, 2004

The Nonsense Published by Our Nation’s Editors
Regarding Obama’s Eligibility to be President

Obama, the Putative President of the U.S., was Born a British Subject
Governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948, and is Currently
also a British Protected Person and/or a British Citizen to This Day

Eye-popper: Is Nancy Pelosi in on eligibility cover-up?

NWC Leads Worldwide Letter Writing Campaign for
Independent Review of Major Tax Fraud Whistleblower
(Corruption is Eric Holder’s middle name)

Google hides Obama’s Social Security Number story
(Which is why I use www.scroogle.org)
Devvy’s Obama Archives

Obama’s proven communist connections in Hawaii and Chicago :

Hawaii

Chicago

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies distributed. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party.

Visit Devvy’s website at: http://www.devvy.com. You can also sign up for her free email alerts. Devvy’s radio show broadcasts Mon-Fri. To listen, go to: http://www.devvy.com/new_site/rense_show.html


Tags: obama lies

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:06
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 14 de mayo de 2010
 

FRIDAY, MAY 14, 2010

Roughly halfway into yesterday's two minute exchange, Eric Holder states that
he does not want to say something negative about Islam and that may be true, at first.
He uses an example of another kind of "radical Islam" held by an apparently non-hostile
Muslim and that may be fine. However, keep listening carefully.
Video, "Eric Holder Refuses to say 'Radical Islam'"

Toward the end of this strained give and take, his essential contention becomes what he finds acceptable or unacceptable in the use of the word "radical," in contrast with the way Rep. Lamar Smith (TX-R) uses it.

He makes his contention clear: he refuses to accept "radical" as a pejorative and he is only considering the word as an abstraction, which he takes to mean something "not consistent with" what is traditional. That is not about his Muslim example; it is about the term, radical, itself.

Our Attorney General under Barack Obama is defending "radicalism" in principle, against negative aspersions.

I.O. understands that big issues of the moment include Glenn Beck's discovery of Maurice Strong, also those arrested for investigating Obama's financial aid as an Occidental College student (and that Holder admitted here, he hasn't read Arizona's ten page illegal immigration bill that he criticized). More on Mr. Strong I think later, also, perhaps the Occidental issue. This for now. - AW

PS: 

Most importantly, 
please contact elected officials and candidates about their stances on America's sovereignties (please see the Three Sovereignty Questions). What are their responses? You can email arlenwilliams"at"yahoo"dot"com. Now, that is really something to publish.





ARIZONA LAW HB 1070




Tags: obama Holder Congress

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:30
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 13 de mayo de 2010

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/05/unreal-lib-media-outraged-that-arizona-will-ban-classes-that-promote-overthrow-of-us-government/

« « Previous  |Home|  Next » »         

Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, May 12, 2010, 11:48 AM

THE STATE-RUN MEDIA IS OUTRAGED!
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed a bill today that bans schools from teaching classes that call for “the overthrow of the the US Government.”

The democratic-media complex believes this is racist:

The Yahoo headline reads:
“More racial controversy for Arizona”

The Politico headline reads:
“Arizona bans ‘ethnic studies’”

This is what the new law bans:

The law prohibits the teaching of any classes that promote “the overthrow of the United States government,” “resentment toward a race or class of people,” “are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group” or “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.”

Like the Arizona immigration law, this sounds reasonable to most Americans.
But the far left and the far left media are outraged and report this as a new “racial controversy.”
Unbelievable.

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

L.A. Teacher Calls for Mexican Revolt in the U.S.





Tags: obama Arizona schools

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:16
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
 

Obama’s Nominee To Head Medicare, Medicaid: We “Must Redistribute Wealth”…

Marxism 101….

 

(RCP)- “Any health care funding plan that is just equitable civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional,” Donald Berwick said. Berwick is Obama’s nominee to run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services


Tags: obamacare berwick

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:57
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
 

Top 7 Marxist Communist Policies Being Implemented By Obama Today

 

by Hal Licino

Throughout history Communist leaders have seized power by promoting themselves as populists, and often completely hiding their own ideology. Indeed in a poll taken after Communist Hugo Chavez’ first election victory in Venezuela, only 3% of the electors believed Chavez to be a Socialist, let alone a Communist. Currently 32% of Americans believe Obama to be a Socialist.

The initial stages of Communization of a country invariably begin with seven basic steps:

Seizing Control Over The Free Flow Of The Nation’s Money

Obama has stated that he wants to convert the stock the US government now owns in the nation’s banks from preferred stock, which is the case currently, to common stock. This modification in type of stock may seem irrelevant at first glance, but under further analysis it is the single greatest communist policy the US government has ever adopted: It means that the federal government will control all of the currently publicly traded major banks and financial institutions in the nation which are currently in the hands of individual shareholders. Not only will the current shareholders’ rights be trampled, but the control of the nation’s flow of money is the first keystone of communism.

Stripping Capitalists Of Their Assets

According to US bankruptcy code, secured creditors such as the ones who have outstanding debt against Chrysler and GM, have to be paid before unsecured creditors. That is the law. Obama has ignored this law, and seized the vast majority (89% in GM’s case) of all “asset value” of the automakers and taken direct control or given it away for free to the unions. Karl Marx’s theses were all based on the workers owning the means of production, and thus communism takes hold in America.

Changing The Structures Of Government To Suit

Obama has given the GOP until October to approve his health care plan which many experts have shown, would be as socialized as Cuba’s. If the Republican Party does not meet his demands, the Democratic Party will simply change the very rules of the United States Senate to pass their legislation through simple majority, instead of the 60% which has been required by the Senate through history. Changing legislation to suit the leader is another common tactic of communist leaders from Chavez to Castro.

Taking Advantage Of A Crisis To Impose Communism

Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel published a book entitled The Plan which would require (yes, require) young Americans regardless of their political stripe to serve in a direct copy of Hugo Chavez’ red-beret local militias. The Plan also promotes massive taxpayer funded programs as universally free university tuition and health care as well as a tax reform to ensure that the middle and upper classes are crushed by the enormous new government expenditures. Obama has already admitted such a “soak anyone making over $250,000/year” punitive tax policy. Emanuel is famous for his quote “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste…(it’s) an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before,” which is the prototypical process whereby communists seize power, witness Lenin, Mao, Castro, Tito, et al.

Controlling Higher Education

Obama has already launched legislation to remove private lenders from student loans which would now all be provided by the federal government directly, so that it could choose in a totalitarian manner who receives the loans and who doesn’t. Many educational institutions are up in arms over this legislation as it essentially shifts admissions policy from the colleges and universities to the federal government. Control of higher education as in Obama’s Pell Grant entitlement is an universal characteristic of communism to ensure that the young are properly ideologically indoctrinated.

Punishing Residential Property Owners

Obama’s enormous mortgage bailout legislation is little more than a full blown entitlement program. The plan forces the 92 percent of responsible home owners to heavily subsidize the irresponsible “ARM-ATM” mortgage holders who didn’t read their ARM mortgages and used their home equity like ATMs. These taxes would be so overwhelming that many of the “responsible” majority of mortgage holders could lose their homes. The punishment leading to the elimination of property owners in favor of the state is a fundamental tenet of Marxism, as Karl wrote “the middle-class owner of property: This person must indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.”

Demolishing The Economy To Replace It With State Control

Obama has:

  • Handicapped American multinationals by denying them tax deferral, placing them at an enormous competitive disadvantage against corporations based anywhere else.
  • Launched entitlement programs which punish innovation and dry up funds for entrepreneurial start ups.
  • Stopped the Treasury from implementing any real recovery plans, discouraging private capital flow into the financial sector.
  • Stated “we have to spread the wealth around, we have to redistribute the wealth of this country through taxation,” which is a paraphrasing of Marx’s “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
  • Declared a “War On Business” as shown by his legislation that pharmaceutical corporations pay high rebate fees to Medicaid and promoting the importation of foreign drugs which could include low potency or outright counterfeit drugs into the nation. The financial outlook for US pharmaceutical companies has been decimated.
  • Placed nearly two thirds of a trillion dollars into a health reform reserve fund, which is the tip of the iceberg in the expectations of the cost of fully socialized medicine in America. USA Today has stated that every household in the United States would be on the hook for over half a million dollars.

All of these policies represent time-honored Communist policies specifically designed to devastate the free market economy as well as impoverish and punish the upper and middle classes leading to their elimination so that the Communist “Dictatorship Of The Proletariat” can be introduced. It is important to note that in each and every historical instance Communism has been introduced into democratic countries and they were all swiftly changed to totalitarian dictatorships of a single leader benefiting from a “Cult Of Personality.”

Policies virtually identical to these were implemented by:

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin in 1917 Russia
Josip Broz Tito in 1945 Yugoslavia
Mao Zedong (Tse-tung) in 1949 China
Fidel Castro in 1959 Cuba
Hugo Chavez in 1999 Venezuela

and now they are being implemented by

Barack Hussein Obama in 2009 United States of America.

That is why Bloomberg.com has called Obama a “Manchurian Candidate” set to destroy the US economy once elected.

——————————————————————————–


Tags: obama coomunist

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:52
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
 
 
Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, May 13, 2010, 4:50 AM

“We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It”

Remember that line by Speaker Pelosi… It will come back to haunt you repeatedly in the days ahead.

Now that it’s been a few weeks since Democrats rammed Obamacare through Congress we are getting a glimpse of what we can expect. Not only does the law initiate the first federal sales tax in the United States (on tanning) but it also taxes all Americans (and illegals) 3.8% when they sell their home.
The Spokesman Review reported:

In the days leading up to the dramatic late-night vote on President Barack Obama’s health plan, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it …” Now that ObamaCare has passed, it is slowly dawning on people what the new law means for the country and for Washington state.

ObamaCare sweeps away a host of state regulations and permanently alters our state’s insurance market. From now on, the federal government will manage the health care of all Washingtonians. The 2,700-page law contains a complex web of mandates, directives, price controls, tax increases and subsidies.

Tax on tanning. Imposes a 10 percent tax on services at tanning salons. Business owners will collect the tax from customers and send it to the federal government. This appears to be the first federal sales tax in the United States.

The new law falls well short of universal coverage. ObamaCare will leave about 6 percent of Washington residents without coverage. The measure is conservatively expected to cost $2.4 trillion in its first full decade. Thousands of older Washingtonians will lose their Medicare Advantage coverage, and the state’s 120,000 Health Savings Account holders may need to buy new policies or face stiff penalties.

Washington residents will begin paying ObamaCare taxes this year, while most benefits don’t start until 2014. The law includes some 19 new taxes. Here’s a rundown of what Washingtonians can expect in the coming years.

Penalties on individuals. Individuals will pay a yearly penalty of $695, or up to 2.5 percent of their annual income, if they cannot show they have purchased a government-approved health policy.

Penalties on families. Families will pay a yearly penalty of $347 per child, up to $2,250 per family, if parents cannot show they have purchased a government- approved policy…

Tax on Home Sales. Imposes a 3.8 percent tax on home sales and other real estate transactions. Middle-income people must pay the full tax even if they are “rich” for only one day – the day they sell their house and buy a new one.

Remember that promise by Barack Obama that any Americans making less than $250,000 per year will not see their taxes increase?
You can forget it. It was another empty promise. Just words.
------------------

President Obama s Pledge Never to Raise Taxes on Anyone Making Less Than 250 000 a Year


Tags: obamacare tax home

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:42
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Columbia Trial to begin Friday

CITIZENS’ GRAND JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR MAY 14-19, 2010

by Sharon Rondeau

Founded in 1754 by royal charter of King George II, Columbia University is the oldest post-secondary institution in the state of New York.

 

(May 13, 2010) — The Columbia Treason and Sedition Trial organized by Dr. James David Manning of ATLAH Ministries with support from American Grand Jury (AGJ) begins this Friday in Harlem, NY.

Dr. Manning has stated that he has conclusive evidence that Barack Hussein Obama II never attended Columbia University and that university officials who served at the time, from 1981-83, are aware of this fact and were paid to award Obama a diploma which then became part of the life story he has provided to the public.

According to Manning, the event will begin with a march around Columbia University at 9:00 a.m. on Friday.  Members of the clergy are urged to bring formal attire and bull’s horns, and other “American patriots” are urged to wear their customary work attire, including policemen, doctors, loggers, miners, and members of the military.  Manning will be giving instructions when attendees have assembled at the specified location.

The weather in New York City has been unseasonably cool, and attendees are urged to bring a light jacket.  Public transportation rather than personal cars is recommended to reach Columbia University.  Manning recommends the #1 train to get into the city.  The destination address is 116th St. and Broadway.

Everyone is encouraged to bring a Bible.  A prayer service is planned for Saturday evening.

Hotel rates in the area are $250-$300/night.  Those hotels located near LaGuardia airport are a bit less expensive at about $225/night.  Parking can cost up to $25/day.

The schedule for the five-day period is fluid and will proceed day by day.

According to Bob Campbell of American Grand Jury, there may be live radio discussion of the day’s events on BlogTalk Radio on some evenings.  This has yet to be finalized.

Regarding the upcoming trial, Manning has stated, “There’s never been anything like this in the history of the world…I’m delighted to do this on behalf of our country and on behalf of our Savior.”

© 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 Columbia Trial

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:28
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

The Eligibility Question has been answered

KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID! EXPANDED

by Arnie Rosner

McCain was vetted by the standard of having two U.S. citizen parents, but Obama was not held to that standard, nor do we know where he was born.

 

(May 13, 2010) — There is no point in discussing or debating the eligibility issue further. The legal basis is well-established and requires no additional response.

We must no longer permit ourselves to be victimized by divisive progressives who have been trained to employ the Alinsky strategy of keeping those on the right side of the issue on the defensive. It is a well-known delaying tactic described in Rule #8 below:

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

We must face facts! Obama is ineligible!

No additional explanations will change the circumstances! Obama is ineligible!

The discussion is over! Obama is ineligible!

The facts are apparent! Obama is ineligible!

They know it! Obama is ineligible!

We know it! Obama is ineligible!

Mr. Obama is ineligible to hold the office of the president!

Congress is responsible:

Congress is responsible for oversight of the Executive Branch. Make the demands of your Congressman to:

  • Fulfill their responsibility to honor their Oath.
  • Fulfill their responsibility as the duly-elected representatives of the American citizens to whom they owe their trust and commitment.
  • Fulfill their responsibility to the Constitution to which they owe their allegiance.

Congress, based on its sacred oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, is the legal authority which is accountable and responsible for upholding the supreme laws of the land, the Constitution. They cannot delegate or abdicate this responsibility!

Therefore, petition your Congressional representative to step forward and do their job!

Else, if necessary, “we the the people” will step forward and do it for them. If so, we can give the assurances it will not be pretty!

Put your Congress person on notice!

If this be the case, Congress can be assured nary an incumbent will be left standing in November!

© 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 @ 12:23
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 11 de mayo de 2010

Search for birth certificate a diversionary tactic to distract attention away from the real issue at hand, Obama's dual citizenship

Obama’s Natural-Born Useful Idiots

 By JB Williams  Tuesday, May 11, 2010

For people who don’t like and don’t care what the US Constitution says, it doesn’t matter whether or not Barack Obama meets eligibility requirements for the office he currently holds. Obots, who regard the Constitution as an outdated useless piece of paper that should be burned, and our republic as nothing more than a democracy of mob rule by iron fist, see Obama’s eligibility as a laughing matter.

New York Times blogger (and deconstructionist professor of law) Stanley Fish writes - Why Bother With the Constitution? In it, he quotes from a book titled The Living Constitution,” by David A. Strausswhich states—“the Constitution does not play a central role in constitutional interpretation.”

A deeper understanding of the useful idiot’s interpretation of the Constitution is found in Strauss’ book;

“In the majority of instances, Strauss argues, “the text of the Constitution will play, at most, a ceremonial role.” Even “when a case involves the Constitution, the text routinely gets no attention,” for “on a day-to-day basis, American constitutional law is about precedents, and when precedents leave off, it is about commonsense notions of fairness and good policy.”

In other words, the Constitution has no specific meaning or purpose at all. Case law, precedent setting or bench legislation is now the supreme law of our land, according to those who hate freedom, liberty and self-governance.

But for American citizens who hold the US Constitution dear, as the supreme law of this land and the foundation upon which all else rests, a government that subverts Article II—Section I for the purpose of upholding an unconstitutional and anti-American resident of the White House, is not to be trusted with anything else.

So-called “birthers” remain in search of an official Certificate of Live Birth (aka birth certificate) that most likely does not exist. That search has been perpetuated by the Obama defense team, in an effort to keep public focus on a document that, in the end, doesn’t even matter. Birth place is a matter of “native-born” status only, and as even Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg has pointed out, “in most countries in the world, they go by blood, not by land of birth.”—“they do not go on jus soli, they go on parentage.”

As I have written in a recent series, the search for a birth certificate is a diversionary tactic which aims to distract attention away from the real issue at hand, Obama’s “dual citizenship” and “divided loyalties,” which are at the heart of his ineligibility for office. Obama is in fact the poster child for why the Founders put the “natural-born citizen” clause in place.

An Obama organizer and writer for Huffington Post wasted no time coining the term “dualers” to label folks who understand what the “natural-born citizen” clause actually means and the purpose of it, as nothing more than a spinoff of the “birther” movement, which has pretty successfully been demonized as just another “truther” group searching for UFOs in tin-foil hats.

In fact, these so-called “dualers” (of which I am one), are usually at odds with both “birthers” and “truthers.” “Dualers” have read the Constitutional requirements for the highest office in our land, researched the history behind those requirements including Vattel’s writings on the matter based on the Law of Nations, and have come to understand that Obama is not qualified for office.

Obama’s Story

According to Barack Obama’s story, he was born the son of a U.S. mother and a Kenyan father who was at no time a citizen of the United States. Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii in 1961, on U.S. soil.

If this story is true, Barack Obama is a “dual citizen” of the United States by his mother, and Kenya by his father. He would, as a result, have the very potential of “divided loyalties” that caused the Founding Fathers to place the “natural-born citizen” requirement in the Constitution for the offices of President and Vice President.

Nobody knows if Obama was born in Hawaii or not because he has refused to release his actual “Certificate of Live Birth”, which, as CNN 360 host Anderson Cooper recently pointed out in his on-air ambush of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, is the official proof of Obama’s “native-born” status. But Cooper lied to his viewers when he claimed that Obama had released that Certificate of Live Birth.

image
This is an actual Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth from 1962

image
This is the Certification of Live Birth from 2007, posted online by DailyKOS and FactCheck

As you can see, what Obama has allowed to be posted online as evidence of a 1961 Certificate of Live Birth is actually a Certification of Live Birth, allegedly issued to Obama in June of 2007, as he was preparing his 2008 run for the White House. Some have asserted that this document is actually a forgery taken from Obama’s half-sister’s COLB. She was born in Indonesia.

As inquiring minds already know, anyone with a Hawaii street address can purchase a Hawaiian COLB from the state and people who don’t have an actual birth certificate do it all the time in Hawaii.

But, as I point out, the search for a real Obama birth certificate is only a diversion from the real issue at hand, that issue being the fact that Obama is NOT a “natural-born citizen” free from any “divided loyalties” due to his self-proclaimed “dual-citizenship.”

Obama’s Useful Idiots

¬†From CNN’s Anderson Cooper to so-called conservatives Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly, useful idiots have lined up like good little sheep to proclaim that they have some special knowledge of the messiah’s birth that nobody else is allowed to see, and that on that basis, they have determined for all of mankind that Obama is eligible for office, even though none of them seem capable of comprehending the most fundamental facts of the case. It’s NOT about “birth place!”

As for Obama supporters, those who want real “change” from a free society funded by free-markets - to a socialized system based upon free stuff for those unwilling to earn, paid for by the productive members of society, it makes no difference what the Constitution says or that Obama is NOT eligible for office even under his own story.

No mountain of evidence will change their opinions because their opinions are driven by agenda, not facts.

But citizens who still care what our Constitution says, what our Founding Fathers designed and the unparalleled success of our unique American history, had better care about Article II—Section I or they need not bother worrying their pretty little heads about anything else our founding documents say.

Our rights are only “unalienable” so long as the Constitution remains in full force and effect. Without that document, everything we have ever known about our country goes right out the window with the destruction of that foundation.

Sooner or later, the truth about Obama and all who made it possible for this man to scam the entire world will come out. God help us if it isn’t until after there is no nation left to salvage.

Obama’s idiots don’t care, they never did and they never will.

But what about the rest of America and the free world as we once knew it?


Tags: obama Idiosts

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:46
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Please visit the site if you would like to see more videos.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Thousands of individuals from foreign countries walk unchallenged across our southern border every day. We don't know who they are, where they come from, or their intentions. It is an invasion by definition, and our government condones it.

This website presents current and undeniable documentation.

  7-29-09: Border Patrol "Wanted" poster. See pictures of persons of interest.     Click Here
  1-22-09: The Department of Homeland Security has blocked access to this website from DHS.gov computers.     See Notice




M3 Report
Violence in Mexico

CENTER for
IMMIGRATION
STUDIES
 Environmental 
 Impact Video 



Media
Reports/Inquiries
Click Here

General Info/News
Click Here

http://www.statcounter.com/
Unique visitors since October 28, 2008

December, 2009 line of suspected border intruders
To view any video full screen, right click on the video and click on "full screen" option.
Press your Escape key to return to normal size. (All thermal videos are excerpts due to file size)
(Dates shown below are "Posting" dates and do not indicate the actual date the photo or video was taken)

For email alerts to new posts: click here
(email addresses kept confidential)
The evidence on this website tells the true story.
While the invasion continues daily, diminishing resources dictate that we post less frequently.

On March 27th, Arizona rancher Rob Krentz was brutally murdered on his own property by an illegal alien. While the Krentz family and community will forever suffer their tragic loss, his murderer fled back across the wide open U.S./Mexico border to freely resume his criminal activity.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the Krentz family.
See what Arizona border ranchers endure every day.  
Click Here

February 2 - March 12 2010
03/30/10 -  700 BORDER INTRUDERS - 40 DAYS - ONE TRAIL    NEW

December 09 & January 10 - Over 330 border intruders - drug runners and coyotes
02/05/10 - 8 drug runners at night  
02/05/10 - 75 border intruders  
02/05/10 - 53 border intruders  
02/05/10 - 61 border intruders  
02/05/10 - 38 border intruders  
02/05/10 - 36 border intruders  
02/05/10 - 43 border intruders  
02/05/10 - 19 border intruders  


Tags: Arizona border ilegals

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:13
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 09 de mayo de 2010
 

Arizona Immigration Enforcement Defended

National security should be every government's very first priority.

Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen explains Arizona's tougher line on illegal immigration and why the state had to act, when the federal government wouldn't.

It's hard to argue with her logic.


I'm Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen. I want to explain SB 1070 which I voted for and was just signed by Governor Jan Brewer.

Rancher Rob Krantz was murdered by the drug cartel on his ranch a month ago. I participated in a senate hearing two weeks ago on the border violence, here is just some of the highlights from those who testified.

The people who live within 60 to 80 miles of the Arizona/Mexico Border have for years been terrorized and have pleaded for help to stop the daily invasion of humans who cross their property . One Rancher testified that 300 to 1200 people a DAY come across his ranch vandalizing his property, stealing his vehicles and property, cutting down his fences, and leaving trash. In the last two years he has found 17 dead bodies and two Koran bibles.

Another rancher testified that daily drugs are brought across his ranch in a military operation. A point man with a machine gun goes in front, 1/2 mile behind are the guards fully armed, 1/2 mile behind them are the drugs, behind the drugs 1/2 mile are more guards. These people are violent and they will kill anyone who gets in the way. This was not the only rancher we heard that day that talked about the drug trains.

One man told of two illegals who came upon his property one shot in the back and the other in the arm by the drug runners who had forced them to carry the drugs and then shot them. Daily they listen to gun fire during the night it is not safe to leave his family alone on the ranch and they can't leave the ranch for fear of nothing being left when they come back.

The border patrol is not on the border. They have set up 60 miles away with check points that do nothing to stop the invasion. They are not allowed to use force in stopping anyone who is entering. They run around chasing them, if they get their hands on them then they can take them back across the border.

Federal prisons have over 35% illegals and 20% of Arizona prisons are filled with illegals. In the last few years 80% of our law enforcement that have been killed or wounded have been by an illegal.

The majority of people coming now are people we need to be worried about. The ranchers told us that they have seen a change in the people coming they are not just those who are looking for work and a better life.

The Federal Government has refused for years to do anything to help the border states . We have been over run and once they are here we have the burden of funding state services that they use. Education cost have been over a billion dollars. The health care cost billions of dollars. Our State is broke, $3.5 billion deficit and we have many serious decisions to make. One is that we do not have the money to care for any who are not here legally. It has to stop.

The border can be secured. We have the technology we have the ability to stop this invasion. We must know who is coming and they must come in an organized manner legally so that we can assimilate them into our population and protect the sovereignty of our country. We are a nation of laws. We have a responsibility to protect our citizens and to protect the integrity of our country and the government which we live under.

I would give amnesty today to many, but here is the problem, we dare not do this until the Border is secure. It will do no good to forgive them because thousands will come behind them and we will be over run to the point that there will no longer be the United States of America but a North American Union of open borders. I ask you what form of government will we live under? How long will it be before we will be just like Mexico , Canada or any of the other Central American or South American countries? We have already lost our language, everything must be printed in Spanish also. We have already lost our history it is no longer taught in our schools. And we have lost our borders.

The leftist media has distorted what SB 1070 will do. It is not going to set up a Nazi Germany . Are you kidding. The ACLU and the leftist courts will do everything to protect those who are here illegally, but it was an effort to try and stop illegals from setting up businesses, and employment, and receiving state services and give the ability to local law enforcement when there is probable cause like a traffic stop to determine if they are here legally. Federal law is very clear if you are here on a visa you must have your papers on you at all times. That is the law. In Arizona all you need to show you are a legal citizen is a driver license, MVD identification card, Native American Card, or a Military ID. This is what you need to vote, get a hunting license, etc.. So nothing new has been added to this law. No one is going to be stopped walking down the street etc... The Socialist who are in power in DC are angry because we dare try and do something and that something the Socialist wants us to do is just let them come. They want the "Transformation" to continue.

Maybe it is too late to save America . Maybe we are not worthy of freedom anymore. But as an elected official I must try to do what I can to protect our Constitutional Republic . Living in America is not a right just because you can walk across the border. Being an American is a responsibility and it comes by respecting and upholding the Constitution the law of our land which says what you must do to be a citizen of this country. Freedom is not free. 

Spread the word:  



Thanks to Nick.
 
 ShareThis PrintPrint Friendly
POSTED BY TREVOR LOUDON AT 5/08/2010 10:23:00 AM 0 comments links to this post

Tags: obama Arizona Allen

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:52
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
 
 
 
Three Presidents did it, yet we never hear about it

 
I FOUND THIS TO BE VERY INTERESTING.
I WONDER WHY IT iS NEVER BROUGHT UP.
   
  
    
  

What  did Hoover, Truman, and Eisenhower have in common?


Here  is something that should be of great interest  for you to pass around. I didn't know of this  until it was pointed out to  me.

Back during The Great Depression, President Herbert  Hoover ordered the deportation of ALL  illegal aliens in order to make jobs available  to American citizens that desperately needed work..

Harry  Truman deported over two million Illegal's after WWII to create jobs for returning veterans.

And  then again in 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower deported 13 million Mexican Nationals! The  program was called 'Operation Wetback'. It  was done so WWII and Korean Veterans would have a better  chance at jobs.
It took 2 Years, but they  deported them!

Now...if  they could deport the illegals back then - they  could sure do it today.

lf you have doubts about the veracity of this  information, enter Operation Wetback into your  favorite search engine and confirm it for yourself.
Reminder:  
Don't forget to pay your taxes...
12 million Illegal Aliens are depending on you! 
 

 
 

Tags: Operation Wetback

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:42
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
S?bado, 08 de mayo de 2010
 
 
Did I tune in tothe wrong channel?

May 8th, 2010

Mr Anderson,

Forgive me sir…I must have misunderstood the intent of your show. Was I wrong to believe you werea component of the free press; a professional journalist?

I was very confused about the manner in which you attempted to attack your guest, Lt. Col Lakin, as opposed to engage him. Did I miss something?

Maybe I got it all wrong, Mr.Anderson, but it looked like your intentions were to discredit this principled, highly decorated, honorable warrior, who demonstrated his dedication to the Constitution and the American people.

Unlike you sir, Lt. Col Lakin has put his life on the line on many occasions just so ingrates like you could heap abuse on him. He is obviously a much better man than you.

Now in my book, your conduct tonight, places you in the same incredibly unique category as that of Ms. Ma’am Boxer. You both represent an insult to the American people and especially intelligent society. You knowingly participated in disseminating false and misleading information with regard to the eligibility issue, a subject in which you proved your gross incompetence, and at the same time because I believe you did so deliberately, in my opinion, you are also guilty of the crime of misprision. Further, in my view, this is a violation of the FCC license under which your broadcast network operates. So in principle, At the very least CNN should be sanctioned and fined for your transgressions.

But not to worry Mr.Anderson, the damage has been dramatically contained due to the small size of your viewing audience. Well that is with the exception of those like me who just tuned in out of curiosity to see CNN live up to thei rbiased reporting. I am happy to say you certainly met my expectations!

Your actions and behavior were classic Alinsky style techniques. It is hard to imagine that the management of CNN and you really are this stupid. Hey…but I suspect you drink enough Kool-Aid and as a natural consequence it has distorted your judgment, your ethics, your morality and your humanity.

But take heart! The American public sees right through your treachery. A brief glance at the CNN ratings confirms this fact.

The losses at CNN continued apattern in place for much of the last year, as the network trailed its competitors in every prime-time hour. (CNN still easily beats MSNBC in the daytime hours, but those are less lucrative in advertising money,and both networks are far behind Fox News at all hours.)

But it is all relative isn’t it Mr. Anderson…CNN beat out MSNBC in the ratings. WOW…what a coup. Next thing you know you will start paying viewers to watch you. May beeven offer unimaginable incentives…compliments of the American taxpayers of course via the WH.

So maybe the viewing publicis not as dumb as you first thought….Maybe the public sees through your criminal intent. Maybe, just like Joe Wilson, the viewing public does not like liars and propagandists. What do you think? But really who cares what you think; certainly not most of your viewers.

You know Mr. Anderson,through-out history, every traitor has had a price…what was yours?

Respectfully,
Arnie Rosner


Comment by American GrandJury:

Nice write-up Arnie.. theentire interview last night was nothing more than a hatchet job on LTCLakin.






DECORATED ARMY PHYSICIAN BEING COURT-MARTIALLED FOR REFUSINGTO OBEY ALL ORDERS TO BE QUESTIONED ON TOP-RATED SHOW

Washington,D.C., May 5, 2010. Army Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who is beingcourt-martialled by the Army for refusing to obey orders to deploy toAfghanistan because the President refuses –even in the face of mountingevidence to the contrary– to prove his eligibility under theConstitution to hold office, will appear with his attorney tomorrownight in a live interview on CNN’s top-rated “Anderson Cooper 360”program.

The court martial process, which begins with the military’sequivalent of a preliminary hearing in a civilian court, known as an“Article 32 Investigation” (referring to the provision found in thatsection in the Uniform Code of Military Justice) was just commencedwhen on May 3, 2010, LTC Lakin was notified that the hearing would takeplace May 6, 2010. “My immediate request for a continuance was grantedwithin hours. A new date will be set soon, most likely in the first twoweeks in June”, said Paul Rolf Jensen, LTC Lakin’s civilian counsel.Assisting Jensen in his defense of Lakin is a very experienced seniormember of the Army’s Judge Advocate General’s corps.

The interview will be broadcast liveand unedited from CNN’s New York City studios on May 7, 2010 at 10:00p.m. eastern time, 7:00 pm pacific.

The American Patriot Foundation, a non-profit group incorporated in2003 to foster appreciation and respect for the U.S. Constitution, inthe one month since establishing a fund to provide a legal defense toLTC Lakin, has received generous donations from more than 1,200separate individuals. Details are available on the Foundation’s website, http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com.

—–end—-

for further information, contact:


Margaret Hemenway at (202) 448-5032

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

E MAIL SENT TO COOPER ON 05/08/10
 
 
Mr. Cooper
 
Why were you so ignorant about our Constitution last night when you had Lt. Col Lakin??
 
Please visit or invite Mario Apuzzo to your show.
 
 
 
Sincerely,
 
Miriam Mata
 
 
 -------------------------------------
  Thanks for writing into Anderson Cooper 360°.  

 This is your notification that we have received your email. While we are unable to personally reply to every e-mail,

your comments are important to us, and we do read each and every one. Comments become part of the viewer response report that is prepared and made available each day

to our producers and senior management.

 To get the most from AC360°, check out the links below.

 Insight you can’t find anywhere else from the AC360° site.

Get a behind the scenes look at AC360° and the stories we cover, written by Anderson Cooper, the AC360° staff and a network of contributors.

 Anderson Cooper 360° Daily Podcast

Take Anderson with you. Get highlights from CNN's premier nightly news program.

 Anderson on Facebook and Twitter

Become Anderson’s friend on Facebook for behind-the-scenes photos and videos, upcoming events and more. Or follow Anderson on Twitter.

 AC360° Mobile Alerts

Sign up for AC360° mobile alerts to stay on top what we’re covering each week. Text “Alert” to 22360. Standard messaging rates apply.

 Thanks again for your interest.

Regards,  
AC360° and CNN Viewer Communications Management

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

 
 
 
 
CNN's Anderson Cooper of Anderson 360 did a hit job on LtCol Lakin and his attorney on Friday night.


CNN Anderson Cooper Harasses and Brow-Beats Instead of Interviewing Lt. Col. Lakin. Anderson Cooper is research incompetent on the subject and does NOT know the difference between a "CERTIFICATE of Live Birth" and a "CERTIFICATION of Live Birth" and to recognize which form is being talked about with various statements and exhibits. What's the difference? Major ones, including appearance. One key difference, one is hand typed contemporaneously with the event the other is computer generated summary from a data base for which amendments could have been made to the vital record subsequent to the contemporaneous filing. One has the name of the delivering/attending physician or midwife and witnesses to the birth, the other does not. See this article by WND to see an exemplification of the differences. The image Cooper was showing on the screen is the digital image of a CERTIFICATION form. It says so right across the top. The image Cooper showed and described as a CERTIFICATE of Live Birth is NOT one. He did not even read the exhibit he showed while talking. That alone reveals his ignorance or deliberate deception on this issue.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=101483

Anderson Cooper of Anderson 360 is either ignorant or is deliberately playing the word games such as Hawaii is playing to protect Obama. When Hawaii says a CERTIFICATE of Live Birth (aka Birth Certificate) is an acceptable form of proof that someone was born in Hawaii, that is true, if it was prepared by a hospital and/or an attending physician or midwife. But Obama has NOT presented a CERTIFICATE of Live Birth. Obama has presented a CERTIFICATION of Live Birth (aka COLB) only online And, that is key too, he has only shown a digital image of such CERTIFICATION of Live Birth. Digital images can be easily altered. He has not presented a certified copy on paper of even the CERTIFICATION computer generated form to anyone outside his campaign and two young people at a website connected with foundations in Chicago that Obama once was Chairman of and a Director, the Annenberg Foundation, which funds FactCheck.org, a major online defender of Obama. Also, no controlling legal authority or member of the main stream media has ever been allowed to examine the underlying alleged paper document used to make the digital image online nor has it been presented to any forensic document examiners to determine its validity. The print outs that some wave on the TV during interviews is nothing more than a printout of the online digital image.
Anderson Cooper played the same word game that all on the Obama side have been doing all along in his disgraceful non-interview of Lt. Col. Lakin and his attorney. During the lead-in and in the piece Cooper interchanged the phrase "native-born" with "natural born" as if they are identical. They are not. The former deals with location of birth. The latter deals with more, i.e., who your parents were and location of birth. The former term is not in the Constitution. The latter is. And the deceivers also interchange "CERTIFICATE of Live Birth" (aka a Birth Certificate) with "CERTIFICATION of Live Birth" (aka a COLB) as if those two forms are the same. They are not. The deceivers also interchange the use and requirements for simple Citizenship with the special term "natural born Citizen". Obama has presented a digital image of a COLB, not a Birth Certificate. AND, Hawaii has NEVER validated that the online COLB shown by Obama was issued by them and that it is valid.

CNN and Anderson Cooper played games tonight with Lt. Col. Lakin and his attorney and did a brow-beating and not an interview. Cooper should ask a question then shut up and listen to an answer instead of running his motor continuously, 360.

I challenge Anderson Cooper to put my lawyer, Mario Apuzzo, and I on his show and let him try to play the same word game with us. If anyone has Anderson Cooper's email address at CNN, send this to him.

CDR Charles Kerchner
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress





Tags: obama cooper Lakin

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:10
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 07 de mayo de 2010

http://www.thepostemail

Arizonans spoke out, and a law was passed

DID THE MURDER OF THE ARIZONA RANCHER PUSH THE ARIZONA IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT LAW OVER THE FINISH LINE?

by Debra Mullins

 

The Arizona State Seal. Arizona became astate in 1912.

(May 7, 2010) — On Saturday, March28, 2010, 58-year-old rancher Robert Krentz was found shot to death onhis 34,000-acre ranch located 35 miles outside of Douglas, AZ, a bordertown located just north of the Arizona/Mexico border. Mr. Krentz wasout tending fences and water lines when the incident occurred. According to a March 30, 2010 news report by The Arizona Republic, Krentz radioed his brother Philbetween 10:00 and 10:30 AM a garbled message signaling he was injuredby illegal immigrants. Phil Krentz notified authorities and a search for Robert was launched immediately. His body and his mortally-wounded dog were found shortly after midnight on Sunday, March 29. With the use of tracking dogs, investigators traced the murderer back to the Mexico border, which further fueled speculation that Krentz’s murderer is an illegal alien and quite possibly, a scout for a drug cartel. The identity of the murderer is unknown, and he still remains at large.

It was also reported that Phil Krentz had notified border patrol agents of possible illegal activity just a day before the murder occurred. Agents stopped a caravan of illegal aliens in possession of 290 pounds of marijuana, thus raising the suspicion that his brother’s murder may have been carried out in retaliation.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer had requested Washington to deploy National Guard troops along her state’s border with Mexico.   Her statement reads, in part:  “I made my initial request for additional troops to U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on March 11, 2009, followed by a joint letter from four border governors to congressional leaders on April 22, 2009. Since then, federal officials have neither denied the request, nor fulfilled it.”

At a March 31, 2010 gathering sponsored by the Arizona Cattle Growers Association, fellow ranchers took to the microphone to voice their frustrations over the federal government’s lack of response to the illegal immigration crisis.

As previously reportedat The Post and Email, the Arizona legislature narrowly passed SB1070 which requires AZ Law Enforcement to detain persons it comes in contact with if authorities have reasonable suspicion such persons are residing in the United States illegally. The controversial bill also included provisions for increased civil and criminal penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens and for persons who knowingly transport or harbor illegals. SB1070 was signed into law by Governor Jan Breweron April 23, 2010, and it goes into effect on July 29, 2010.

Mr. Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano have all publicly denounced the Arizona law and have indicated that the federal government may challenge its constitutionality on the basis that the law is the equivalent of racial profiling and could lead to civil rights violations.

During Wednesday night’s Cinco de Mayocelebration at the White House, Mr. Obama stated:

We can’t start singling out people because of who they look like, or how they talk, or how they dress…We can’t turn law-abiding American citizens, and law-abiding immigrants, into subjects of suspicion and abuse.

During a press conference held on Tuesday, April 26, 2010, Holder called the new law “unfortunate” and also stated he was worried it could lead to potential abuse and create a wedge between law enforcement and the community.

On April 27, 2010, Homeland SecuritySecretary Napolitano testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, stating that the administration has “deep concerns with the law from the law enforcement perspective,” and the law “will detract from resources that we need to focus on those on the country illegally — who are those who have committed the most serious crimes.” Ms. Napolitano also offered as part of her testimony:“The border is as secure as it has ever been.”

The testimony offered by Arizona residents to the Senate Committee at Whole roughly two weeks prior to the passage of the bill paints an entirely different picture. In a letter published on May 1, 2010, AZ State Senator Sylvia Allen went on the record as to why she voted in favor of the bill. She described the details of the testimony offered, the lack of action taken by the federal government, and her concerns regarding the potential political motive behind it.

Her letter states, in part:

The people who live within 60 to 80 miles of the Arizona/Mexico Border have for years been terrorized and have pleaded for help to stop the daily invasion o fhumans who cross their property. One Rancher testified that 300 to 1200 people a DAY come across his ranch vandalizing his property, stealing his vehicles and property, cutting down his fences, and leaving trash.In the last two years he has found 17 dead bodies and two Koran bibles.

The leftist media has distorted what SB 1070 will do…The ACLU and the leftist courts will do everything to protect those who are here illegally, but it was an effort to try and stop illegals from setting up businesses, and employment, and receiving state services and give the ability to local law enforcement when there is probable cause, like a traffic stop, to determine if they are here legally…The Socialists who are in power in DC are angry because we dare try and do something. The Socialists wants us to just let them come. They want the “Transformation” to continue.

The rest of Senator Allen’s letter canbe found here.

A recent IBD/TIPP pollindicates that a solid majority of Americans (60%) support the new AZlaw; only 30% of Americans are opposed to it.

 

 

 

 

© 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. Allrights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To readmore on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on thesubheader of every page, along the left margin.

----------------------------------------------------
http://babalublog.com/

Screaming Hispanic Hardliners! Intansigents! Hatemongers! Denying others their freedom of speech!




Tags: Arizona murder rancher

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:38
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
 
Preface by Leo Haffey, an attorney from Nashville:

When I first began writing about the “Natural Born Citizen” qualification for the Presidency, few lawyers had an understanding of what I meant. Fewer still, had read the basis for that Constitutional language derived by our Founding Fathers from Vattel’s Law of Nations. At the time of its publication, Vattel’s Law of Nations was used as a textbook in colleges in the United States and Europe. Furthermore, it was the principal legal treatise used by our Founding Fathers in writing our Constitution. To this day, the Law of Nations is still used as a reference text by such legal scholars as Justice Antonin Scalia.

The following is the passage from Law of Nations that was used as the definition for a Natural Born Citizen by our Founding Fathers:

“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.”

Now what part of Vattel’s clear and concise Definition of a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN do Communists, Socialists, Liberals and Democrats not understand?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace
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.

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.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=134881

Tags: obama Ineligible

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:40
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
 

Jury finds SEAL not guilty in assault case


By Larry O’Dell - The Associated Press
Posted : Friday May 7, 2010 11:08:05 EDT

NORFOLK, Va. — The last of three Navy SEALs accused of abusing a suspected Iraqi terrorist was found not guilty Thursday by a military jury.

Jurors deliberated about an hour and 40 minutes before returning their verdict in the court-martial of Special Warfare Operator 2nd Class (SEAL) Matthew McCabe.

“This feels amazing and great,” McCabe told reporters after the verdict. “I’m just grateful all of us came out not guilty and justice was served.”

McCabe was accused of punching Ahmed Hashim Abed in the stomach shortly after his capture in September in Iraq. The other two SEALs, who were accused of failing to protect Abed, were acquitted in trials last month in Baghdad.

Abed is suspected of plotting the 2004 slayings of four U.S. contractors in Fallujah. The bodies were dragged through the streets, burned and strung up from a bridge. He also is accused of crimes against Iraqis.

The SEALs received an outpouring of support from the public on the Internet, and at least 20 members of Congress urged Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to put a stop to the prosecution. Some critics said the prosecution was an overreaction to the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal.

But one of McCabe’s lawyers, Haytham Faraj, said that “going ahead with all three courts-martial was really a good idea.”

“No terrorist organization can claim that the American military didn’t press forward and really investigate,” Faraj said.

The military officer who ordered the court martial defended his decision.

“I allowed these charges to go forward because I truly believed that the best process known for uncovering the truth, when the facts are contested, is that process which is found in our adversarial justice system,” said Army Maj. Gen. Charles Cleveland, commander of Special Operations Command Central.

Military prosecutors were not available for comment after the verdict, which came at the end of a four-day trial. Jurors heard audio taped testimony from Abed, who claimed he was blindfolded, handcuffed, beaten and kicked.

McCabe, 24, of Perrysburg, Ohio, showed little emotion when the verdict was read by the leader of the seven-member jury at Naval Station Norfolk, but he smiled broadly and embraced his four defense attorneys one by one after court was adjourned.

McCabe’s father said he did not believe the case should have been prosecuted.

“These are the guys that preserve the American dream,” said Martin McCabe of Las Vegas.

The sailor who was responsible for guarding Abed, Petty Officer 3rd Class Kevin DeMartino, testified that he saw McCabe deliver a right cross to Abed’s midsection while two other SEALs stood by and did nothing.

However, several witnesses — including SEALs and intelligence officers who cannot be publicly identified — contradicted portions of DeMartino’s testimony as the defense tried to discredit him. They also depicted DeMartino as emotionally unstable and unhappy with his deployment.

A Navy prosecutor said in closing arguments that SEALs were trying to protect one of their own.

“They circled the wagons,” Lt. Cmdr. Jason Grover said. “They don’t want Petty Officer McCabe to be held responsible for this.”

Faraj said that was untrue.

“Everybody has to be lying for the government’s case to be believed,” he told the jury.

McCabe’s trial was held in Virginia, where his SEAL team is based, because unlike the other two SEALs he did not insist on confronting his accuser in court. He could have received up to a year in jail if convicted.

Related reading

SEAL jury hears tape of assault accuser

Jury is seated in SEAL’s court-martial

Jury selection on agenda for SEAL trial

SEAL accused of hitting Iraqi faces trial


Tags: obama seal McCabe

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:30
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/news/lakin-on-ac360.htmlUPDATE(5/6): Anderson Cooper Interview with Terry Lakin Changed to Friday, May 7, 2010 at 10pm. Anderson Cooper is covering the flood in Tenessee so Terry's interview has been moved to Friday. This gives us one more day to alert viewers. ##Please alert your friends and be sure to watch Terry Lakin and Paul Jensen on Anderson Cooper.


Tags: Cooper obama Lakin

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:59
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
 
2 DAYS UNTIL US ARMY TROOPS MARCH UNDER HUGE PORTRAIT OF MASS MURDERER AND COMMUNIST DICTATOR, JOSEPH STALIN ON IN RUSSIA (SEE PHOTOS). Are You Going to Stand for This. Write Your Congressman, Write the News and PROTEST NOW!!
Demand FOX NEWS Report This
!
05.07.10
 
Historic: Our view of what British troops may look like marching through Moscow's Red Square to celebrate the 65th anniversary of VE day this May
 
 
Brits Marching under Stalin in Parade Rehearsals, as
Ordered by Socialist UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown

Tags: March Victory Russia

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:47
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
 
Friday, May 7, 2010

The Radical Left came up with a new term to ridicule anyone that questions Obama's eligibility, Got Birther or Dualer!?

ObamaRelease YourRecords on 8:59 AM

Via Commander Kerchner; The far, far left is now reacting to Kerchner v Obama & Congress year long publicity campaign in Washington Times National Weekly newspaper. This shows they fear the lawsuit.

The Kerchner v Obama & Congress print media full page ads education & publicity campaign has the far, far left worried about the issue raised in it and the case. They are now reacting with ridicule, Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals rule #5. They can try to ignore this lawsuit and the ads and and when that fails ridicule the core issue indirectly, but it is not going away. And with the help of our ads, public awareness of the core issue is growing and growing. That is why the far left has decided now to respond, as exemplified in the below paragraph using a combination of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals rule #5, ridicule, and rule #13, give the enemy a name and polarize it.

The far, far left propaganda machine has now coined a new name for the patriot Constitutionalists in the Obama eligibility issue and Tea Party movement, i.e., "dualers", because of the clear cut fact that Obama was born with multiple citizenships (Obama admits it) and thus per the founders and framers of the Constitution Obama legally cannot be a natural born Citizen of the USA, or for that matter any nation, since "natural born Citizenship" by definition means "
unity of citizenship and sole allegiance at birth". Thus Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander of the military.

See what the far left spin machine is cooking up now in their ridicule machine:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-motes/meet-the-dualers-birther_b_567030.html

This is another blatant attempt by the far, far let to use Saul Allinsky's Rules for Radicals #5, Ridicule, when ignoring the issue fails.

The constitutional issue is real:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html

My one year plus placement of full page ads in the Washington Times National Weekly (WTNW) has been making progress in identifying the core issue of Obama's eligibility issue. Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen"! See examples of some of the full page and two page spreads that have run in the WTNW over the last 13 months in support of the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit.

http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/advertorials.htm

Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of our military per Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution. Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen of the U.S.". Obama was born with dual citizenship and does not have unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the USA.

For more information on the lawsuit, contact Mario Apuzzo, Esq., of Jamesburg NJ. Email address and phone numbers at:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com

CDR Charles Kerchner
Pennsylvania
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
http://www.protectourliberty.org
####

Let us see what other Bloggers at the Huffington Post said about this issue in the past...

HUFFINGTON POST BLOGGER, Carol Swain, a professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, says President Obama should just release his original long-form birth certificate and have done with the dispute. "I believe that the president should end the speculation by being transparent about all aspects of his background," Swain said. "In fact, it can be argued that the president belongs to the people and to scholars, biographers and others who are entitled to know every aspect of his past. Swain said the president is inexplicably fueling the controversy.

"The very fact that Obama has fought tooth and nail to prevent any release of his original long-form birth certificate- as well as other documentation- "suggests there's something that the president has decided not to share with the public."
Source.

HUFFINGTON POST: RELEASE THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE; "Hawaii state law won't allow them to release it unless the president authorizes it. So what's the problem here? Release the original and let's be done with this madness. John McCain faced similar questions and promptly responded by releasing his original birth certificate. That's how normal people with nothing to hide handle these things" - Mark Joseph - July 30, 2009 - Huffington Post columnist
Source.

Bonus; Feminist Camille Paglia: Birthers have a point. Tells radio audience 'there are legitimate questions about the documentation'. Feminist icon Camille Paglia, a Salon.com columnist who earlier wrote about the ambiguities of President Barack Obama's birth certificate, now has told a National Public Radio audience that those who have questions about his eligibility actually have a point.

Talking to the NPR program "On Point" this week, she provided a defense to the citizens who carried protest signs asking "Where's The Birth Certificate" at the recent protests that drew hundreds of thousands to Washington.

Paglia, a professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia and Salon.com columnist, earlier wrote, "Yes, there were ambiguities about Obama's birth certificate that have never been satisfactorily resolved. And the embargo on Obama's educational records remains troubling."
Source.

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

Tags: obama release records

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:36
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Obama, Media vs. Arizona,America
Written by Lloyd Marcus   
Friday, 07 May 2010 06:17

Folks, our country is in bigtrouble. What kind of man do we have in the White House? President Obama is a Harvard-educatedlawyer. Thus, since he attended such a renowned school, I can onlyconclude that Obama willfully and knowingly distorted/lied about theplight of Hispanic-Americans in Arizona and the state's immigration law when he said, "...butnow suddenly if you don't have your papers, and you took your kid outto get ice cream, you're gonna be harassed, ..."

 

Obama's statement simply is not true. TheArizona law goes into effect only after a subject has or is suspectedof committing a crime. So, if a Hispanic person does not rob the icecream shop, it is safe to say he and his child can enjoy their icecream in peace.

And yet, our characterlesspresident and the liberal mainstream media in solidarity with those whoboldly and arrogantly break our laws are shamefully promoting liesabout the Arizona immigration law. Why? To recruit future Democratvoters.

Obama and the liberal mainstreammedia apparently couldn't care less about the national racial tensionand violence fueled by their irresponsible distortion of the Arizonalaw. This is the Al Sharpton and Tawana Brawley Hoax all over again.Only this time, it is the President of the United States spreading liesand fueling the flames of racial hatred.

As I have stated on numerousoccasions regarding other national issues, it is always all aboutObama. His political agenda and him "looking good" trump national racerelations and even the best interests of our country. Again, I say,dear Lord, what kind of man do we have in the White House?

As a black patriot of the TeaParty Movement, the liberal mainstream media practically strapped medown and waterboarded me, attempting to force me to confess seeingracist signs, which I never saw, at tea party rallies. Meanwhile, theyare completely blind and silent about the outrageous, hate-filled,racist, traitorous, and violent signs on display at the anti-Arizonaimmigration law rallies.

 

 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LHRzxgAxRo)

Recently, the word of the monthfrom Obama flacks in the liberal mainstream media was "sedition," whichWebster defines as "the stirring up of discontent, resistance, orrebellion against the government in power." Obama's homeys in the mediawere aggressively attempting to make the "S"-word stick to tea partypatriots, conservative commentators, and anyone who opposed Obama'sagenda.

Well excuuuuuuse me, but givenObama and the liberal mainstream media's distortion and support ofprotesters against the Arizona law which mirrors federal law, is it a reach to say Obama, his mediaand his protesters are guilty of Sedition?

I am also struck by thebreathtaking arrogance and entitlement mindset of the anti-Arizonaimmigration law protesters. The liberal mainstream media portraysillegal immigrants as humble peasants who are seeking a better lifewhile hiding in the shadows, while in reality, those attending therallies were angry, demanding, and some were even violent. Theirattitude is "in your face, America! Yes, we are here illegally, and youhad better give us what we want!"

Who do they think they are? Whathas inspired them to boldly ignore our laws? I submit that theseillegals and their liberal supporters are emboldened by the usualsuspects: the liberal mainstream media, the Democrats, and,outrageously, the President of the United States.

Obama received 96% of the blackvote. A large percentage of those black voters were the product of decades of indoctrination by theliberal mainstream media and Democrats: America is racist, out tooppress you, and owes you. Now Democrats are employing their sametried-and-true tactics on illegals to birth a new crop of victim- andentitlement-minded Democrat voters.

These new potential Democratvoters already believe that America sucks. Notice the small number ofAmerican flags at their rallies verses the sea of U.S. flags at the teaparties. Many hate capitalism and are not interested in learning English. There is a hugedifference between wanting to be an American and usingAmerica.

In New York harbor stands a ladywith her arm raised to the sky. As ambassador for the American people,she warmly embraces all who legally seek to join our great nationalfamily.

Despite traitorous lies from anenemy within, race, color, and creed are irrelevant. All we require forthe privilege and honor of becoming an American is a respect for ourlaws and a desire to contribute to this extraordinary experiment calledAmerica, the greatest nation on the planet. To all who feel this way,we say, "Welcome home!"

Lloyd Marcus, (black)Unhyphenated American
LloydMarcus.com

 


Tags: obama Arizona Marcus

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:27
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
 
Lost 1995 Obama interview surfaces: the young 'civil rights lawyer' predicted the economic fall of America and--wait for it--decried racial politics

In 1995, The Crisis magazine interviewed Barack Obama for a two-page feature article on growing up as a mixed-race American.

The magazine was founded by the legendary W.E.B. Du Bois as the official publication of the NAACP. In the nineties, it focused on civil rights and politics as it approached a century of publication.

In 1995, author Eric Clark interviewed the young Obama, who was labeled an author (he had just published Dreams from my Father) and a civil-rights lawyer. He had recently achieved some notoriety through his election to the post of President of Harvard Law Review.

CRISIS: Having lived abroad, in Indonesia, how do you think that helped shape your views on race?

OBAMA: It made me realize that racism was an extension of other abuses of power. Living there you learned people can find excuses other than race to oppress each other.

CRISIS: Will race relations get better?

OBAMA: Not in the short term. We're moving out of a period of American preeminence on the world economic stage. Global competition means increasing economic uncertainty for the majority of Americans, black and white. Unfortunately, politicians in this country find it convenient to define these problems in racial terms -- affirmative action, immigration and so on. It's always easier to organize people around tribe than around principle.

The entire interview can be read below (click to enlarge or here to view the original).


It's clear that Barack Obama has never believed in American exceptionalism. Consider his prediction that the American economy would soon be superseded by other countries. That belief betrays Obama's fundamental misunderstanding of economics.

Economics is not a zero-sum game. America has, within the last two centuries, raised the world out of the miasma of colonial technology into an era powered by computers, medical miracles and instantaneous global communications. America represents the most magnificent society ever seen on the planet, not because it's stealing food out of the mouths of the poor, but because it provides the most opportunities. And that structure is facilitated by the Constitution, despite its recent perversions and breaches by the Statist Democrats.

As for racial divisiveness, his statement that, "politicians in this country find it convenient to define these problems in racial terms" rings hollow.

You mean racial terms like this?

Just days ago, President Obama appeared in a "Vote 2010" video, distributed by his political action wing Organizing for America, which serves as a stark appeal to blacks and Latinos -- specifically -- for their votes in November.

This 1995 interview reinforces a couple of simple truths:
Barack Obama has always been an economic illiterate as well as a hypocrite. The combination is dangerous.

Vote accordingly in 2010.

Tags: obama 1995 interview

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:49
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
 

Legal opposition to Arizona’s new law is an empty argument

Illegal Immigration: Is it Kind to be Cruel?

 By Paul Ibbetson  Friday, May 7, 2010

What the media coins the “tough” new Arizona immigration law, SB1070, forwarded by Governor Jan Brewer, has once again pushed to the forefront the argument of, “just what is the proper course of action when dealing with illegal immigration?” The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says the new law is unconstitutional. Ultra-liberal Mayor Gavin Newsom of the sanctuary city San Francisco is working to boycott Arizona in an effort to force the state to scrap the new law. In what has to be seen as a bizarre political move, Arizona Democrat Congressman Raul Grijalva has decided to boycott his own state.

Whether it is the ACLU, liberal mayors in San Francisco, or an Arizona Congressmen who wishes to make his next political race very interesting, the overarching theme is that it is cruel to enforce immigration law and kind for the borders to remain open. To believe this, does one has to redefine those terms? You decide.

In the back pages of the New York Times, law professor Kris Kobach, who helped draft the new Arizona law, dispels the case for harassment in the state’s requirement of immigrants to show proper documents. Remember, this is not groundbreaking as it has been federal law since 1940 that aliens carry registration documents. Kobach outlines the state’s restraint on police authority in requesting such documents. It must be during proper investigations after a totality of circumstances leads an officer to a reasonable suspicion to make these requests. Every day U.S. citizens are asked for identification documents during police investigations. Ever been pulled over for speeding? Filed a police report on any event? Americans are neither shocked nor do they find it cruel when asked by the police for identification or other documents. Because Arizona requires one to be a legal resident to get a driver’s license, in any situation that involves a question of immigration, police must presume that a person with a valid Arizona driver’s license has legal status. How very kind of Arizona to do that.

Phoenix, Arizona: Hostage Capital of the U.S.

While the legal opposition to Arizona’s new law is an empty argument, the basis for it—the question of kindness versus cruelty—still remains. Is it cruel or kind to deny states the right to enforce their own laws? It would seem that those that promote illegal immigration in the U.S. have decided that citizens of Arizona are acceptable casualties to drug dealers, human traffickers, gang activity, and the list goes on. Phoenix, Arizona: Hostage Capital of the U.S. is another title of distinction that can be directly tied to illegal immigration. Is it cruel to say that Arizona’s fate is Arizona’s business, or is it kind for a mayor in San Francisco to attempt to dictate the state’s laws through strong-arm tactics?

Lastly, is it kind or cruel to perpetuate the shadow class of illegal immigrants, a group whose lack of standard legal identification and lawful entry places them as potential criminals and terrorists at worst, and as an unwarranted drain to the economy at best?

As it stands today, it appears to me that it is through a series of cruelties that both the U.S. citizen and the illegal immigrant attempt to find and hold on to the bounties of the American dream. Both sides suffer through a system that promotes illegality, victimization, and distrust. So, the question remains, is it kind to be cruel?

Author
Paul Ibbetson  Bio
Paul Ibbetson Most recent columns

Paul A. Ibbetson is a published author and lecturer on the Patriot Act. He is a former Chief of Police of Cherryvale, Kansas, and member of the Montgomery County Drug Task Force. Paul is the author of the book “Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A Society” and is the host of the award winning radio show the “Conscience of Kansas” on the wildcat 91.9 f.m wildcat919.com ibbetsonusa.com


Paul can be reached at: [email protected]


Tags: obama Arizona law

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:40
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 06 de mayo de 2010

 
  • Sharon Rondeau Says:

  • May 6th, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    I would like to make it clear that when I spoke with a member of the family the other evening, the indications were that it was not a murder. Police are still investigating. At the time, every indication was that the family is safe and well.


  • ===========


    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/05/ltc-terry-lakins-lawyers-son-was-shot.html



    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/05/ltc-terry-lakins-lawyers-son-was-shot.html
    http://americangrandjury.org/in-memory-of-john-martin-hemenwaySharon Rondeau

    ObamaRelease YourRecords on 12:28 PM

    Via AGJ; - Murder of Attorney Hemenway’s son in Virginia, same atty who represents LTC Lakin -

    Source note: I wanted to make sure you heard about this. I just did today. Was sent to me by my friend whom I know you know too. There was nothing in the news about this that I know of. Have some friends trying to find out the details from police reports, or whatever. This is really terrible and I pray for everyone’s safety who is bringing out the truth about Obama. Jeff

    Here is a snip regarding Terry’s Lakin’s lawyer’s son…

    BEFORE WE START: YOUNGEST SON OF LAWYER JOHN HEMENWAY, WHO BROUGHT A QUO WARRANTO ACTION AGAINST OBAMA, WAS SHOT DEAD IN BEDFORD, VIRGINIA ON 30TH APRIL. THE U.S. CRIMINAL GOVERNMENT’S CONTROLLING INTELLIGENCE POWER IS PREPARED EVEN TO LIE ITS WAY OUT OF THIS ASSASSINATION.

    MEMORIAL DETAILS ARE GIVEN BELOW.

    The first information that we published about this shooting was as follows [3rd May 2010]:

    The Editor has just received the following flash information from an impeccable US source whom he has known personally for the best part of two decades:

    ‘I just heard that John Hemenway’s younger son, also named John, was shot to death outside Bedford, Virginia. John Hemenway is the attorney who filed the Quo Warranto lawsuit against Obama. I just got off the phone and there’s an autopsy going on…’.

    We were originally advised that the Memorial is on 5th May, but this information has been updated: it’s on the 4th. We are in touch with parties quite close to the family and as the matter is so extremely sensitive, we are holding back on further details until we can obtain the go-ahead, if that is granted. In the meantime,
    here’s the Memorial announcement:

    HEMENWAY JOHN MARTIN HEMENWAY (Age 47) On April 30, 2010 of Bedford, VA. Beloved husband of 7 years to Stephanie; loving father of Andrew Branham Hemenway; devoted son of John and Betty Hemenway; beloved brother of Catherine and Edward Siewick, Jane and John Sullivan, David and Margaret Hemenway and Fielding Williams. Pre-deceased by his beloved sister Mary Joyce Hemenway Williams. Also survived by many loving nieces, nephews, relatives and friends.

    Memorial Service on Tuesday, May 4, at 4:30 p.m. at Otterville United Methodist Church, Bedford, VA. In lieu of flowers memorials may be made to the John M. Hemenway Camp CHILD Scholarship for special needs children c/o Bedford Primary School, 807 College Street, Bedford, VA 24523.
    Source.

    LTC. Terry Lakin to appear on CNN's Anderson Cooper on Thursday, May 6th, 2010, 10PM EST. More details
    here.


     
    UPDATE(5/6): Anderson Cooper Interview with Terry Lakin Changed to Friday, May 7, 2010 at 10pm. Anderson Cooper is covering the flood in Tenessee so Terry's interview has been moved to Friday. This gives us one more day to alert viewers. ##Please alert your friends and be sure to watch Terry Lakin and Paul Jensen on Anderson Cooper.

    Tags: obama Lakin

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 18:04
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     
     
    He is NOT a “natural-born citizen” of the United States of America, all laws and orders given while he fraudulently holds that office are null and void

    Our Undocumented White House Resident

     By JB Williams  Tuesday, May 4, 2010

    “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is acitizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only theplace of his birth, and not his country.”

    This quote is taken directly fromVattel’s book on the Law of Nations, which has been a world recognizedand time honored reference guide to understanding “natural law,” andthe natural birthrights of national citizenship recognized by allcivilized nations for more than two-hundred and fifty years.

    Emerich de Vattel was a Swissphilosopher, diplomat, and legal expert who lived from 1714 – 1767, andwhose theories laid the foundation of modern international law andpolitical philosophy. Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations was released in 1758; in English, 
    The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns.

    Vattel’s book established manytime honored standards of natural law recognized the world over and itis an historical reference regarding the Constitutional eligibility requirement for the 
    offices of President and VicePresident, Natural Born Citizen, found in Article II – Section I –Clause V.
    “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 tothe office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to thatoffice who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”
    Vattel confirms in clear conciselanguage what a “natural-born citizen” of a nation is…
    “The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merelyby their tacit consent.”
    In other words, by “nature’s law” -not by way of man-made statute. In fact, unalienable by way of man-madestatute, as mans law cannot alter or overcome the laws of nature. Thisis in fact “international law” via the Law of Nations. It is not enough that a sovereign nation identify its citizens. Other nations must recognize the rights of sovereign citizens from foreign lands.
    Unconfirmed Obama Scenarios

      Obama was not born in Hawaii, but rather Kenya. He would in this case be a “naturalized” citizen (IF) hewent through the standard US Naturalization process. He would in no way be a “natural-born citizen” in this possible scenario. Obama has thus far refused to prove beyond any doubt that he was born in Hawaii.Obama was born in Hawaii, but to a US mother and Kenyan Father. In this possible scenario, Obama could be a “native-born” citizen of the US. He would certainly be a “natural-born” citizen of Kenya, due to the birthrights of his father. This would make Obama a “dual citizen” with“divided” national loyalties. On this basis, he would not pass the test for office, but would be the poster-child for why the natural-born citizen clause exists.Following scenario (1)
       or (2),Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. In this case, Obama’s 
      mother would have exchanged his US claim to citizenship for citizenship of Indonesia, as the adoptive son of Lolo Soetoro, for which he has at times claimed the name “BarrySoetoro,” citizen of Indonesia. Even if Obama had endured a naturalization process to return to US citizenship status, he would then be a “naturalized-citizen” rather than a “natural-born” citizen eligible for the office he currently holds.
    As the term “citizen” is very broadand includes “naturalized” citizens, it is NOT the requirement for the office of president or vice president.
    As the term “native-born” relates only to “place of birth,” and is also not the stated requirement for the Oval Office mentioned in Article II – Section I, it has no bearing on the matter of Obama’s eligibility for office.

    Our Founding Fathers could not have been any more specific about the requirements for the office of president, “NO PERSON except a NATURAL-BORN Citizen.” It isn’t their fault that too many Americans don’t care about or can’t comprehend this term or the purpose behind it today.

    Vattel could not have been any more clear about the definition of “natural-born citizen,”
    “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is acitizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
    The 14th Amendment Obama Defense

    The Dred Scott Decision - was a decision by theUnited States Supreme Court that ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants [2]—whether or not they were slaves—were not protected bythe Constitution.

    Elks Vs Wilkins (1872) - was an issue concerning“native born” Indian’s born on Indian reservations and whether or not their loyalty to the Indian tribe was enough to deny them US citizenship, unrelated to the subject of natural born citizen ship andArticle II.

    Slaughter house Cases (1872) was a case on the 14thAmendments, once again, regarding immigration and naturalization, which of course does not pertain to natural born citizens at all.

    Minor vs Happersett (1874) - is another 14th Amendment case, regarding women’s right to vote, as equal “citizens.”

    US Vs Wong Kim Ark (1898) - was a case of “nativeborn citizenship” - when both parents were immigrants from China,naturalized US citizens who gave birth to a son on US soil before returning to China. The son was held up upon returning from a trip to China, but was granted re-entry as a “native-born” citizen, having been born on US soil to two immigrant parents. Once again, immigration and no relationship whatsoever to natural born citizenship.
    Perkins Vs Elg (1939) - also a ruling on“acquired citizenship” for children of alien parentage…. immigration and naturalization.
    Schneider Vs Rusk (1964) - was a 5th Amendment case,relative passport and travel rights to immigrant citizens…

    Rogers Vs Bellei (1971) - Appellee challenges the constitutionality of § 301(b) of the Immigration and NationalityAct of 1952, which provides that one who acquires United States citizenship by virtue of having been born abroad to parents, one of whom is an American citizen, who has met certain residence requirements, shall lose his citizenship unless he resides in this country continuously for five years between the ages of 14 and 28.

    Now, every case listed is completely unrelated to natural born citizen and Article II of the Constitution. All of them were cases revolving around immigration and naturalization laws.

    So, are the people ignorant or unableto read? Or are they simply willing to stretch the truth, assuming that you won’t bother to check their facts?
    The Bottom Line on Obama

    He is NOT a “natural-borncitizen” of the United States of America, no matter which Obot propaganda argument you choose to 
    buy. He can, therefore, not legally hold the office of President or Vice President of the United States and all laws and orders given while he fraudulently holds that office are nulland void.

    Legal US citizens or sovereign states are NOT obligated to follow illegal laws from a fraudulent resident of the people’s White 
    House. Obama has “no constitutional standing” as an “undocumented resident” of the Oval Office.
    Running Out of Options

    With each passing day, our nation is being driven deeper and deeper into irreversible disaster. Obama &Co. have no intention of backing up or backing off their anti-American agenda of global Marxism via American assets.

    The courts have never ruled on Obama’s constitutional standing. In fact, they have refused to hear evidence from the people on the matter, or force Obama to unseal all of his records to answer legitimate questions coming from a growing number of US citizens.

    Before only violent options for upholding the rule of law remain, the people MUST find a peaceful means by which to force Obama to become “transparent.”

    Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations(internationally recognized citizenship laws) was released in 1758. Unlike modern society, many of our Founding Fathers were quite familiar with the language of the original book. They did not need to wait for English translation in order to read or understand the book, or the Law of Nations at the foundation of Vattel’s book.

    For the record, pretty much all informed people recognize Vattel’s writings as the authority on the subject, even those who have trouble understanding what he wrote and don’t agree with his opinions. He was in fact a well-known “legalscholar” of that era, one that most Founding Fathers were quite familiar with.

    The book was released eighteen years before our Declaration of Independence and twenty-nine years before those words “natural-born citizen” appeared in Article II of our USConstitution.

    Our Founders were VERY well read individuals.
    Further, it is NOT enough for each nation to recognize only their own citizens. Other nations MUST recognize and respect the sovereign citizens and related rights of other nations, hence the purpose for the Law of Nations, or a set standard recognized by all civilized nations.

    Cut off from all peaceful remedies, I hate to think of what happens when patriotic American souls take matters into their own hands.
    One thing is certain, however… It is NOT within the U.S. DNA to live in fear of our government for very long. Americans prefer peace, but will in the end defend freedom,liberty, and our rule of law at any cost. We will not leave this nation in ruins for future generations. We hate tyranny worse than death…
    I call upon all peace-loving patriots to find a peaceful solution before only violent solutions remain.

    There is no such thing as a “pro-war”American citizen. There are only “pro-American” citizens unwilling to exchange their freedom and liberty for a moment of faux temporary peace.

    May God guide the hearts, minds andhands of all patriots, in this time of great national challenge.

    Tags: obama Undocumented

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:42
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Mi?rcoles, 05 de mayo de 2010
     

    Michelle Obama: Barack Obama Is “Kenyan”

    Newly uncovered video likely get so-called “birthers” excited over President’s dubious origins

    Michelle Obama: Barack Obama Is Kenyan 050510top3

    Paul Joseph Watson
    Prison Planet.com
    Wednesday, May 5, 2010

    Last month, so-called “birthers” got very excited over a clip in which Michelle Obama called Kenya President Obama’s “home country,” but a newly uncovered video is likely to stoke even more controversy, because in it the First Lady clearly states that Obama is “Kenyan”.

    In a video of a 2008 speech that went viral last month after it was resurrected from the archives, Michelle Obama states, “When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, we took a public HIV test.”

    Some media pundits expressed doubt that the First Lady was explicitly saying that Obama had been born in Kenya, and Glenn Beck even implied that the release of the tape was a trick designed to push Tea Party members over the edge and incite violence, allowing Democrats to demonize their political opposition as extremists.

    However, yet another clip has been uncovered from the archives in which the First Lady plainly states that Obama is “Kenyan,” leaving little open to speculation in terms of context.

    During a December 2007 speech in Tampa Florida, Michelle Obama stated, “What it reminded me of was our trip to Africa, two years ago, and the level of excitement that we felt in that country – the hope that people saw just in the sheer presence of somebody like Barack Obama – a Kenyan, a black man, a man of great statesmanship who they believe could change the fate of the world.”

    The comment is made after the 2 minute mark. Watch the clip below.



    It would be quite a stretch to claim that Michelle Obama means anything other than that Obama was born in Kenya when she says that the President is “Kenyan”. When it comes to the term “home country,” there’s a little wiggle room, but saying that Obama is “a Kenyan” seems to be reasonably cut and dried.

    This seems as straightforward as saying that Arnold Schwarzenegger is Austrian, because he was born in Austria. Of course, under the terms of Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution, to be eligible to become President, an individual must be “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States”. This prevents Schwarzenegger from ever becoming President, as it would make Obama’s presidency illegitimate if it was conclusively proven that he was born in Kenya.

    We’ve largely sat on the fence regarding the whole “birther” issue, pointing out that there are legitimate arguments coming from both sides, but what’s not up for debate is the fact that Obama’s real name is Barry Soetoro, the name given to Obama at the time of his enrollment in an Indonesian elementary school.

    Whatever the exact nature of the controversy, it seems inevitable that Obama is being blackmailed over his dubious origins, making it imperative that a proper investigation of the issue be conducted in the interests of both national security and the basic rule of law.



    Tags: obama Kenyan

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:50
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar


    Double standards by Liberals and Socialists

    “Cuba Si!—Arizona No!” Says Mexican PresidentFelipe Calderon (among many others)

    By Humberto Fontova  Wednesday, May 5, 2010

    Mexican President Felipe Calderon canhardly contain his revulsion and rage against Arizona’s SB 1070. He’s“deeply troubled” reports the Associated Press over a law he denouncesas “discriminatory and racist,” not to mention: “a dire threat to thewhole Hispanic-American population.”

    This new Arizona law, “opens the doorto intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement,”sputters the Mexican President.
    Indeed, this “threat to Hispanics”and these “abuses in law enforcement,” have been ongoing for years. TheAssociated Press carried a story where a Maria Elena Gonzalez, reportedhow female migrants were “forced to strip by abusive police officers,supposedly to search them, but the purpose is to sexually abuse them.”
    Jose Ramos, 18, reported “thatextortion by border police occurs at every stop on their migratoryroute. Until migrants are left penniless and begging for food.”
    According to this Associated Pressstory: “Others said they had seen migrants beaten to death by police,their bodies left near the railway tracks to make it look as if theyhad fallen from a train. “If you’re carrying any money, they take itfrom you,” said Carlos Lopez. “Federal, state, local police—all of themshake you down. If you’re on a bus, they pull you off and search yourpockets, and if you have any money, they keep it all and say, get outof here.”
    All of the above “hate” and“abuses in law enforcement” as reported by the Associated Press, befellCentral American migrants who enter Mexico. So perhaps MexicanPresident Calderon knows what he’s talking about?
    But what he’s also talkinglately—rather than getting his own house in order—is an economicboycott of Arizona.
    “Commercial ties between Mexico andArizona will be affected by this law,” vowed President Calderon in aspeech last week to the Institute for Mexicans Abroad. “We are going toact.”
    The hear-hears, toasts and tinklingwineglasses after Calderon’s pronouncement have been many. ArizonaCongressman Raul Grijalva, for instance, took a few minutes off fromdenouncing American economic sanctions against Stalinist Cuba tochampion American economic sanctions against his state.
    The Rev. Al Sharpton, hails FidelCastro as, “one of the three most impressive people I have ever met”and deplores his “demonizing” in the U.S. After all, while FidelCastro’s guest in 2000, Mr Sharpton saw “absolutely no human rightsviolations in Cuba.” So impressed was Mr Sharpton by Fidel’s fiefdomthat he even tried organizing a Hip-Hop concert in Havana to “bringdown the embargo (of Cuba)!” Now he plans a “freedom-walk” to helperect one against Arizona.
    South African Bishop DesmondTutu also advocates unfettered commerce with the regime that jailedpolitical prisoners at a higher rate than Stalin’s and executed morepeople (out of a population of 6.5 million) in its first three years inpower than Hitler’s executed (out of a population of 65 million) in itsfirst six. These Cuban political prisoners, by the way, included thelongest suffering black political prisoner of the 20thcentury, Eusebio Penalver. As I write, Oscar Elias Biscet, another black Cuban, suffers asentence of 25 years in Castro’s torture chambers. His crimes consistessentially of quoting the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights and theWorks of Martin Luther King in a Cuban public square.
    “Viva Fidel!” bellowedembargo-opponent Rev. Jesse Jackson during a speech at the Universityof Havana in June 1984, while trailing a 300 person entourage thatincluded Rev. Jeremiah Wright. “Viva Che Guevara!“he yelled again withfists raised high. “Long live our cry of freedom!”
    “He (Jesse Jackson) is a greatpersonality,” reciprocated a beaming Fidel Castro, whose regime ranksamong the U.S. State departments, State Sponsors of Terrorism.“Jackson is a brilliant man,”continued Castro, “his main characteristic is honesty. He is sincereand there is no hintof demagoguery in his speech.”(italics mine.)
    While calling for an embargo againstArizona last week, Jesse Jackson denounced SB 1070 as “terrorism forthe innocent.”
    At a European summit last yearMexican president Calderon explained his fastidious “no sanctions”policy towards Stalinist, Cuba. “Respect for the decisions of the Cubanpeople should mark the political future of the Caribbean nation,” hedeclared to loud applause.
    Yes, Senor Calderon but as youundoubtedly realize, the “decisions of the Cuban people” are notprecisely those of the Stalinist regime that enslaves them and preventsthem under penalty of firing squad and/or torture from expressing theirdecisions in the manner of Arizonans, who who freely decided upon SB1070 by a margin of almost 70%.”
    (P.S. I’ve used the incorrectterm “embargo” for simplicity’s sake. Despite what you constantly readand hear from his agents (on the payroll and off) the U.S. has beenCastro’s main food supplier and 4th biggest trading partner for close to a decade now)
     
    Humberto Fontova Mostrecent columns
    Humberto Fontova is the authorof four books including “Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the UsefulIdiots Who Idolize Him.” Visit hfontova.com. Humberto can be reached at[email protected]

    Tags: obama Arizona Fontova

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:38
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     

    Tuesday, May 4, 2010

    Responses to an Obama Supporter’s Comments on Obama’s Eligibility to be President

    A poster and commentator by the User ID name of Slartibartfast has recently left a comment to my recent essay entitled, "For Love of Party Obama Supporter Declares President George Washington a 'Natural Born Citizen' Instead of an 'Original Citizen' Covered by the Constitution's 'Founding Fathers Grandfather Clause.'" The poster describes himself/herself as follows: “While I just created the google account for 'Slartibartfast', I am an occasional poster (under that pseudonym) at Dr. Conspiracy's site and a regular poster at George Washington University Law professor Jonathan Turley's site (while I use the same pseudonym there, I have revealed my identity so it is not anonymous). I'm not on any 'team' and I'm not filled with hate.” The poster then made various comments on the issues raised in my essay. Below are the poster’s comments and my responses:

    Slartibartfast: “I am a supporter of President Obama and believe that a certified copy of his COLB (assuming it confirms the information on the version posted online) is sufficient proof that he is a natural born citizen to any US court.”

    Apuzzo response: An authentic and certified Certification of Live Birth (COLB), not to be confused with a Certificate of Live Birth (BC), is only prima facie evidence of a birth event. A certified copy paper version of the alleged COLB has not been presented to any controlling legal authority or even to any reporters in the major media. Only providing a 2008 computer image on the internet of an alleged 2007 COLB, Obama has yet to produce for the public even an authentic and certified COLB. All the major talking heads on TV have been waving before the cameras is a local laser printer printout of that same digital image off the internet. What kind of proof of anything is that
    in the age of digital image manipulation software such as PhotoShop? On the contrary, there is convincing evidence posted here, here, and here that the COLB images posted on the internet are fraudulent. But even if Obama produced an authentic COLB, it is not sufficient evidence of place of birth. As the COLB itself clearly states at its bottom, it is only prima facie evidence (evidence accepted on its face without challenge from other evidence). Given the great amount of existing evidence showing that Obama was born in Kenya, he has to produce his contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961 which would provide corroborating evidence such as the identity of the Honolulu hospital where he was allegedly born and the doctor who allegedly delivered him, along with other probative evidence. There exists too much contradictory evidence showing that he was born in Kenya to simply accept the short-form COLB as proof that he was born in Hawaii. Additionally, Obama causes his COLB to lose probative value given that he has refused to release to the public all his other contemporaneous life papers--medical, travel, work, and education documents--evidence which would corroborate the veracity of the COLB. But more important, even if the COLB and his 1961 contemporaneous birth certificate (BC) both show that he was born in Hawaii, Obama still does not and cannot satisfy the constitutional definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” because he was not born in the United States to a mother and father who were at the time of his birth United States citizens.

    Slartibartfast: “I don't find your argument [regarding the meaning of the “natural born Citizen clause] persuasive since in other cases where the founders did not want their words to be interpreted in the context of English Common Law, they explicitly said so (such as the definition of the term 'treason').”

    Apuzzo response: It is rather unreasonable to argue that with every word in the Constitution, the Framers defaulted to the English common law for its meaning unless they told us they were relying upon some other law for definition. We know from evidence from the Founding era that
    the Framers rejected English common law on the federal level and only tolerated its use by the States on local issues. The test for who would wield the executive and military power of the United States would surely not be anything that the Framers would have left to be defined by the outdated and no longer relevant feudalistic law of monarchial Great Britain or to be left in the hands of unpredictable State control. We also know from that same historical evidence that natural law and the law of nations, as confirmed and enlightened for the Founders and Framers by Biblical text and classical wisdom, inspired them in deciding to “dissolve” their feudal allegiance to the British Crown and in constituting the new Constitutional Republic of “Free and Independent States.” The Framers also made express and direct reference to the “the Law of Nations” in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10. No where in the Constitution did they refer to the English common law. It is only reasonable to conclude that the Founders and Framers would have looked to that same law, which they considered as coming from God and providing the basis of liberty for the civilized world, for the standard to be used to determine who would be the present and future President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

    Slartibartfast: “In addition, I think that the the [sic] statement ‘The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’" in the majority opinion of US vs. Wong Kim Ark clearly indicates that President Obama would have been a natural born citizen if BOTH of his parents were aliens (and he was born in Hawaii), but since he is the child of a US citizen born in the United States (and under its jurisdiction) I don't think that there is any doubt that he is a natural born citizen and eligible for the office he holds.”

    Apuzzo response: This quote from Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), shows that Justice Gray understood that a “natural-born citizen” can only be produced by being born in the country to two citizen parents. While Justice Gray equated a child born in the United States to “an” alien parent (this is Obama if he was born in Hawaii and is what Justice Gray called a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment) to a child born in the United States to two citizen parents (this is not Obama and is what Justice Gray called a “natural-born citizen&rdquoGui?o, he only did so in terms of their rights. Justice Gray distinguished the former from the latter by the sole fact of being born to “an” alien parent which means just one alien parent.  At no time did he say that such a child born in the United States of “an” alien parent is a “natural born Citizen.” To better understand this point, we know that the Fourteenth Amendment considers born citizens and naturalized citizens "citizens of the United States" and deems both classes of citizens to be equal.  But even though they are equal in rights, we know that under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President.

    In Wong Kim Ark, the Court was faced with interpreting the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as written in the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause. While Justice Gray cited and quoted favorably Minor v. Happersett’s (88 U.S. 162 (1875)) Vattelian definition of an Article II “natural-born citizen,” he also said that he did not read the Minor decision to mean that the Court was “committed” to excluding children born in the United States to alien parents from being considered “citizens of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court knew that Wong, being born in the country to alien parents, did not satisfy the law of nations definition of a “natural born Citizen.” It also was not necessary for Wong to be a “natural born Citizen,” for he only needed to be a “citizen of the United States” to enter and remain in the United States. So what the Court did was use the old English common law that prevailed in the colonies to make Wong a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, the Court was willing to give Wong the status of a “citizen of the United States,” but only under the Fourteenth Amendment, and not under the natural law and law of nations which previous United States Supreme Court cases and other authorities had advised provided the standard for one to be a “natural born Citizen.” So what Wong did was create a class of persons who are born in the United States and even though they are born to one or two alien parents are still considered to be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” under a rather liberal interpretation of that clause which at most makes them Fourteenth Amendment “citizens of the United States” but not Article II “natural born Citizens.”

    Justice Gray said that a child born in the United States to alien parents “is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.” But we know that the Constitution says that only a “natural born Citizen” can be President. Being able to be President is not a “right” but rather a privilege that is granted by the People to someone among them who meets the minimal constitutional eligibility requirements of Article II and is legally voted into that office. The People included this requirement so that they could make sure that there would be a minimal way to assure them that after that person won the required vote and assumed office, they could still trust him to protect their lives, liberty, and property, and promote their happiness. Hence, Justice Gray’s statement is subject to the command of “the People,” as expressed by them in the Constitution. That command can only be changed indirectly by way of interpretation by the United States Supreme Court or directly by a constitutional amendment.

    Slartibartfast: “[I]f any court rules on the definition of 'natural born citizen' that they will come to the same conclusion as the (non-binding) precedent set by the Indiana court in the Ankeny decision.”

    Apuzzo response: As you correctly point out, the Indiana State court decision of Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 679 (2009), is not binding on a federal court. But more important is that the decision is wanting in legal analysis and historical and legal support. It basically took Wong Kim Ark’s definition of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” and used it to also define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the court conflated the two terms into the former. In so doing, the court obliterated the presidential eligibility clause “natural born Citizen” from the Constitution. Such doing has no support in logic, history, historical sources, and United States Supreme Court case law. In fact, it is contrary to sound constitutional interpretation as taught by Chief Justice John Marshall. It is of critical importance that the Framers included in the Constitution the status of “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States.” There must be a reason for their including these two separate and distinct classes of citizenship. “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 175 (1803). Use of different language in different parts of a statute suggests that the words used have a different meaning. E.g. Bates v. United States, 522 U.S. 23, 29-30 (1997). Hence, every clause in the Constitution must be given its own independent meaning. The Framers were very specific in including both these terms into the Constitution. The unambiguous text and structure of the Constitution show that the terms each describe a different type of citizen and each are ascribed to different political offices. Hence, conflating “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States” is therefore simply not allowed and “inadmissible.” Moreover, apart from a strict textual interpretation of the meaning of the two terms, there is no United States Supreme Court decision holding or even suggesting in dicta that the two terms mean the same thing. On the contrary, the historical record, Supreme Court cases, and Congressional Acts all show that the two terms are separate and distinct with their own meaning.

    Slartibartfast: “I expect that the effect of any eligibility law or lawsuit will be to demonstrate that President Obama is a natural born citizen in a very high profile way and totally marginalize the eligibility movement.”

    Apuzzo response: We welcome the challenge to have a court of competent jurisdiction decide the question of Obama’s Article II eligibility to be President. We believe that if a court will give Commander Kerchner and the other plaintiffs standing, we will prevail. Once such a court decides the merits of the eligibility question (not just the standing question), I do not believe there will continue to be an “eligibility movement” and so there will not be any need to “marginalize” it.

    Slartibartfast: “So I wish you and Mr. Apuzzo the best of luck in attempting what I expect will greatly benefit the effort to re-elect President Obama.”

    Apuzzo response: Commander Kerchner, the other plaintiffs, and I are not interested in hurting or helping anyone’s chances of getting elected or re-elected. What we are interested in is that the Constitution be respected and applied as the law of the land in our Constitutional Republic. We are also interested in making it publicly known that in our Constitutional Republic the President and other elected officials are the servants of “the People” and that under no rational and common-sense-driven system of self-representative republican government should the servant hide his or her identity from the People that he or she serves.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    May 4, 2010
    http://puzo1.blogs.com/
    ####

    Tags: obama Eligibility

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:20
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Lunes, 03 de mayo de 2010

    Gerald Herbert / The Associated Press Accused Special Warfare Operator 2nd Class (SEAL) Matthew McCabe is in the middle of what the Navy says could be a three-day court martial. Above, McCabe listens May 3 in front of the Capitol as Reps. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., and Dan Burton, R-Ind., renew calls for exoneration of McCabe and two fellow SEALs.


    Judge rejects motion by SEAL’s lawyers


    By Larry O’Dell - The Associated Press
    Posted : Monday May 3, 2010 18:44:46 EDT
     

    NORFOLK, Va. — The court-martial of a Navy SEAL accused of punching a suspected terrorist in Iraq opened Monday with the judge rejecting a defense motion to dismiss the case based on something Geraldo Rivera said on television.

    Attorneys for Special Warfare Operator 2nd Class (SEAL) Matthew McCabe of Perrysburg, Ohio, introduced a transcript of an April 22 broadcast in which Rivera told the Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly that someone close to the military official who ordered the court-martial told him the official was pressured by a higher authority not to drop the case.

    Army Maj. Gen. Charles Cleveland, the military’s joint operations commander, ordered the prosecution after McCabe and two co-defendants refused to accept an administrative punishment. The other two SEALs, who were accused of covering up the alleged abuse, were acquitted in trials last month in Baghdad.

    McCabe attorney Haytham Faraj said Monday that the Rivera report suggested “unlawful command influence,” and he asked that the charges be dismissed.

    “We have no evidence that Geraldo Rivera is lying,” Faraj said.

    The military judge, Capt. Moria Modzelewski, dismissed the TV commentary as speculation and declined the defense request.

    McCabe is accused of punching Ahmed Hashim Abed, who is suspected of masterminding the grisly 2004 killings of four American contractors in Fallujah, after Abed was captured and brought to a U.S. military base last September. He is charged with assault, dereliction of duty and making false statements to investigators.

    The SEALs have received an outpouring of support from people on the Internet, as well as more than 20 members of Congress who signed a letter urging Defense Secretary Robert Gates to put a stop to the prosecution. A couple of dozen protesters gathered Monday outside Naval Station Norfolk, where McCabe is being tried, holding American flags and signs supporting the SEALs.

    Jury selection is scheduled in McCabe’s trial Tuesday, with opening statements to follow. The jury will consist of six sailors. If convicted, McCabe could get up to a year in jail.

    Related reading

    SEAL accused of hitting Iraqi faces trial


    Tags: obama Seak McCabe

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 19:21
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     
     

    Border Patrol apprehends large group of illegal aliens entering U.S. 

    FROM JEROME CORSI'S RED ALERT

    Arizona law sparks states' rights revolution

    Citizens finally lose patience waiting for Washington to secure border


    Posted: May 03, 2010
    1:20 pm Eastern

    © 2010 WorldNetDaily

    Border Patrol apprehends large groupof illegal aliens entering U.S. 
     
    Editor's Note:The following report is excerpted from Jerome Corsi's Red Alert, the premium online newsletter published by the current No. 1 best-selling author, WND staff writer and columnist.Red Alert subscriptions are $99 ayear or $9.95 per month for credit card users. Annual subscribers will receive a free autographed copy of "The Late Great USA," a book about the careful deceptions of a powerful elite who want to undermine our nation's sovereignty.

    Arizona's new law empowering state and local police to determine a person's immigration status may mark the beginning of a states' rights revolution, 
    Jerome Corsi's Red Alert reports.

    "Arizona has finally lost patience waiting for Washington to secure the border with Mexico while the state is over run with illegal immigrants demanding expensive government-funded social welfare services, including free education of children in Spanish in the public schools and free medical care in the emergency rooms of state hospitals receiving federal aid," Corsi wrote.

    Illegal aliens by the tens of thousands took to the streets this weekend in protest dozens of U.S.cities across the nation.

    "This time illegal immigrants might be well advised to temper their anger as the mood of America appears to have changed against their cause," Corsi explained.

    He noted that various polls are showing that as many as 70 percent of Americans have heard about Arizona's tough immigration law and are in favor of requiring state and local police to determine a person's residency status if  there is "reasonable suspicion" the person is an illegal immigrant.

    Red Alert predicts the Arizona law is just the beginning of a series of state actions in which state governments will empower state and local police to round up illegals to hand them over to federal authorities for deportation.

    "Should illegal aliens intensify street protests," Corsi noted, "the demonstrations will only make the magnitude of the illegal alien problem more evident to middle-class Americans, intensifying the pressure to secure the border with Mexico and to enforce existing immigration laws."

    To learn more about the immigration reform and the states' rights movement, read 
    Jerome Corsi's Red Alert, the premium, online intelligence news source by the WND staff writer, columnist and author of the New York Times No. 1 best-seller, "The Obama Nation."

    Red Alert's author, whose books "The Obama Nation" and "Unfit for Command" have topped the New York Times best-sellers list, received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972. For nearly 25 years,beginning in 1981, he worked with banks throughout the U.S. and aroun dthe world to develop financial services marketing companies to assist banks in establishing broker/dealers and insurance subsidiaries to provide financial planning products and services to their retail customers. In this career, Corsi developed three different third-party financial services marketing firms that reached gross sales levels of $1 billion in annuities and equal volume in mutual funds. In 1999, he began developing Internet-based financial marketing firms, also adapted to work in conjunction with banks.

    In his 25-year financial services career, Corsi has been a noted financial services speaker and writer, publishing three books and numerous articles in professional 
    financial services journals and magazines.

    For full immediate access to Jerome Corsi's Red Alert, subscribe now.
    Subscribe to Jerome Corsi's newweekly economic newsletter, Red Alert, for one year and, for a limited time get "The Late Great USA" free. (This offer applies only to annualsubscriptions for $99.)


    Tags: obama Arizona

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:21
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Michael Savage Monologue on Attacks on Arizona Illegal Immigration Law - 4/29/10


    Tags: obama Arizona SB1070

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:41
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     
    Monday, May 3, 2010

    New Ad - Washington Times National Weekly Edition - 05 May 2010 - Page 5

    The Minister of Lands in Kenya, James Orengo, on 25 March 2010 during Kenyan National Assembly debate on their new Constitution, declares that Obama "was born here in Kenya" and is not a "native American"!

    Another Kenyan Minister, Dr. Bonny Khalwale, stated on the record on 14 April 2010 in the Kenyan National Assembly that Obama should repatriate himself to Kenya.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/30855663/Minister-in-Kenyan-National-Assembly-on-25Mar2010-states-Obama-born-in-Kenya-not-native-American

    Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired)
    Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com
    http://www.protectourliberty.org
    ####

    Tags: obama Kenya

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:56
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     
    Navy SEAL trial underway in Norfolk
     

     
     Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe, center, meets with two of his supporters during a break in his trial on Monday, May 3, 2010, Donna Zovko, left, and Katy Helvenston-Wettengel, right. The two women lost sons in attack on Blackwater contractors in Fallujah. McCabe is on trial in connection with the arrest and detention of the man thought to have master-minded the attack on the Blackwater workers. (Steve Earley | The Virginian-Pilot)
     

    The trial of the last U.S. Navy SEAL to face court-martial in connection with the alleged abuse of a suspected terrorist got off to a slow start in Norfolk this morning, with the judge almost immediately moving for a four-hour recess to consider last-minute motions.
    Proceedings are set to resume at 1 p.m. at Norfolk Naval Station.

    Three SEALs were charged in the case. Two of them, Petty Officer 2nd Class Jonathan Keefe and Petty Officer 1st Class Julio Huertas, were cleared of wrongdoing during military trials in Baghdad last month. Prosecutors argued that they helped cover up the mistreatment of Ahmed Hashim Abed in Fallujah, Iraq, in September.

    The SEAL who is standing trial this week, Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe, is the only one accused of physically harming Abed.

    Roughly 50 demonstrators gathered outside Navy base gates this morning to protest the military's decision to court-martial him. They carried signs bearing slogans such as, “Honk if you support SEALs” and “You fought for us. Now we fight for you.”

    Nofolk resident Ceci Budimier, a former Marine, said she read about the demonstration online and felt a duty to attend. “This is a guy who’s giving everything for his country, and yet his own rights are being trampled on,” she said. “It’s just ridiculous.”

    The charges against McCabe include assault for allegedly punching Abed in the midsection, dereliction of duty for not protecting Abed and making a false statement to an investigator who later interviewed him about the matter.

    Abed is thought to have masterminded the killing of four Blackwater contractors in Fallujah in 2004.

    McCabe, Keefe and Huertas are assigned to SEAL Team 10, headquartered at Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek. They could have accepted administrative punishment but chose instead to fight the charges.



    Tags: obama navy seal

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:03
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     


    ARIZONA STATE HAS IT RIGHT

     

    By Chuck Baldwin
    April 30, 2010
    NewsWithViews.com

    Open borders advocates are livid that the State of Arizona has enacted a new law authorizing State law enforcement personnel to arrest illegal aliens. The Reverend Al Sharpton is threatening to march. The mayor of San Francisco has declared Arizona off limits as a travel destination. The national government of Mexico has issued travel warnings. President Barack Obama is contemplating bringing a federal lawsuit against the State. Some are calling for a boycott of the State.

    So, why all the fuss?

    The State of Arizona is rightly sick and tired of the federal government's refusal to protect our nation (and the State of Arizona specifically) from this foreign invasion that is commonly referred to as "illegal immigration." In other words, the State of Arizona has said, "If the federal government won't enforce the law, we will." I say, good for them! Now, the other border states (Texas, New Mexico, and California) should do the same thing. Arizona has it right, and the vast majority of the American people know it.

    As an aside, if you are considering a visit to the American Southwest this summer, why not support the brave legislators and governor of Arizona, and make a point to spend your leisure dollars in Arizona? And when you do, write a letter to the State capitol and tell them. Even more importantly, I suggest that everyone contact their own State representatives, senators, and governors, and urge them to enact a similar law--to the one Arizona passed--in your State.

    And since the national news media refuses to set the record straight on the subject of illegal immigration (one could even say that the national news media is deliberately covering up the record), let's do that right here and now.

    First, let's talk about numbers. Even though the Census Bureau (CB) estimates 11 million illegal aliens live in America, the real numbers are much higher. Even CB officials admit that many illegal aliens purposely avoid the census count. A more reliable count is provided by Bear Stearns. It puts the number of illegal aliens at around 20 million. Former US Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), who was Chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, puts the number at over 18 million.

    According to Tennesseans for Responsible Immigration Policies (TNRIP), 6,000 immigrants arrive in America EVERY DAY. That equates to more than 2 million EVERY YEAR. In many communities in the Southwest, including Los Angeles, California, and Houston, Texas, Hispanics now comprise a majority of the population. But numbers of illegal aliens are quickly beginning to mount in cities throughout the United States.

    For example, TNRIP documents the fact that the Hispanic population grew in three Tennessee counties by more than 70% between 2000 and 2004. In one of those counties (Robertson) it grew over 95% during that time. In seven Tennessee counties, the Hispanic population grew by more than 40%. Now, Tennessee can hardly be considered a "border state." The fact is, what is happening in Tennessee is happening all over the United States. And lest you think this is all harmless, think again.

    According to TNRIP, the financial cost of this foreign invasion to U.S. taxpayers is staggering! Here is a breakdown of the annual costs:

    Education: $22.5 billion
    Bi-lingual Education: $3.3 billion
    AFDC: $2.4 billion
    SSI: $2.9 billion
    Social Security: $24.8 billion
    Housing Assistance: $2.6 billion
    Criminal Justice: $2.6 billion
    Jobs Lost by Americans: $10.8 billion
    Other Programs: $51.4 billion
    Food Stamps: $7 billion
    Health Care: $1.4 billion

    The first study of the net cost of illegal immigration to American taxpayers was conducted in 1997 by Dr. Donald Huddle, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Rice University. This study concluded that from 1970 to 1997, illegal immigration had cost taxpayers over $69 billion. Obviously, the financial numbers have exploded since then.

    Furthermore, during 1996 alone, more than 2.3 million American workers were displaced by (mostly) illegal aliens. Harvard Professor George Borjas estimates that today American workers lose $133 billion per year in wage depression and job loss.

    Back in 2007 it was reported, "LA County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich announced that a new report shows illegal aliens and their families collected over $35 million in welfare and food stamp allocations in July.

    "In the report, illegals are said to have collected nearly $20 million in welfare assistance for July 2007 and an additional $15 million in monthly food stamp allocations for an estimated annual cost of $440 million.

    "'Illegal immigration continues to have a devastating impact on Los Angeles County taxpayers,' said Antonovich. 'In addition to $220 million for public safety and $400 million for healthcare, the $440 million in welfare allocations bring the total cost to County taxpayers that exceeds $1 billion a year--this does not include the skyrocketing cost of education.'"

    http://www.usasurvival.org/
    Advertisement

    Consider, too, this recent report by Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector. According to Byron York at National Review, "Rector found that in 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available, low-skill households received an average of $32,138 per household--the great majority in the form of means-tested aid and direct benefits. (Rector excluded from that figure the cost of public goods and interest; with those included, he says, each low-skill household receives an average of $43,084.) Against that, Rector found that low-skill households paid an average of $9,689 in taxes. (The biggest chunk of that was the Social Security tax--$2,509--followed by state and local taxes, consumption taxes, property taxes, and federal income taxes, but Rector counted everything, including highway levies and lottery purchases.) In the final calculation, he found, the average low-skill household received $22,449 more in benefits than it paid in taxes--the $32,138 in benefits, excluding public goods, minus the $9,689 in taxes.

    "Taking that $22,449, and multiplying it by the 17.7 million low-skill households, Rector found that the total deficit for such households was $397 billion in 2004. 'Over the next ten years the total cost of low-skill households to the taxpayer (immediate benefits minus taxes paid) is likely to be at least $3.9 trillion,' Rector writes. 'This number would go up significantly if changes in immigration policy lead to substantial increases in the number of low-skill immigrants entering the country and receiving services.'"

    See York's column here.

    It has been noted that 75% of people on LA's most-wanted list are illegal aliens. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are here illegally, and roughly 30% of inmates in the federal prisons are illegal aliens.

    In addition, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegals from south of the border. According to Tancredo, gang membership by illegal aliens in many states is 50%, and in Phoenix, Arizona, illegal aliens constitute 34% of child-molestation and 40% of auto theft cases.

    Furthermore, illegal aliens murder (on average) 12 Americans EVERY DAY, according to Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa). Plus, illegals that drive drunk kill another 13 Americans EVERY DAY. That means illegal aliens kill more Americans EVERY YEAR than have been killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in total.

    See the report here.

    Of course, Arizonans are still reeling from the recent high profile murder of a fellow citizen on his own property by an illegal.

    Law enforcement agencies are very much cognizant of a surge in Latin American "ultra-violent" gangs that have sprung up in more than 40 US states. According to the FBI, one gang called MS-13 has been identified in 42 states. Another group called the 18th Street Gang is in 37 states. According to FBI MS-13 National Gang Task Force director Brian Truchon, "When the gang migrates throughout the U.S., there is always a road back to L.A. From L.A., there is always a road back to Central America."

    Retired lawman Jim Kouri wrote, "According to Lt. Steve Rogers, a decorated cop and award-winning writer, there are tens of thousands of murderers, rapists, child predators, robbers and drug dealers who are illegally in the United States. One study shows over 200,000 criminal aliens are preying on U.S. citizens."

    What the Arizona law does is authorize its law enforcement personnel to ENFORCE THE LAW. No one in Arizona is talking about racial profiling or violating citizens' constitutional rights. In fact, the new Arizona law actually mirrors already established federal law. But the federal government has hamstrung State and local police agencies in their attempts to arrest illegals for decades. Now, Arizona policemen can arrest illegals for being in the State of Arizona illegally, and have them deported: something they should have been doing (and have every right to do) all along. No wonder the vast majority of the American people (not to mention the citizens of Arizona) supports the Arizona law.

    http://www.newswithviewsstore.com/mm5/merchant.mvc

    But there is a greater issue here: the right of the State of Arizona to protect, defend, and govern itself. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the State sovereignty movement is growing like a wildfire. Whether it is Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Georgia, Texas, Florida, Alaska, or a couple dozen other states, legislators are beginning to awaken to the constitutional and moral responsibility of each State to govern itself. And when the central government in Washington, D.C., abridges or impedes that responsibility, it is the right and duty of states to resist.

    Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

    Enter Your E-Mail Address:

    This is why I tell people everywhere I speak, What is going on in [Your State] is infinitely more important than anything that goes on in Washington, D.C. Without the approbation of the State, DC's actions and attitudes are irrelevant. This is why we need county sheriffs, State legislators, State judges, State attorneys general, and governors who--along with their State's citizenry--understand the Constitution and are willing to courageously hold the line for freedom and constitutional government in their respective states. And by passing this anti-illegal alien bill, the State of Arizona did just that--the chagrin and consternation of open borders advocates notwithstanding.

    *If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

    © 2010 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved



    Tags: obama Arizona

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:32
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Domingo, 02 de mayo de 2010
     

    Dr. Ronald J. Polland, PhD, has posted on YouTube a series of videos that are part of a book he has been writing for two years. The title is “Fraud in the USA: The end of the birth certificate controversy.”

    As described in his, “About Me” video, Dr. Polland’s expertise is in Research and Program Evaluation, with over 31 years of post-doctoral scientific research experience. He is also the leading authority on scanning, photographing, (and videotaping) both sides of authentic, paper Hawaiian COLBs.

    Because of YouTube length restrictions, Chapter 1 has been split over four parts (uploaded now) and Chapter 2 has been split over two parts (will be uploaded by 6pm EST). He has also posted an “About Me” video that has his full credentials and highlights important aspects of his career.

    Dr. Ronald J. Polland was the infamous Dr. Pollarik (AKA)

     










    Tags: obama braud

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 23:12
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     

    Jack Cafferty, CNN, Truth about AZ illegal immigration bill, Obama and Democrat lies, Arizona law mimics federal law, Cafferty speaks truth

    May 2, 2010 · 12 Comments

    Jack Cafferty, CNN, Truth about AZ illegal immigration bill

    I got really irritated with Jack Cafferty of CNN during the 2008 election cycle. He seemed to have drank the kool aid along with the rest of the mainstream media. In recent months he has opened his eyes and begun telling the truth about Obama, his administration and the far left trying to run this country. I salute you  Jack Cafferty for stepping up to the plate and performing real journalism.

    The recent AZ law to enforce immigration rules mimics the federal laws that are not being enforced. Obama, his administration and the far left,  along with most of the mainstream media, are portraying the law as being anti immigration when in fact it is against illegal immigration and illegal acts. Jack Cafferty tells it like it is.

     


    Tags: obama Arizona

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:08
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    May 1, 2010

    Hell Yeah He's a Communist

    Posted by Van Helsing at May 1, 2010 7:36 AM

    In case you missed Comrade Obama's latest Joe the Plumber moment, from Mark Levin:

    It's easy to tell where he went off the teleprompter:

    I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money.

    No doubt he would agree with Ralph Nader's suggestion that at a certain income level, the tax rate should be 100%, so that every single penny of wealth created is seized by greedy, parasitical bureaucrats to be flushed down the toilet instead of used to expand and create jobs.

    A country that puts people like this in positions of authority will not have an even partially free market for long. Consequently it won't be prosperous for long.


    Tags: obama teleprompter

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:00
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    S?bado, 01 de mayo de 2010
     
      "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." 
      --  Theodore Roosevelt

      

    The Answer - too late now?
    Your Senators and Representatives should have seen this before January 8, 2009.
    He can't be impeached because he is not a legal President.  He needs to be removed by the U.S. Judicial system or by the military.  Every officer and soldier of the U.S. military has a legal right to question the authority of any order they deem as an illegal order.  All orders given by a usurper of the Presidency are illegal.

     
      
    Counting and certifying Electoral Votes in Congress

    Public Law 110-430 changed the date of the electoral vote in Congress in 2009 from January 6 to January 8. This date change is effective only for the 2008 presidential election.  

     

    The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes (Congress may pass a law to change the date). The President of the Senate is the presiding officer. If a Senator and a House member jointly submit an objection, each House would retire to its chamber to consider it. The President and Vice President must achieve a majority of electoral votes (270) to be elected. In the absence of a majority, the House selects the President, and the Senate selects the Vice President. If a State submits conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes of the electors certified by the Governor of the State would be counted in Congress.

     

     
     
     

     

     

     

    There's the answer:

     

     

    On January 8, 2009,

    it only takes one Senator and one House member

    to jointly submit an objection that the candidate,

    Barack Hussein Obama II,

    does not meet the eligibility requirement

    of Natural Born Citizen as required by

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

     

     
     
     
     
     

    Is it possible to have an ineligible President Elect? 

     

    Section 3 of the 20th Amendment to U.S. Constitution states what happens if there is an ineligible President Elect.  So apparently in 1933, Congress and the People of the U.S. foresaw that it was possible to have an ineligible President Elect and passed the 20th Amendment to ensure an ineligible candidate for President Elect could be dealt with.

    20th Amendment Section 3. "If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified."

     

    The entire 2008 election was under false pretense and therefore should be ruled invalid.  In that case, per the 20th Amendment, Congress should appoint a qualified President and Vice President until a new election can be held.

     
     
     

    Tags: obama Electoral Votes

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:46
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     
    Justice Department: Border Patrol Agents Assaulted Daily, Kidnappings Every 35 Hours in Phoenix, 1 in 5 Teens Using Drugs Predominantly Supplied by Mexican Traffickers

    Wednesday, April 28, 2010

    By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief


    A Customs and Border Patrol agent patrols along the international border after sunset in Nogales, Ariz. Thursday, April 22, 2010. Illegal immigration and border security are heating up as issues after the slaying of a border-area rancher and imminent passage of state legislation to crack down on illegal immigration. (AP Photo/Matt York)
    (CNSNews.com) - Three Border Patrol agents are assaulted on the average day at or near the U.S. border. Someone is kidnapped every 35 hours in Phoenix, Ariz., often by agents of alien smuggling organizations. And one-in-five American teenagers last year used some type of illegal drug, many of which were imported across the unsecured U.S.-Mexico border.
     
    These facts are reported in the recently released National Drug Threat Assessment for 2010, published by the National Drug Intelligence Center, a division of the U.S. Justice Department. They ought to add some perspective to the national debate raging over Arizona’s new law that requires local law enforcement officers to make a “reasonable attempt” to determine the immigration status of persons they legally come into contact with and whom they reasonably suspect of being in the country illegally 
     
    Assaults on Border Patrol agents have massively escalated in recent years, according to the Justice Department 
    threat assessment, which was released on March 25. “Assaults against U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) agents increased 46 percent from 752 incidents in FY2006 to 1,097 incidents in FY 2008,” says the assessment. Given that there are 365 days in the year, 1,097 assaults equals 3 per day.
     
    “Contributing most to this increase were rocking assaults, which rose 77 percent from 435 incidents in FY2006 to 769 incidents in FY2008,” said the assessment. A “rocking assault,” the assessment explains, “is defined as the throwing of rocks at Border Patrol agents by drug or alien smugglers with the intent of threatening or causing physical harm to the agent.”
     
    The assessment also noted that Border Patrol agents are sometimes murdered in the line of duty. “However, some assaults against USBP agents in California have been deadly,” it said, “including the January 2008 murder of a USBP officer who was struck and killed by the automobile of a fleeing drug suspect in Imperial County and the fatal shooting of a USBP officer investigating suspicious activity in Campo in July 2009.”
     
    The assessment indicates that kidnappings have become commonplace in Phoenix, Ariz., because families involved in alien smuggling have moved there to escape inter-smuggling-organization violence in Mexico. 
     
    “Although much of the violence attributed to conflicts over control of the smuggling routes has been confined to Mexico, some has occurred in the United States,” says the Justice Department assessment. “Violence in the United States … has been limited primarily to attacks against alien smuggling organization (ASO) members and their families—some of whom have sought refuge from violence in Mexico by moving to U.S. border communities such as Phoenix. For example, in recent years, kidnappings in Phoenix have numbered in the hundreds, with 260 in 2007, 299 in 2008, and 267 in 2009.”
     
    The 267 kidnappings in Phoenix in 2009 equals one kidnapping every 1.37 days—or one every 35 hours.

    “Nineteen percent of youth aged 12 to 17 report past year illicit drug use,” the report says. That is approximately one out of every five teenagers in the United States.
     
    The main drug suppliers for these American teenagers are Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTOs), which increasingly dominate the U.S. market for illegal drugs.
     
    “Mexican DTOs continue to represent the single greatest drug trafficking threat to the United States,” says the Justice Department assessment. “Mexican DTOs, already the predominant wholesale suppliers of illicit drugs in the United States, are gaining even greater strength in eastern drug markets where Columbian DTO strength is diminishing.”
     
    Drug production is up in Mexico, the assessment said, and thanks to a massive network of criminal gangs on this side of the border with whom they can do business, the Mexican DTOs now distribute their wares in communities all across America.
     
    “Mexican DTOs increased the flow of several drugs (heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana) into the United States, primarily because they increased production of those drugs in Mexico,” said the assessment.
     
    “In 2009, midlevel and retail drug distribution in the United States was dominated by more than 900,000 criminally active gang members representing approximately 20,000 street gangs in more than 2,500 cities.”
     
    “Mexican DTOs were the only DTOs operating in every region of the country,” said the threat assessment. 



    Like this story? Then sign up to receive our free daily E-Brief newsletter 

    Tags: obama arizona border

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:37
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
     
    Arizona Congressman Who Represents Border District Declines to Answer, Walks Away When Asked If He’s Committed to Sealing Border Against Drug Traffic

    Thursday, April 29, 2010

    By Edwin Mora

    (CNSNews.com) - Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who represents a congressional district that includes 300 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border, turned and walked away and did not answer when CNSNews.com asked him whether he was committed to sealing the border against the influx of illegal drugs.
     
    “Are you committed to sealing the border against the influx of illegal drugs?” CNSNews.com asked Grijalva, who had stopped for an interview. 
     
    Rather than answer, Grijalva walked away, eventually shouting back at the reporter that it was “punkish” to ask the question.



    CNSNews.com interviewed Grijalva as he left a press conference that had been called by a group of congressmen to protest a new Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officers to check whether someone is legally in the United States when they legally come into contact with a person and there is a reasonable basis to suspect the person is an illegal alien.
     
    Grijalva’s U.S. congressional district includes parts of the city of Tucson as well as the stretch of U.S.-Mexico border that runs from the Arizona-California line to Nogales, Ariz. His official Web site 
    says the district includes a longer stretch of the border than any U.S. congressional district other than the 23rd in Texas.
     
    Grijalva has called for a targeted boycott of his own state. “I have not called for a general ‘boycott’ of Arizona,” he said Wednesday, while answering 
    online questions from readers of The Washington Post. “I have called for a targeted ban on conventions and conferences in the state for a limited time. The idea is to send a message, not grind down the state economy.”
     
    In late March, the National Drug Intelligence Center, which is a division of the Justice Department, released its National Drug Threat Assessment for 2010. The assessment said that 19 percent of Americans age 12 to 17 reported using illicit drugs in the previous year and that Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) have become the “predominant wholesale suppliers of illicit drugs in the United States.”
     
     “Mexican DTOs continue to represent the single greatest drug trafficking threat to the United States,” said the assessment. 
     
    Transcript of CNSNews.com interview with Rep. Raul Grijalva (D.-Ariz.):
     
    CNSNews.com: Last year, The Justice Department reported that last year 19 percent of young adults age 12-17 used illicit drugs, much of which came through--
     
    Rep. Grijalva: What does this have to do with our press conference today? 
     
    CNSNews.com: Well, I just want to know. Are you committed to sealing the border against the influx of illegal drugs? 
     
    Rep. Grijalva: I-- [walks away] that has nothing to do with our press conference. 
     
    CNSNews.com: Well it’s about the border sir. 
     
    Rep. Grijalva: That’s punkish. 
     



    Like this story? Then sign up to receive our free daily E-Brief newsletter 


    Viewer Comments

    Tags: obama Arizona Grijalva

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:25
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar