Martes, 31 de agosto de 2010
??
BORN IN THE USA?

General: Obama records

'critical' to 'our Republic'

McInerney: Eligibility issue '

of such magnitude that its

significance can scarcely

be imagined'


Posted: August 31, 2010
8:10 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
??2010?WorldNetDaily

?

A retired lieutenant general from the U.S. Air Force who commanded forces armed with nuclear weapons says the disclosure of Barack Obama's documentation proving his eligibility to be commander in chief is critical not just to the defense of an officer challenging the president's status, but to the preservation of the nation itself.

The vehement statements came in an affidavit from retired Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney that was disclosed today by an organization generating support for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin.


Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin

Lakin had invited his own court-martial because he is unable to follow orders under the chain of command with Obama at its head until and unless Obama's eligibility is documented.

A hearing is scheduled in Lakin's court-martial case Thursday at which a ruling is expected on defense requests for the very evidence that McInerney is citing.

The general, who retired in 1994 after serving as Vice Commander in Chief of USAF forces in Europe, Commander of the 3rd Tactical Fighter Wing and Assistant Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force, among other positions, said the chain of command issue is critical in today's world, since officers are obligated both to follow orders and to disobey illegal orders.

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

"Officers in the United States military service are ? and must be ? trained that they owe their highest allegiance to the United States Constitution," he said in the affidavit.

?

"There can be no question that it is absolutely essential to good order and discipline in the military that there be no break in the unified chain of command, from the lowliest E-1 up to and including the commander in chief who is under the Constitution, the president of the United States. As military officers, we owe our ultimate loyalty not to superior officers or even to the president, but rather, to the Constitution."

He continued, explaining, "good order and disipline requires not blind obedience to all orders but instead requires officers to judge ? sometimes under great adversity ? whether an order is illegal.

WASHINGTON - JANUARY 08: General Thomas McInerney (USAF ret.) poses on the red carpet upon arrival at a salute to FOX News Channel's Brit Hume on January 8, 2009 in Washington, DC. Hume was honored for his 35 years in journalism. (Photo by Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images)

"The president of the United States, as the commander in chief, is the source of all military authority," he said. "The Constitution requires the president to be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to hold office. If he is ineligible under the Constitution to serve in that office that creates a break in the chain of command of such magnitude that its significance can scarcely be imagined."

Lakin is being supported by the American Patriot Foundation, which said the affidavit is for use in Lakin's trial, scheduled Oct. 13-15, as well as Thursday's hearing on the evidence to be allowed in the case.

Officials said McInerney is the highest-ranking officer yet to lend public support to Lakin.

A recent poll showed that only about 4 in 10 Americans believe Obama's story of being born in Hawaii, living in Indonesia and then returning to America.

McInerney's affidavit "acknowledges widespread concerns over the president's constitutional eligibility and demands the president release his birth records or the court authorize discovery," the foundation said.

Lakin's defense counsel has asked for the president's school records as well as a deposition from the custodian of Obama's birth records that may exist in the state of Hawaii.

The hearing is scheduled at 11 a.m. Thursday at Ft. Meade, Md., at the courthouse at 4432 Llewellyn Ave., inside the military base. The court is open to the public.

Lakin is a physician and in his 18th year of service in the Army. He posted a video asking for the court-martial to determine Obama's eligibility.

He is Board Certified in Family Medicine and Occupational and Environmental Medicine. He has been recognized for his outstanding service as a flight surgeon for year-long tours in Honduras, Bosnia and Afghanistan. He was also awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Afghanistan and recognized in 2005 as one of the Army Medical Department's outstanding flight surgeons.

McInerney said he recalled commanding forces "that were equipped withi nuclear weapons.

"In my command capacity I was responsible that the personnel with access to these weapons had an unwavering and absolute confidence in the unified chain of command, because such confidence was absolutely essential ? vital ? in the event the use of those weapons were authorized," the general wrote.

"I cannot overstate how imperative it is to train such personnel to have confidence in the unified chain of command. Today, because of the widespread and legitimate concerns that the president is constitutionally ineligible to hold office, I fear what would happen should such a crisis occur today."

He said Lakin is acting "exactly" as "proper training dictates."

"It is my opinion that LTC Lakin's request for discovery relating to the president's birth records in Hawaii is absolutely essential to determining not merely his guilt or innocence but to reassuring all military personnel once and for all for this president whether his service as commander in chief is constitutionally proper.

"He is the one single person in the chain of command that the Constitution demands proof of natural born citizenship," he continued. "This determination is fundamental to our Republic.

"According to the Constitution, the commander in chief must now, in the face of serious ? and widely-held ? concerns that he is ineligible, either voluntarily establish his eligibility by authorizing release of his birth records or this court must authorize their discovery. The invasion of his privacy in these records is utterly trivial compared to the issues at stake here," McInerney wrote.

Lakin is represented by military counsel and by Paul Rolf Jensen, a civilian attorney from California who has been provided to him by the American Patriot Foundation, a non-profit group incorporated in 2003 to foster appreciation and respect for the U.S. Constitution.

The foundation says the Army's opinion of Lakin was made clear in an evaluation just before Lakin raised the issue of eligibility.

From Col. Dale Block: "Dr. Lakin is an extremely talented, highly knowledgeable senior Army clinician ... he can always be counted on to provide me with expert advice. ... LTC Lakin is clearly one of the top clinicians in the Northern Regional Medical Command. He has superb clinical skills, rapport with patients and staff. ... Terry is the best choice for tough assignments. ... Already on the promotion list to colonel, he should be groomed for positions of greater responsibility."

But Lakin, the foundation says, has been compelled to act because Lakin swore an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. Obama's eligibility to be president has been questioned, he argues, and Obama has refused all efforts to obtain documents that could determine his eligibility.

The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

A number of challenges and lawsuits have been based on the constitutional requirement, some alleging Obama does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims. Others say he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen of the U.S. and the United Kingdom when he was born, and the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.

Complicating the issue is the fact that besides Obama's actual birth documentation, he has kept from the public documentation including his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, baptism records and his adoption records.

Lakin declined to follow deployment orders after he tried through military channels to affirm the validity of orders under Obama's command and was rebuffed. He had been scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan again.

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

In at least one of the earlier disputes, the Army simply canceled the orders rather than allow the argument to come to a head.

Lakin's attorneys have said they now are demanding "discovery" of Obama's records, and that in such a dispute that information is critical. The multitude of civil cases that have been brought over the Obama eligibility dispute all have failed to reach that process because of federal judges who have ruled on issues generally involving "standing." The judges have concluded that damages from an ineligible president suffered by the plaintiffs would not be more for them than any other member of the public, so there is not a specific damage or danger.

Lakin's counsel, Jensen, has explained that the Lakin case is different, since his client is being processed on criminal charges over the issue ? a status that puts him in imminent danger of specific and personal "damages."

The courts already have shown a weakness on the subject of Obama's records. The discovery-of-evidence issue previously was raised in court by attorney John Hemenway, who was threatened by a federal judge with sanctions for bringing a court challenge to Obama's presidency.

Hemenway is serving in emeritus status with the SafeguardOurConstitution website. Hemenway brought a previous court challenge, now on appeal, on behalf of a retired military officer, Gregory S. Hollister, who questioned Obama's eligibility.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The court ultimately backed off its threat of sanctions.

In a separate case, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threatened sanctions against attorney Mario Apuzzo. The court quickly backed off, however, when Apuzzo noted that under the rules of court procedure, being subjected to sanctions and penalties would give him the right to discovery in the case, possibly including Obama's birth certificate.

The Constitution requires a president to be a "natural born citizen," and, while the term is not defined in the Constitution, many legal analysts believe at the time it was written it meant a person born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents. Critics say Obama clearly does not qualify under that definition, since he has admitted in his book his father never was a U.S. citizen. Some legal challenges have argued he wasn't even born in Hawaii.

Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for Honolulu, has said there "definitely" are problems with Obama's Hawaii birth story.

"As of the time I was in Hawaii working in the elections office we had many people who were asking about the eligibility of Senator Obama to be president. I was told at the time there is no long-form birth record, which would have been the case if President Obama was born in [a] hospital in Honolulu. There is no such form in Hawaii," he said.

Lakin had posted a YouTube video challenging the Army to charge him over the issue.

As WND reported, Lakin posted the video of his challenge to Obama to document his eligibility March 30.

In his latest video, Lakin said the issue of evidence is important:

?

?

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


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:53
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

American Patriot Foundation, Inc.
1101 Thirtieth Street, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20007
www.safeguardourconstitution.com

PRESS RELEASE
THREE-STAR GENERAL FILES SWORN AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTING LTC LAKIN?S CASE
______________________________________

JUDGE TO RULE THURSDAY ON DEFENSE REQUEST FOR? OF HAWAIIAN OFFICIALS AND FOR WRITTEN DISCOVERY OF ALL OF PRESIDENT?S SCHOOL AND COLLEGE RECORDS
__________________________________

Hearing set for Sept 2 at 1100 at Fort Meade, Maryland
________________________________________

?

?

A hearing for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin's court martial is scheduled for September 2l

(Aug. 31, 2010) ? Washington, D.C.?? Retired Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney has supplied an affidavit in support of Army Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin, who faces trial on October 13-15. The retired Air Force three-star is the highest ranking officer yet to lend public support to LTC Lakin. His affidavit acknowledges widespread concerns over the President?s Constitutional eligibility and demands the President release his birth records or the court authorize discovery.

McInerney?s sworn affidavit was filed in Court-Martial in support of Lakin?s motions for subpoenas for all of the president?s school records, and for a deposition of the custodian of Obama?s birth records in the possession of the State of Hawaii. The Judge has set a hearing in the Court Martial on these motions for this coming Thursday, September 2nd at 11:00 at Ft. Meade, Maryland. All court proceedings are open to the public. The courthouse is located within Ft. Meade at 4432 Llewellyn Avenue, which is on the corner of Llewellyn and Ernie Pyle Road. At the first intersection after the Reece Road gate, you should turn left on to Ernie Pyle Road. The courthouse is approximately 1 mile south of the intersection of Reece Road and Ernie Pyle Road.

LTC Lakin is a physician and is in his 18th year of service in the Army. He is Board Certified in Family Medicine and Occupational and Environmental Medicine. He has been recognized for his outstanding service as a flight surgeon for year-long tours in Honduras, Bosnia and Afghanistan. He was also awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Afghanistan and recognized in 2005 as one of the Army Medical Department?s outstanding flight surgeons. In March of this year, he announced in a video posted on YouTube that he would refuse to obey orders until receiving proof of the President?s eligibility. So far, more than 225,000 people have viewed that video.

McInerney?s affidavit can be viewed at www.safeguardourconstitution.com.

?

The following are extracts:

The President of the United States, as the Commander in Chief, is the source of all military authority. The Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to hold office. If he is ineligible under the Constitution to serve in that office that creates a break in the chain of command of such magnitude that its significance can scarcely be imagined.

As a practical example from my background I recall commanding forces that were equipped with nuclear weapons. In my command capacity I was responsible that personnel with access to these weapons had an unwavering and absolute confidence in the unified chain of command, because such confidence was absolutely essential? vital? in the event the use of those weapons was authorized. I cannot overstate how imperative it is to train such personnel to have confidence in the unified chain of command. Today, because of the widespread and legitimate concerns that the President is constitutionally ineligible to hold office, I fear what would happen should such a crisis occur today.

In refusing to obey orders because of his doubts as to their legality, LTC Lakin has acted exactly as proper training dictates. That training mandates that he determine in his own conscience that an order is legal before obeying it?Indeed, he has publicly stated that he ?invites? his own court martial, and were I the Convening Authority, I would have acceded to his wishes in that regard. But thus stepping up the bar, LTC Lakin is demonstrating the courage of his convictions and his bravery. That said, it is equally essential that he be allowed access to the evidence that will prove whether he made the correct decision.

For the foregoing reasons, it is my opinion that LTC Lakin?s request for discovery relating to the President?s birth records in Hawaii is absolutely essential to determining not merely his guilt or innocence but to reassuring all military personnel once and for all for this President whether his service as Commander in Chief is Constitutionally proper. He is the one single person in the Chain of Command that the Constitution demands proof of natural born citizenship. This determination is fundamental to our Republic, where civilian control over the military is the rule. According to our Constitution, the Commander in Chief must now, in the face of serious? and widely held? concerns that he is ineligible, either voluntarily establish his eligibility by authorizing release of his birth records or this court must authorize their discovery. The invasion of his privacy in these records is utterly trivial compared to the issues at stake here. Our military MUST have confidence their Commander in Chief lawfully holds this office and absent which confidence grievous consequences may ensue.

Lakin is represented by military counsel and by Paul Rolf Jensen, a civilian attorney from California who has been provided to him by the American Patriot Foundation, a non-profit group incorporated in 2003 to foster appreciation and respect for the U.S. Constitution, which has established a fund for Lakin?s legal defense. Further details are available on the Foundation?s website, www.safeguardourconstitution.com

? 2010, The Post & Email. 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.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:33
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Atty. Orly TAITZ discovers that just before Federal Judge David O. CARTER,

reversed his Sept. 8, 2009 ruling in October 2009, a young inExperienced Atty.

by the Name of Siddharth Velamoor had transfered

from the Obama Defense team to Judge CARTERS "law clerk",

?


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:34
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
?
?Venezuelan?dies in hunger strike in protest against Government (Translation by a machine)
?

Babel Fish Home - Help ??????? Translation powered by ?SYSTRAN

?
CARACAS (EFE).

?


Franklin Brito, agricultural producer of 49 years of age, that maintained successive hunger strikes in protest against the Venezuelan Government, passed away at night of this Monday, according to local means of press that mention familiar sources.
The newspaper the Universal one informed in its digital edition of which the wife of Franklin Brito, Elena, declared to the metropolitan newspaper that his husband died around the 21,00 local time of Monday (01,30 GMT of Tuesday).
It indicates the newspaper that the wife of Brito explained that ?the doctors warned to him of the decease but they did not offer details to him on the death?.
?Apparently, to the farming producer he gave an infarct him and although the galens tried to reanimate were not it successful?, indicates the newspaper.
It adds that, from Friday 20 of August, the farming producer ?remained in a species of comma induced in the intensive therapy of the Military Hospital? of Caracas.
According to the metropolitan newspaper, a commission of the Body of Scientific researches, Penitentiaries and Criminologies (Cicpc) was at night in the place of Monday and Tuesday was anticipated in the morning the transfer of the body.
On the other hand, the Globovisi?n channel published an official notice of the family in whom it is indicated that ?after a fight of more than six years, more than eight hunger strikes, the mutilation of a finger and salary be victim of an irregular deprivation of freedom, the body of Franklin Brito today let realise vital functions?.
?All this does not mean, nevertheless, that Franklin Brito has died. Franklin lives in the fight of the Venezuelan town by the right to the property, the access to justice, by the life in freedom and the respect from the governments to the individual human rights, groups and?, emphasizes the official notice.
From 2009 July, Franklin Brito had realised successive hunger strikes to protest by the presumed expropriation of its earth in the state Bolivar, in the south-east of Venezuela.
The past month of June, Brito, in thirst and hunger strike, began to receive treatment of hydration on the part of doctors of the Venezuelan Red Cross, informed then local means.
The producer weighed 43 kilos at that time and the doctors of the Red Cross could not provide serum to him via intravenous due to their extreme thinness, said then their daughter, ?ngela Brito, according to the information of the press.
Brito had initiated a thirst strike to demand? ?
that it was allowed the Venezuelan Red Cross to attend it, since did not trust the doctors of the Military Hospital, where it remained from December last against his will, according to he himself explained.
A court of Caracas authorized in June the Red Cross to attend Brito, hours after the Venezuelan vice-president, El?as Jaua, denounced that ?a campaign had untied, national or as much international? on the case of the farming producer and professor of Biology.
That campaign, added Jaua, would look for ?to weaken the truth?, that is ?to induce to the death? the striker ?to present/display it like a fact of violation of the human rights on the part of the Venezuelan State?, according to emphasized.
Jaua offered those declarations after meeting with representatives in Venezuela of United Nations, the Organization of American Estados (OAS) and of the Pan-American Organization of Salud (OPS), to those who it alerted of the assumption ?bad use? that is making the opposition to president Hugo Chavez of the case of Brito.
Brito fulfilled his first protest the 10 of May of 2005, when, in front of reporters to whom it summoned in a Caracas place, me?ique was clipped and threatened cutting to a finger every week in rejection to the ?governmental extreme cruelty? that it denounced in his against.
To this it did it protest by the supposed governmental ignorance of a rural property of 299 hectares, which Jaua said that it is false and that rather the one was the Government of Ch?vez that granted the title deeds to him in 1999.
Brito began its hunger strike in the middle of the year last before the office in Caracas of the OAS and suspended to the fasting the 4 of December, when the cancellation of the expropriation was notified to him, after which was transferred to the Military Hospital.
The National Tierras Institute (INTI) revoked then emitted agrarian letters in favor of third parties, with presumed land affectation of Brito.
The agriculturist put three conditions not to retake strike: ?that emits a copy certified? of the cancellation of the expropriation, ?which they initiate the indemnification process and that denies the versions appeared in the press? on supposed debts that would maintain with the INTI.
When not folding the authorities to its demands, Brito reinitiated its hunger strike intermittently.
?

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:18
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 30 de agosto de 2010

?

Monday, August 30, 2010

Andy Martin Thanks Brian Williams, Two Lawsuits Still Pending in Hawaii Seeking to Release the State's Secret Records on Obama.

Obama author Andy Martin will hold a New York news conference Monday to commend Brian Williams and NBC News for asking President Barack Obama tough questions about his birthplace and religion. Martin says NBC crossed an "equinox" of public concern about Obama's origins and spirituality that will not go away merely through Obama's pretenses and joking. Martin has two lawsuits pending in Hawai'i seeking to open the "Obama Files." Andy expects to be in Honolulu in November fighting to release the state's secret records on Obama's birth. "There is the televised Hawai'i Five-O, and there is the real Hawai'i Five-O," Martin says. "Our investigative operation in Hawaii is real, and it poses a threat to the legitimacy of Barack Obama's presidency."

Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin says Brian Williams and NBC News "crossed a Rubicon" Sunday evening by raising questions about President Obama's birth and religion on national television

Martin was the first person to offer a coherent timeline during the 2008 presidential campaign for Obama's radical associations, on Sean Hannity's America

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW YORK NEWS CONFERENCE MONDAY

ANDY MARTIN SAYS HE CONGRATULATES BRIAN WILLIAMS AND NBC NEWS FOR PLACING ON THE "AMERICAN AGENDA" DOUBTS THAT MORE AND MORE AMERICANS HAVE ABOUT BARACK OBAMA'S ORIGINS AND BELIEFS

MARTIN SAYS THAT THE "FLOOD GATES" ARE OPENING, SLOWLY, AND THAT THERE WILL BE MUSHROOMING PUBLIC CONCERN ABOUT "WHO IS BARACK OBAMA?"

(NEW YORK)(August 30, 2010) ContrarianCommentary.com's Executive Editor, Andy Martin, will hold a New York City news conference Monday, August 30th to commend NBC News and Brian Williams for "breaching the levee" in New Orleans on Barack Obama's religion and place of birth.

"Six years ago in August 2004 I wrote the first article on Barack Obama's religion, and said he was a Muslim," Martin notes. "I am more convinced than ever that I was correct in my initial assessment. Over three years ago I raised questions about Barack Obama's citizenship and eligibility to be president. (It's all in my book.) Frankly, the American people were not interested in 'the facts' and they preferred to buy a pig in a poke, Barack Obama. So it is kind of funny to see Barack Obama now telling Brian Williams in New Orleans 'the facts are the facts,' when Obama has worked so hard to conceal the facts during the presidential campaign.

"Last year I wrote that the window for Obama to 'come clean' on his citizenship and religion was closing. He would eventually cross an 'equinox' where he had more public hostility than support, and then the attacks on his religion and citizenship would be intensified by the media. We are right on schedule. I essentially predicted what happened Sunday night: Obama created a photo op in New Orleans and in the middle of an interview with NBC News Brian Williams dropped the 'Muslim/Birth Certificate' bomb.

"Mr. Obama tried to make a joke of Williams' concerns about Obama's religion and citizenship, but these questions are not a joke and they are not funny. And they are not going away. Every day they are growing on the Internet.

"I applaud Brian Williams for having the guts to raise the concerns. I am always squabbling with NBC News, and I will have an attack on them later in the week on an unrelated topic, but Monday I want to praise Mr. Williams and NBC News for opening Obama's can of worms.

"Mr. Williams is a serious man who takes his journalism seriously. You don't have to always agree with him to respect his integrity. I would have phrased his opening question to Obama slightly differently; but the fact that Williams directed any question to Obama over his citizenship and religion is devastating to the president.

"Over the Labor Day holiday we will be building out our new web site 'BirtherNation.us,' which is devoted to exposing Barack Obama's lies about his birth, citizenship and education. Later this week we will be holding a Palm Beach news conference to announce an upcoming major new investigation and litigation in Hawai'i concerning Obama's records. The second edition of my book (see below) is selling out and we are going to consider a new printing in the future.

"I go into these details to underscore that reasonable, responsible inquiry into Obama's religion and family origins is a legitimate area of scholarly inquiry and that we are proceeding solely on the basis of scholarly standards.

"What Brian Williams should have asked, and he came close, was 'How can you expect to govern when a fifth of the American people don't even trust your answers on religion and birth?

"Obama's responses appeared genuine, because he was probably surprised by Williams' bluntness. Obama has a contemptuous attitude towards his critics. Obama said there was a 'network of misinformation.' In point of fact there is no network of misinformation. I have been the source of accurate information about Obama's religion and citizenship for six years. He has never challenged or undermined any factual claim that I made. Instead he has used his attack dogs to launch personal attacks on me.

"Obama has maintained a relentless misinformation campaign against me, originally using Robert Gibbs and the New York Times to smear me with decades-old stale accusations and to intimidate the media. Well, the media are becoming increasingly 'unintimidated' as Mr. Williams' inquiries reflect.

"That is not to say that all sources of criticism about Obama are accurate. The public record reflects, however, that I have repeatedly exposed and attacked anti-Obama charlatans who proffered false claims against the man. All I want is the facts and the truth. Nothing more. Indeed, some of Mr. Obama's opponents have criticized me for exposing anti-Obama charlatans and exposing their misuse of the truth. But that's why Obama is terrified of me, and loves the whackos who propound silly theories. I have a passion for the truth.

"FACT: There is no location in Hawai'i that openly advertises itself as Obama's 'birthplace.' His family has claimed two different hospitals where he was born. Don't you think if had been born somewhere, they would put a plaque on the door and say 'Birthplace of the 44th President?' Why are they hiding this obvious fact?

"FACT: I personally believe Obama was born in Hawai'i. But I have also noticed how Barack and Michelle Obama love to stoke the 'Kenyan birth certificate' crowd with catnip, so the Obamas can agitate their opposition and energize their own left-wing base. In my expert opinion, what Barack Obama is hiding is not where he was born, but how he was born.

"FACT: Obama says he does not want his birth certificate 'plastered on my forehead.' But his original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate has never been plastered anywhere. He has never released it to the American people. He released a laser printout from a state database. The original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate has never seen the light of day although Hawai'i official Chiyome Fukino claims to have seen that document. Obama doesn't have to plaster his birth certificate on his head; but unless and until he authorizes Hawai'i officials to release the original, typewritten 1961 document he is hiding the truth from the American people.

"FACT: The qualifications to serve as president are different than those for any other federal office. Being an American citizen is not enough. Obama's putative father was apparently never even a permanent resident of the United States. He came here on a student visa, fornicated, and left. I don't think Obama's putative father ever had a Green Card. While Obama may have acquired 'birth citizenship,' I do not believe he ever acquired the enhanced 'natural born citizenship' that the Constitution mandates only for the presidency.

"Obama is not stupid. He is a bright man. He's no courtroom lawyer but he is trained in the law. That's why he loves to play lawyer-style word games with the media and the American people. Obama knows his day of judgment is approaching, as we will detail in our forthcoming Palm Beach news conference. That's why he increasingly acts like a one-term president.

"To mix another metaphor, Brian William and NBC News burst the dam. They put the issue of Obama's ability to lead, in light of increasing doubts about his religion and eligibility to sit in the Oval office, on the front burner. We'll have more analysis and commentary as week wears on. But today, Monday, we stop to salute Brian Williams and NBC for asking the tough questions," Martin states. "Obama can joke about the 'Muslim/birth' questions, but these issues are on the minds of a growing segment of the American public. Why won't Obama release the public records in Hawai'i, and other files at Occidental, Columbia and Harvard, that would confirm the truth?

COMING TUESDAY: ANDY MARTIN ON WHY BARACK OBAMA IS A MUSLIM

AUGUST 30TH NEWS CONFERENCE DETAILS:

WHO: ContrarianCommentary.com Executive Editor Andy Martin

WHAT: Internet powerhouse Andy Martin thanks Brian Williams and NBC News for "breaching the levee" on Barack Obama's Muslim religion and unknown place of birth

WHERE: 909 Third Avenue, public sidewalk in front of FDR Station, New York(under the "909" canopy in case of rain)

WHEN: Monday, August 30, 3:00 P. M.

MEDIA CONTACT: GENERAL: (866) 706-2639 CELL (917) 664-9329;

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

ABOUT ANDY: Andy Martin, who Chicago Public Radio calls a "boisterous Internet activist," is the legendary New York and Chicago-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of background in radio and television and is the dean of Illinois media and communications. He promotes his best-selling book, "Obama: The Man Behind The Mask" and his Internet movie "Obama: The Hawai'i years." Martin has been a leading corruption fighter in Illinois for over forty years. He is currently sponsoring www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com

Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the "Internet Powerhouse," www.ContrarianCommentary.com. He comments on regional, national and world events with more than four decades of investigative and overseas experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).

UPDATES:
www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA
www.facebook.com/AndyMartin

Andy's columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com.

contrariancommentary.typepad.com
[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in this story on our blogs; find our latest edition there.]

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329 E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com

Previous reports on Andy Martin can be found here.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:10
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar


WND
BORN IN THE USA?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=197113



Obama slams 'lies'

about his background,

beliefs

'I can't spend all of my

time with my

birth certificate plastered

on my forehead'


Posted: August 30, 2010
2:11 am Eastern

By Joe Kovacs
??2010?WorldNetDaily

?

President Obama apparently has his own birth certificate on his mind, literally.

"I can't spend all of my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead," Obama told Brian Williams in an interview last night on NBC's Nightly News.

?

?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The remark was in reaction to a series of questions focusing on why a large percentage of Americans have serious doubts about the religious faith of the commander in chief, but Obama also took a shot a so-called "birthers" who want documented proof that Obama is a "natural-born citizen" and thus constitutionally eligible hold the presidency.

"The facts are the facts. We went through some of this during the campaign ? there is a mechanism, a network of misinformation that in a new media era can get churned out there constantly," said an obviously irritated Obama.

"I will always put my money on the American people, and I'm not going to be worried too much about what rumors are floating around there."

The quip about the birth certificate being plastered to Obama's forehead has already prompted some comic images to be posted online, incliding this one at Sad Hill News:

?
This comic pair of images was posted within hours of President Obama quipping about his birth certificate being plastered to his head. (courtesy Sad Hill News)

A Pew poll this month revealed an astonishing 18 percent of Americans identify Obama as Muslim, and only a third identified Obama as Christian.

Another poll by CNN, whose editorial commentary largely supports President Obama and his policies, delivered some bad news on his apparent birthday earlier this month: 6 of 10 people are uncertain the president was even born in the United States.


If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.

?



Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:52
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 29 de agosto de 2010

?

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Motion for Reconsideration Filed in Taitz v Obama, Brigadier General Charles Jones Still Backs Fight to Expose the Usurper-in-Chief.

?

Attorney Taitz filed a 60 B Motion for Reconsideration in Taitz v Obama in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The full motion and exhibits embedded below the message from Retired Brigadier General Charles E. Jones.

Via Atty Taitz; - From brigadier general Charles E. Jones -

Please know you are not only my favorite patriotic United States all time attorney but my favorite person in all of Calif. as well. Your pure gold.

As soon as I?m able I will began a campaign to try and raise money to repay for what you already have done for We The People.

I hope you have not yet paid the fine that the biased judge sanctioned you with. Hold off as long as you can until we can get together and talk. I have information that may possibly help to stop that unfounded senseless action!

Very best regards,
Charles
Source; http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=13394 Hat tip to Logia at Gretawire.

Flashback to early 2009 via Atlas Shrugs; - Open Letter from Brigadier General Charles Jones -

Charles E. Jones
Brigadier General US Air Force, Retired
Lifetime subject to recall for active duty
Recipient of the Distinguished Service Medal (AF)
02.04.09

"We the People of the United States of America" are entitled to know the legal qualifications of the President and Commander in Chief. For the better good and National Security of "We the People of the United States" and for Absolute Command of the Military Forces of the United States, I whole heartedly support the efforts of Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ for taking legal action to determine whether or not Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, Citizen of Indonesia and possibly citizen of Kenya, is eligible to become President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces.?
Source including extensive research on Obama's forged COLB; http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/02/open-letter-from-brigadier-general-charles-jones.html
Taitz v Obama - 60 B Motion for Reconsideration - U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia - 8-22-10
Taitz v Obama - Exhibits for 60 B Motion for Reconsideration - U.S. District Court for the District of Colu...
Obama Is a Usurper - Illegal President - 20100802 Issue Wash Times Natl Wkly - pg 5

?

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:45
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 27 de agosto de 2010

Friday, August 27, 2010

New Video: Dr. Alan Keyes Discusses His Upcoming Obama Eligibility Lawsuit.

Via 68Truthseeker and some; - Dr. Alan Keyes Discusses His Upcoming Obama Eligibility Lawsuit -

The case involves a long list of additional plaintiffs, including ambassador Alan Keyes, who are being represented by California attorney Orly Taitz and are filing their pleadings separately from those on behalf of Drake and Robinson.

The case challenges Obama's eligibility to be president, citing a lack of documentation, and was the subject of hearings at the lower court level, where Judge David Carter heard arguments. Source.

Video below, full brief embedded below videos.

Dr. Keyes also mentions Obama's recent statement where Obama states; ?

The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide." ...more on that here.







10-55084 - Appellants Opening Brief by Orly Taitz - 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - 08/11/2010

Citizen v natural born Citizen-It's Don't Ask Don't Tell-20100809 issue Wash Times Natl Wkly - pg 5

Obama Is a Usurper - Illegal President - 20100802 Issue Wash Times Natl Wkly - pg 5


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 21:48
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 26 de agosto de 2010
?

Takes the fight against Arizona SB 1070 international

Obama administration reports to the UN on human rights issues in U.S.

?By Doug Hagmann??Wednesday, August 25, 2010

imageNortheast Intelligence Network

Under the administration of Barack Hussein Obama, the United States submitted its first ever ?Universal Periodic Review (UPR) report? to the United Nations.? This is the first time in the history of the United Nations that the U.S. has submitted a report to the United Nation?s Human Rights Council, which is the first step in submitting the United States to international review by some of the most repressive and abusive nations in the world.? The 29-page report can be read here.


The report is the product of about a dozen conferences held across the U.S. between January and April 2010. The participants of these conferences featured such luminaries as Stephen Rickard and Wendy Patten, from George Soros? Open Society Institute; Devon Chaffee, Human Rights First; Andrea Prasow, Human Rights Watch; Imad Hamad (a suspected member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a Marxist-Leninist terrorist organization), American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; Dawud Walid, Council American Islamic Relations; Nabih Ayad, Michigan Civil Rights Commission; Ron Scott, Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality; Osama Siblani, Arab American News; Shannon Minter, National Center for Lesbian Rights and Cynthia Soohoo, Center for Reproductive Rights, among others.

According to its authors, the report to the United Nations ?gives a partial snapshot of the current human rights situation in the United States, including some of the areas where problems persist in our society.? Obviously, one of the ?problems? identified with the report is illegal immigration and Arizona?s own initiate to solve the problem through state legislation. SB 1070 has been a particularly thorny issue to the Obama administration, which has now been moved to an international venue and potential international oversight by the United Nations. The stakes for our national sovereignty have been just raised by the submission of this document, which is the first step of ?voluntary compliance? to the provisions of the United Nations? Human Rights Council.

It is no surprise that the report is dripping with the all too familiar ?blame America first? rhetoric that has been the gold-standard of ?citizen of the world? Barack Hussein Obama. The report promises that ?President Obama remains firmly committed to fixing our broken immigration system?? and promises to work ?with fellow members of the Human Rights Council.?

Taking counsel from the list of individuals and organizations, some who have openly called for the subjugation of our country to the United Nations and supported our enemies, while engaging in self-flagellation before an international body of dubious distinction? it?s the ?gold-standard? of Barack Hussein Obama.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:35
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 24 de agosto de 2010

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=194785

Monday, August 23, 2010


OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Documented: Grounds for impeachment of Barack Obama ...
'This is the beginning of the end for the United States unless ... '


Posted: August 23, 2010
9:04 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh


WorldNetDaily

?


?

Lying, bribing, subverting election laws, payoffs, aiding the nation's enemies, seeking the abrogation of the U.S. Constitution ? which of these does not fall under the "high crimes and misdemeanors" required in the nation's founding documents for the removal of a sitting president, asks a new special report.

"The Case for Impeachment: Why Barack Hussein Obama Should be Impeached to Save America" by Steven Baldwin covers all of these issues and more in making its arguments.

"This is the beginning of the end for the United States unless the people exercise their precious remaining liberties and stand and demand that their elected representatives impeach this president before further mortal damage is inflicted upon America," the report concludes.

The author explains that the Founding Fathers enshrined the impeachment clause into the United States Constitution because they feared that a president intent on subverting the very principles upon which the American experiment was built would someday rise to power.

Get the details, in "The Case for Impeachment: Why Barack Hussein Obama Should be Impeached to Save America"

"Despite all the checks and balances and obstacles they put in place, the Founders knew a determined cabal could still gain control of all three branches of government and wield this consolidation of power to dismantle our cherished constitutional principles, and eradicate the freedoms that generations of Americans sacrificed their lives to preserve," he writes.

(Story continues below)

"Make no mistake: That day is now upon us."

In "The Case for Impeachment," Baldwin, a senior research fellow at the Western Journalism Center, says the issue of impeachment "is no longer a laughing matter."

"With the economy continuing to implode, the coming collapse of the dollar, high unemployment rates, the government takeover of entire industries, the administration's weak and naive response to the worldwide jihadist threat, and the ongoing frontal assault on our Judeo-Christian heritage, the impeachment option is one that can no longer be ignored," he finds.

Impeachment, after all, is based on "high crimes and misdemeanors," an "old English common law phrase which, in the 1600s, meant negligence, abuse of power, and abuse of trust," the report says.

"Not only has the Obama administration promoted dangerous and unsustainable policies, but it has also engaged in corrupt and illegal activities such as bribery, a crime the Founders specifically cited as an impeachable offense. Moreover, this report details numerous instances of Obama lying to the American people, a pattern which clearly indicates a character defect that in itself endangers America. Given this, we believe impeachment is necessary for the future survival of America," says the report.

Among the factors Americans should consider:

  • Obama's violations of federal campaign and ethics laws, including the offers from his administration to Democratic U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, who reported he was offered a high-ranking government job to drop his opposition in the Pennsylvania Senate primary to sitting Sen. Arlen Specter.

  • Obama's effort "to persuade the [Illinois] governor to fill the vacated Senate seat with his longtime adviser Valerie Jarrett."

  • Suggestions from Obama's own Federal Election Commission documentation that he got at least $33.8 million for his campaign from disallowed foreign contributions, including 520 contributions from interests in Iran as well as $30,000 from the Hamas-controlled Gaza area.

  • Obama's administration decision to drop a case that prosecutors already had won against "black nationalist thugs" who were seen on video apparently intimidating voters during the 2008 election.

  • Obama fired an inspector general, Gerald Walpin, after he exposed corruption linked to one of Obama's buddies, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson.

  • The president's system of rewarding supporters has come under question. The report confirms more than 70 individuals who raised $50,000 or more for Obama "have been rewarded with ambassadorships or high ranking jobs."

The report documents how Obama's actions even may have endangered Americans by "treating the war on terrorism as a criminal matter and downplaying the war on terrorism."

"This attitude has manifested itself in a number of ways: Obama's casual attitude may have encouraged domestic terrorist attacks, such as the November 5, 2009, Ft. Hood shooting by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan that left thirteen American military personnel dead."

His Department of Homeland Security also has "described veterans and other law-abiding Americans [as] 'rightwing extremists,'" the report says.

Further, the report explains how the U.S. State Department gave a grant to the Al-Quds television network, owned by the terrorist group Hamas, and invited them to the U.S. to produce a propaganda film.

Samantha Power, who once referred to the U.S. presence in Iraq as an "occupation" even as she favored sending troops to Israel to forcibly impose a Palestinian state, was appointed by Obama to the National Security Council, the report says.

And the report reveals how rapper Jay-Z and Beyonce were photographed sitting around the "Situation Room" ? the confidential White House location filled with top secret communications equipment that allows the tracking of terror threats worldwide.

Access to the room normally requires a high security clearance level.

"Many of Obama's actions, if they do not flat-out violate the Constitution, certainly undermine the spirit and intent of the Constitution as envisioned by our Founding Fathers," the report explains.

And his fiscal policies "are causing unprecedented damage to America's financial health and to our reputation abroad."

The president even has changed history to remove Christian references, the report explains.

"In his 2010 Easter greeting message, Obama quoted from a sermon given by a military pastor on Iwo Jima in 1945. However, he removed passages dealing with Christian doctrine ? like Christ's resurrection ? in order to make the quote appealing to all religions, even though Easter is NOT a multicultural event; it's a Christian event. Obama altered a great historical quote in order to serve his multicultural worldview. Apparently he is embarrassed by America?s Christian heritage."

The report also has extensive sections on Democrats' new health-care law and what it means, as well as immigration.

"President Barack Obama has proven to be incompetent, reckless, deceitful, and naive when it comes to making economic decisions and protecting America?s security interests. His history of corruption, power-grabbing, and misleading the American people have created a pattern we believe jeopardizes America," the report says.

"This report reveals a pattern that demonstrates Obama is constantly engaging in actions that reflect a hard-left ideology antithetical to America's founding principles. ? Obama is clearly dismissive of America?s constitutional principles and obviously dislikes the role America plays in the world. He dislikes our Judeo-Christian heritage and detests America's historical allies.

"Less than halfway through his first term, Obama has done more damage to America than any previous president in history. Some of the damage can be repaired; some can't. Some of his policies will haunt generations to come," the report says. "It's time for the American people to rise up and demand Congress impeach him."


Related offer:

"The Case for Impeachment: Why Barack Hussein Obama Should be Impeached to Save America"


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:46
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 23 de agosto de 2010

?

?

The Sunday Advertiser August 13, 1961

<img style=" />

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/7558/obama1961birthannouncemcr9.png

Samuel K. Haae born August 4, 1961, and died July 6, 1963


http://files.usgwarchives.net/hi/hawaii/cemeteries/stbenedict.txt


http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/21/results-of-investigation-made-possible-by-donors-to-the-post-email-legal-fund/

?

WAS OBAMA GIVEN A CERTIFICATE NUMBER WHICH HAD BELONGED TO SOMEONE ELSE?

by Sharon Rondeau

?

The Dunhams were found in the Polk's Directory as residing in Honolulu from sometime in 1960 forward

(Aug. 21, 2010) ? In June, The Post & Email solicited funds for its Legal Defense Fund for a specific research project focusing on details and discrepancies surrounding Obama?s alleged birth in Hawaii. Many of our readers were very generous with their donations, including one who put forth a ?matching grant? challenge which was met and even surpassed. With the help of a private donor, The Post & Email was able to fund an investigative journey to Hawaii for an experienced researcher. The results of the investigation follow in the researcher?s own words........

?

........ RESEARCHER: Yes, I think it was just to help people out. I think it?s safe to say that I?m not the only person who has gone into the Department of Health looking for Mr. Obama?s index data.

After that, because of some information that I had obtained from another researcher, I began another leg of my investigation. There is speculation that because Mr. Obama has a certificate number that is higher than the Nordyke twins who were born on August 5, 1961 at Kapiolani Women and Children?s Hospital, yet their births were registered on August 11, 1961, three days after Mr. Obama?s was allegedly registered and that he is using the certificate number of another infant born within a certain date range and registered on August 11th which was a Friday and no later than Monday, August 14th. It depends on what time of the day the Nordyke twins? birth certificates were processed; the certificate number that Mr. Obama was allegedly assigned was likely assigned the same day as the Nordykes?.

MRS. RONDEAU: What is the relationship between the certificate number of the Nordykes and the number on the FactCheck-Obama document online?

RESEARCHER: The Nordyke twins? birth certificate numbers are either 151-1961-010636/37 or 151-1961-010638/39, because only one of the twins? birth certificates is posted online and that was the one identified with the certificate number 010638. Mr. Obama?s certificate was allegedly processed on August 8th and has the number 010641, which is no more than two or three numbers higher than the one Nordyke twin certificate number. I have confirmation from the DoH in response to UIPA requests I made last winter that the numbers were not preprinted on the form. The numbers were assigned by the Department of Health when the birth registration was accepted by the State Registrar, and only in the DoH main office located in Honolulu.

MRS. RONDEAU: So as a birth occurred and the information reached the Department of Health, a number was assigned.

RESEARCHER: Yes, and I believe that regardless of the actual birth date, they just assigned the next sequential number when the birth registration was processed. I don?t think there is necessarily any attempt on their part to order them by birth date.

MRS. RONDEAU: Is there any other information that you think our readers would like to know about?

RESEARCHER: I think that is a significant anomaly. Based on the information that?s been gathered thus far and the procedures used by the Department of Health during this time period, I just don?t think that it?s feasible that Mr. Obama?s certificate number could possibly be three or four numbers higher and accepted three days earlier than those of the Nordyke twins, which leads me to believe that that number belongs to another person and in all likelihood, it could belong to the infant or young child that was born within a certain date range whose birth was registered on August 11th that later died shortly after the birth or within a couple of years. I really can?t elaborate beyond that since there is still ongoing research to see if we can identify the person certificate number 010641 could possibly belong to. We?re trying to obtain some official HI documents that will aid in our research with the generous help of The Post & Email Legal Fund and its donors......

?

FULL ARTICLE http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/21/results-of-investigation-made-possible-by-donors-to-the-post-email-legal-fund/


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:43
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 22 de agosto de 2010

The strange case of Judge David O. Carter

Print This Post

WHAT TURNED THIS DECORATED WAR HERO INTO A PUPPET FOR THE OBAMA REGIME?

by David F. LaRocque

?

Judge David O. Carter was appointed to the federal bench by President Clinton in 1998

(Aug. 22, 2010) ? On August 11, 2010, an Appellants? Opening Brief was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by Dr. Orly Taitz, in the case Pamela Barnett, Alan Keyes, et al v. Barack Obama et al. This appeal is seeking to overturn the decision of Judge David O. Carter of the United States District Court for the Central District of California in an order of dismissal issued on October 29, 2009. The grounds for the appeal are based on an assertion that the ?District Court acted with bias, lack of impartiality, and under improper and undue influence from (the) Obama administration.?

The original case was filed on January 20, 2009 on behalf of over 40 plaintiffs, including many retired officers and enlisted members of the U.S. military, Ambassador Alan Keyes (2008 presidential candidate of the American Independent Party), and Gail Lightfoot (a Libertarian Party member and write-in candidate for vice president). The plaintiffs were seeking ?a judicial review and declaratory relief on the issue of legitimacy for the U.S. presidency and (the) position of Commander-in-Chief by Barack Hussein Obama.?

The brief goes on to assert that ?there is ample evidence of his (Obama?s) illegitimacy to (the) U.S. presidency due to his use of another person?s Social Security number?; due to the lack of his long-form birth certificate with the names of a doctor and a hospital; due to the fact that his mother?s passport records show a different last name for him (Obama); and other records and national data-bases show(ing) him (Obama) using multiple Social Security numbers, several different names, different birthdates, and different countries of origin.?

A similar suit was filed by a second attorney, Gary Kreep, representing plaintiffs Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson. This lawsuit was later merged with the Barnett action, over the objections of both attorneys, in a hearing before Judge Carter on July 13, 2009.

When the plaintiffs and their attorneys learned that the district court judge assigned to the case was Judge David O. Carter, they were elated and greatly encouraged. Judge Carter is a graduate of both UCLA and the UCLA School of Law, and a highly experienced and respected jurist. Judge Carter has a background as a criminal prosecutor and as a professor at several institutions, including the University of California at Irvine, where he has received the school?s Distinguished Professor Award three times. He also lectures frequently at judicial conferences worldwide, and at the California Judges College, the Judicial Criminal Law Institute, and the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference.

In addition to his excellent legal background, Judge Carter is a war hero. He served as a commissioned officer in the United States Marine Corps, with combat duty in the Vietnam War, where he fought in the Battle of Khe Sanh in early 1968 when the Marine Khe Sanh Combat Base (KSCB) was under siege for 77 days.

A Wikipedia entry describes the conclusion of that battle:

During the battle a massive aerial bombardment campaign (Operation Niagara) was launched by the U.S. Air Force to support the Marine base. This campaign used the latest technological advances in order to locate PAVN (People?s Army of Vietnam) forces for targeting. The logistical effort to support KSCB, once it was isolated overland, demanded the implementation of other tactical innovations in order to keep the Marines supplied.

In March 1968, an overland relief expedition (Operation Pegasus) was launched by a combined Marine/Army/South Vietnamese task force that eventually broke through to the Marines at Khe Sanh. The battle was a tactical victory for the Marines, although it had no clear strategic implications; some historians have observed that the PAVN frontier battles prior to the general Tet Offensive of early 1968 served to distract American and GVN attention as Viet Cong forces were assembled.

Marine First Lieutenant David O. Carter was awarded a Purple Heart and the Bronze Star (the fourth-highest combat award of the U.S. armed forces) for his bravery under fire at the Battle of Khe Sanh.

To the plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama, Judge David O. Carter seemed like an answer to their prayers. How could they ask for a more perfect judge? In a case which required a combination of an extraordinary judicial temperament, demonstrated courage, and unquestioned loyalty to the United States Constitution, Judge Carter seemed to have all of these qualities in abundance. Moreover, since there were strong indications of serious criminal acts of election fraud in the events leading up to the conclusion of the 2008 presidential election, it was felt that Judge Carter (given his prosecutorial background) was likely to share the plaintiffs? desire to see the case heard on its merits, and that he would insure that an appropriate judicial environment was maintained to insure that would happen.

The first hearing in the case was held in the federal courthouse in Santa Ana, CA on July 13, 2009 with Judge Carter presiding. Interested citizens lined up early outside the courthouse for security screening. After a lengthy delay, the courtroom was finally opened for seating.? This writer was an eyewitness to the proceedings.

Once the hearing got under way, it seemed to bog down in a lengthy dispute over the question of whether an amended complaint was properly served on the defendants by Attorney Taitz. Later in the hearing, it became apparent that there were problems between the attorney for Drake and Robinson? (Mr. Kreep), and the attorney for the Barnett plaintiffs (Dr. Taitz).

The central issue in dispute was between the respective attorneys regarding the meaning of the presidential eligibility clause in the Constitution. Attorney Kreep insisted that the Constitution does not require U.S. citizenship of both parents, while Attorney Taitz argued that this requirement is intrinsic to the Article II requirements.

Attorney Taitz was seeking a separation of the cases for trial. However, Judge Carter would not accept the prospect of the two cases being tried separately, insisting that a higher court would eventually merge them in any case, and that the goal of an expeditious resolution of the case on its merits would be best served by merging the cases. The respective attorneys finally agreed to combine the cases under protest after a private discussion also witnessed by this writer during a lengthy recess but failed to resolve their differences.

Setting aside the lengthy interchanges which took place over the issues described above, the remaining portion of the proceedings dealing with the substantive issues of the case was relatively short. During that time, the following comments were made by Judge Carter and have been excerpted from the official transcript of the proceedings:

P. 48: ?I wish this would be resolved on its merits quickly?he?s either not president or he is.?

P. 52: ?I mean, if he?s not president, he shouldn?t be president; and if he is, he should be. And we need to resolve this on the merits.?

P. 37 ??If he doesn?t meet the criteria, he?s not the president of the United States.?

P. 53: ?When you come back to this court, I?m going to be putting a lot of pressure on both of you to produce. And therefore ?expect this case to move.?

P. 53: ?So if you want this case expedited, I?ll expedite it, and I?ll get the documents in front of this court, I mean immediately. There?s no question about that.

(To Plaintiff?s counsel) Because if you?re correct, then from your perspective and the country?s perspective, he?s not president.

(To U.S. Attorney) If you?re correct, we set this aside immediately. It?s done and the country isn?t sitting there wondering who the Commander-in-Chief is or who the President of the United States is.?(Emphasis added)

P. 58: ?I think we finally got it into a posture that we can decide it on the merits.?(Emphasis added)

When the hearing ended, the plaintiffs and their attorneys felt confident that there would be no dismissal of this case on the technicality of ?standing? (as had occurred in several other prominent eligibility cases), and that it would finally be heard on its merits by Judge Carter. Further, the plaintiffs felt that those merits would be very strong, probably even conclusive, once the fruits of the discovery phase of the trial became available.

Then, in early October, word came out that something very strange had happened. Judge Carter had hired a new law clerk, but not just any law clerk.

Judge Carter could have hired a law clerk from among the recent graduates of any one of a number of fine law schools (including his alma mater, the UCLA School of Law) or from any one of hundreds of elite law firms in California and across the country. Instead he hired Siddharth Velamoor, from the Seattle law firm of Perkins Coie, the firm which represented the presidential campaign of Barack Obama and the firm where Obama?s White House Counsel Robert Bauer was formerly a partner.? Bauer is married to Anita Dunn, former White House Director of Communications, who is infamous for her publicly-expressed deep admiration for the political philosophy of Mao Zedong, the greatest mass murderer in the history of mankind according to author and former Red Guard Jung Chang? in her masterpiece biography of Mao entitled Mao: The Unknown Story.

Here is Attorney Taitz on the Velamoor engagement:

While originally the presiding judge, David O. Carter seemed to be willing to show some impartiality, it quickly dissipated from the beginning of October 20009, when Judge Carter hired as his law clerk an attorney, Sidharth Velamoor, (a former) employee of Perkins Coie, that represented Obama in most of the litigation where Obama?s eligibility was challenged. Moreover, White House Counsel Robert Bauer is a senior partner in Perkins Coie, and personally opposed (both) Taitz and Kreep in a prior similar action.

Velamoor not only came from Obama?s defense firm, he also had a peculiar similarity to Obama in his education and background. Velamoor is listed in some of his curricula vitae as graduating from Columbia Law School, while others show him graduating from an obscure Commenis Law School in Slovakia. Obama is known as a person who has sealed most of his vital records, among them his Columbia University records. It is not clear how much time Obama spent actually studying at Columbia University, how much did he spend abroad, specifically in Pakistan, and got equivalency credits from Columbia, just as Velamoor.

To say that the Barnett plaintiffs were stunned on hearing this news is putting it mildly. This astonishing new development was not only unbelievable; it was incomprehensible. How could this happen in America? On the face of it, this surprising action by Judge Carter was so far outside the norm of appropriate judicial conduct that it seemed unimaginable. It even gave off an odor of corruption and manipulation of the judiciary that was so out of character with what we knew of Judge Carter that one had to wonder ? what was the nature of the pressure that was brought to bear on Judge Carter that he would even entertain such a course of action?

To the Barnett plaintiffs and their attorneys, it seemed that Barack Obama had literally stepped into Judge Carter?s court room and sneered at us, telling us literally that ?I have so much power that you cannot touch me! I am untouchable and I will do as I please.?

A second hearing was held on October 5, 2009 at the federal courthouse in Santa Ana, CA, again with Judge Carter presiding which this writer attended. The security procedures upon entering the courthouse had tightened considerably, and security personnel reviewed identification, recorded names and addresses, and issued security badges to all attendees. After the courtroom was opened for seating, it soon filled to capacity. In order to accommodate the unseated observers, Judge Carter arranged for a second courtroom with closed-circuit TV for viewing of the proceedings.

Once the hearing commenced, a change in tone became immediately apparent. It seemed that Judge Carter was much more skeptical of the plaintiff?s case, and noticeably more adversarial in his exchanges with Attorney Taitz. In an affidavit regarding this hearing which I provided in connection with the August 11 appeal, I stated that ?I thought (the) change in Judge Carter?s demeanor from one hearing to the (October 5) hearing?was striking and quite surprising.? Another affiant made a similar statement in her affidavit: ?After the hearing a large group of people met outside and declared that we couldn?t believe the change in the judge?s demeanor. One of the gentlemen, who said that he had known Judge Carter for a long time, stated that he had never seen him like that before.?

On October 29, 2009, a not unexpected but nevertheless extremely disappointing favorable ruling on Obama?s Motion for Dismissal was released by Judge Carter in the Barnett case. Here are the words of Judge Carter (if these are in fact his words) in what the Barnett plaintiffs feel was a betrayal of the American people:

Plaintiffs have expressed frustration with the notion that this case could be dismissed on separation of powers, political question, or standing grounds, asserting that these are mere ?technicalities? obstructing plaintiffs from being able to resolve the case on the merits of President Obama?s birth and constitutional qualifications. As the Supreme Court has stated, ?It is indeed a singular misconception of the nature and character of our constitutional system of government to suggest that the settled distinction?between judicial authority over justiciable controversies and legislative power as to purely political questions tends to destroy the duty of the judiciary in proper cases to enforce the Constitution.? Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118, 149-150, 32 S. Ct. 224 (1912) Interpreting the Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of this nation have been entrusted under article III. However, that very same Constitution puts limits on the reach of the federal courts. One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through the President can be removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the court in that process.

Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by ?We the People? ? over sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the Constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.?

THERFORE, for the reason stated above, Defendants? Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 29, 2009

(signed)

____________________

DAVID O. CARTER

United States District Judge

Well, what do you think of that?

Do those words sound like the words of Judge David O. Carter as we heard him on July 13, 2009? Or do those words sound eerily similar to the words of so many uttered against the so-called ?birthers? which have appeared in the mainstream media? Is it possible that those words could have come from one Robert Bauer?

More importantly, what if the president is not the president? If the person sworn into office as president is not constitutionally qualified to serve in that office, is he, in fact, the president? How does the Constitution ?limit the reach of the federal courts? to provide a remedy in this situation, when it is apparent that numerous criminal acts must have taken place for the conspiring parties to have installed an ineligible person in the office of President of the United States?

What if the putative president is not even a U.S. citizen, much less a natural born Citizen, as the Constitution requires?

What legally admissible evidence do the American people have that Barack Obama is, in fact, a U.S. citizen, or that he is eligible to serve in the office of president?

If we cannot get such evidence from you, Judge Carter, and Congress will not get it, and Obama will not provide it, where do we get it?

What if the election process which put this man?s purported election before the Electoral College was characterized by massive election fraud to a degree never before seen in this country?

What if the members of Congress, who ratified the results of the Electoral College vote, failed to fulfill their constitutional duty to verify that the person elected to the office of president was constitutionally eligible to serve?

What if the sixty-nine million people who voted for Barack Obama believed, in error, that he was actually eligible to serve as president according to the Constitution when they voted for him, as they were assured by those functionaries of the Obama campaign who presented only forged documents on the internet as proof of such eligibility?

And finally, Judge Carter, how do you square your ruling with the words of Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison:

The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.

I ask you, sir ? if Article II of the United States Constitution sets forth certain unequivocal and indisputable requirements to serve in the office of president, do those requirements not imply the existence of a ?vested legal right? of the people to have a constitutionally-qualified president??

And if the person elected to that office has not only failed to demonstrate conformance with those requirements, but has refused to do so;

And if the Congress refuses to act to resolve this controversy;

And if the courts repeatedly refuse to hear cases brought before them which seek a remedy for this violation of the vested legal right of the people to have a constitutionally-qualified president on the grounds of the ?mere technicalities? you cite, then:

Where, sir, do the people go to find a remedy in the law to their inability to enforce their vested legal right to a constitutionally-qualified president?

And more importantly, does the government of the United States remain a government of laws and not of men, as it was described by Justice Marshall, or has our government ceased to deserve this high appellation?

? 2010, The Post & Email. 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.

?


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:55
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 18 de agosto de 2010

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/08/atty-apuzzo-cdr-kerchner-will-be-on.html

?

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner will be on Dr. Kate's Revolution Radio Show tonight - Wed, 18 Aug 2010, 9:00 p.m. EST

Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner will be on Dr. Kate's Revolution Radio Show tonight - Wed, 18 Aug 2010, 9:00 p.m. EST

Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Kerchner will be on the Revolution Radio Show hosted by Dr. Kate to discuss the status of the Kerchner et al vs Obama & Congress et al lawsuit for which a Writ of Certiorari is being prepared for submission to the U.S. Supreme Court.


Direct link to Dr. Kate's Revolution Radio show at BlogTalkRadio.com:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drkate/2010/08/19/revolution-radio-constitutional-crisis



Dr. Kate's Blog:
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/

Also, please cast your votes to Help the Cause to get the word out:
1st: Vote for Mario to be a guest on Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch TV show: Please add your vote here (in addition to making a comment if desired) to get Attorney Mario Apuzzo on the air with the Judge Andrew Napolitano to discuss this issue. Go to this link and click on the VOTE button and cast 3 of your 10 votes for Mario Apuzzo. Don't just make a comment only. That does not count as a vote. Be sure to VOTE too: http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16626-freedom-watch-guest-suggestions/suggestions/268573-mario-apuzzo-esq-


2nd: Vote for the show topic to be "natural born Citizenship". Please add your vote (in addition to making a comment if desired) for this new TV Show topic suggested by JTX at the Judge Andrew Napolitano "Freedom Watch" TV show suggestion forum. Go to this link and click on the VOTE button and cast 3 of your 10 votes for the show topic to be "natural born Citizenship". Don't just make a comment only. That does not count as a vote. Be sure to VOTE too: http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/969299-natural-born-citizen-meaning-in-natural-law-s?ref=title

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, visit this site and help the cause:
http://www.protectourliberty.org
####


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:19
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 17 de agosto de 2010

50 Impeachable Crimes and Counting

?By Fred Dardick??Tuesday, August 17, 2010

A few weeks ago I wrote an article From the White House to the Big House: 25 Impeachable Crimes and Counting that detailed 25 illegal acts committed by President Obama and his Democrat cohorts in Washington. It showed a President and political party willing to break the law at will in order to accomplish their political aims. Thanks to reader contributions and conservative writers around the country, here are 25 more for your consideration.


Whether or not any of these troubling examples will lead to Obama?s impeachment and/or imprisonment, only time will tell. Regardless, taken together they paint a picture of an out of control President who lacks basic American values and has little to no respect for the rule of law.

25 More Impeachable Crimes

  1. Obama?s term as Board Chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in the mid-1990s where he and his colleague, unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, misused over $300 million in private donations meant to improve the education of minorities. Instead of spending the money on traditional learning programs, Obama and Ayers directed the funds to local community activists who wasted it on trying to ?radicalize? the students. An official review of the program found that it was a complete and utter failure.
  2. As an Illinois State Senator, Obama directed tens of millions in state money to slumlords Valerie Jarrett and Tony Rezko meant to provide for housing for low income, minority tenants in return for political donations. Due to shoddy construction and nonexistent maintenance, the majority of the units, after less than 10 years of use, have been rendered uninhabitable.
  3. Michelle Obama?s politically connected $316,000 VP of Community Affairs job at University of Chicago Hospitals while her husband was serving as US Senator. She was responsible for the design of an illegal ?patient dumping? scheme that prevents local African Americans from using the emergency room at one of the nation?s finest hospitals and instead redirects them to community healthcare centers where they often receive substandard and inadequate treatment. The high paying position was eliminated soon after Mrs. Obama?s departure from the university.
  4. Millions in illegal contributions accepted by the Obama campaign during his presidential run. Credit card filters designed to screen out foreign money and domestic donors who had maxed out their legally allowable limits, as required by US law, were intentionally switched off.
  5. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?s ongoing effort to create international small arms accords that will subvert the Second Amendment rights of US citizens.
  6. The Russian-American START treaty signed by Obama in April 2010 that has no chance of making it through Congress unless passed during the lame duck session. Not only does the treaty hamstring US missile defense development and make it difficult to modernize our rapidly aging nuclear weapons arsenal, it represents unilateral disarmament by the US in return for nothing more than Russian ?good will?.
  7. Moving control of the Census Bureau from the Commerce Department directly into the White House where it is managed by Chief of Staff Rham Emmanuel.
  8. Providing de facto amnesty to illegal immigrants by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton, who has prohibited ICE officers from enforcing US immigration laws outside the institutional setting. The ICE union has subsequently taken the unprecedented step of voting ?no confidence? in Morton?s leadership.
  9. Attorney General Erik Holder?s failure to sue sanctuary cities for violating US immigration law, while at the same time proceeding with a lawsuit against the State of Arizona for enforcing US immigration law.
  10. Failure by Obama to treat the takeover of sovereign land in Arizona by the Mexican drug cartel as an Act of War.
  11. Refusal by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Administrator David L. Strickland to release results from an internal investigation into the Toyota sudden acceleration problem that contains findings favorable to the foreign automaker.
  12. Ongoing efforts by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to gain control over the internet in opposition to a judge?s ruling and Congress?s will, by reclassifying internet companies as telecommunication providers thus making them subject to FCC regulation.
  13. Obama and his environmentalist allies preventing US industries from taking advantage of our rich natural resources including oil, coal, uranium and timber.
  14. Obama?s month long stint as UN Security Council Chair in 2009, the first ever by a sitting U.S. President. Not only did this action give credibility to an international organization ruled by tyrants, it also called into question potential dual loyalties by our President.
  15. The Obama National Security Strategy released in May that allows for the targeted assassination of US citizens including ?homegrown terrorists? without due process. It has also been described by the Kremlin, which knows quite a lot about these kinds of things, as a ?new law put forth by President Obama capable of seeing up to 500,000 American citizens jailed for the crime of opposing their government.?
  16. Obama executive order signed in Dec. 2009 that allows Interpol to operate in US territory with impunity and without oversight by Congress, the courts, FBI or local law enforcement.
  17. Deployment of 1,200 National Guard troops to border states where they will not, under any circumstances, be used to stop the flow of illegal aliens or drug traffickers.
  18. A foreign policy that can be best described as the turning away of our allies, in particular Great Britain, Israel, Honduras, Poland, Columbia, and Taiwan, and the embracement of our enemies.
  19. The State Department using $23 million in taxpayer money to help transform Kenya into a constitutionally communist nation where the freedom of speech is limited and private property rights are subservient to ?social justice?. In addition, the recently adopted Kenyan constitution allows for the practice of Sharia Law in some regions, ensuring women will not be guaranteed basic human rights.
  20. Obama?s refusal to hold press conferences and answer difficult questions as expected of a US President. Never in the modern age has there been a President so unwilling to answer to the American people for his actions. Considering the public?s growing anger towards his progressive policies, it is doubtful Obama will ever hold another press conference again.
  21. The $26 billion bailout of the teacher?s unions that Obama recently signed into law. Not only was the money taken from food stamp programs for poor Americans in order to fund Democrat special interests, a portion will be skimmed off the top as union dues and funneled to Democrat political campaigns this fall.
  22. Obama?s involvement with Governor Rod Blagojevich?s attempt to sell his old Illinois Senate seat. Even if Obama didn?t try to purchase the position for his chosen replacement, slumlord Valerie Jarrett, at the very least he had to know the seat was for sale.
  23. Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar?s plans to take control of millions of acres of public and private land in Western states by designating them national monuments. These efforts are being carried out in secret and without input from Congress, state and local officials and current land owners.
  24. Obama?s use of taxpayer money to pay for Democrat propaganda including $15 million for The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act road signs and $18 million for the perpetually misleading recovery.gov website.
  25. The lasting damage Obama has done to the Jewish people. In his less than two years in office, there has been an outpouring of hatred towards the Jews the likes of which I thought I would never live to see. From Helen Thomas telling the Jews to ?get the hell out of Palestine? to heavily armed, terrorist flotillas destined for the Gaza Strip described as ?peaceful? by the western press. From throwing stones at little old ladies leaving synagogue in Sweden to the thousands of Jewish families fleeing Muslim persecution in France, a sea change in world public opinion against the Jewish people has been accomplished during Obama?s term. Because of his refusal to speak out against virulent anti-Semitism being pushed by left-wing politicians and Islamists around the world, the harm to the Jewish people will surely outlive his presidency and could have terrible, unforeseen consequences.

Original List of 25 Impeachable Offences

  1. Convicted felon and Chicago real estate developer Tony Rezko?s purchase of land adjacent to Obama?s house in Hyde Park, IL. In 2006, Rezko sold a 10 foot strip of his property to Obama for $104,500, rendering the remainder of Rezko?s $625,000 investment too small to be developed and, for all intents and purposes, worthless.
  2. The provision of Obama campaign donor lists to ACORN in 2007 and 2008, more complete than the ones he gave to the FEC. ACORN used the lists to raise money for Obama?s election from donors who had already maxed out their legally allowable contributions.
  3. Widespread voter fraud including voter intimidation, ballot stuffing, falsified documents, and threats of violence against Hillary Clinton supporters committed by the Obama campaign and ACORN during the 2008 Democrat primary election. For more information see my CFP article How Obama Used an Army of Thugs to Steal the 2008 Democratic Party Nomination.
  4. Obama?s refusal to release his long form birth certificate which would show conclusively that he is a dual citizen and therefore not constitutionally eligible to serve as President. Obama?s college records, which have also not been released, would also contain information regarding his dual citizenship status.
  5. Protecting union interests over those of GM and Chrysler bond holders during bankruptcy proceedings, forcing investors to accept millions of dollars in losses in direct violation of bankruptcy laws, money to which they were legally entitled.
  6. Preferential treatment given to minority and women owned car dealerships by Obama administration officials as part of the auto industry bailout program and the forced closing of a disproportionate number of dealerships located in rural areas that did not vote for Obama.
  7. Unsubstantiated firing of Corporation for National and Community Service Inspector General Gerald Walpin for exposing Sacramento Mayor and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson?s misuse of an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant.
  8. Purchase of Congressional support for the passage of Obama?s healthcare bill including the ?Cornhusker Kickback?, ?Louisiana Purchase? and having the Department of Interior increase water allocations to the Central Valley of California to secure the votes of Democrat Reps. Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa.
  9. Lying to the American people by promising they could keep their healthcare coverage if they wanted to, when in reality tens of millions will be forced out of their current plans.
  10. Attempted bribery of Rep. Joe Sestak with job offers to get him to drop out of the Senate primary race against Sen. Arlen Specter.
  11. Directing the EPA to unilaterally set carbon emission standards, thus bypassing Congress which opposes Obama?s energy reform bill. For more information see my CFP article Forget Cap and Trade: EPA Regulation of CO2 Emissions Will Begin in 10 Months.
  12. The Obama administration?s statement that a panel of experts had agreed with their plan for a 6 month Gulf Coast drilling moratorium, when in actuality none of them had supported the measure.
  13. Bullying BP to set up a $20 billion slush fund to compensate Gulf Coast businesses and residents affected by the oil spill, to be administered by an Obama political appointee without any judicial or congressional oversight.
  14. Implementing a third oil-drilling moratorium after the first two were thrown out of court, creating a de facto Gulf Coast offshore drilling ban in opposition to two judge?s rulings.
  15. Establishment of a commission to investigate the Gulf Coast oil spill that contains not one oil industry expert and whose transparent purpose is to push a partisan political agenda rather than investigate the cause of the disaster.
  16. Obama?s policy of intentionally not securing our nation?s borders, in opposition to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution which calls for the President to protect states from foreign invasion, in an attempt to blackmail Republican support for comprehensive immigration reform. In essence, Obama is holding border states and residents politically hostage during a time they are being overrun by a narco-paramilitary invasion.
  17. Department of Justice illegal race based policies regarding voter fraud as exposed by former Justice attorney J. Christian Adams. This includes the dropping of voter intimidation charges against 2 Black Panthers brandishing weapons in front of a voting location in Philadelphia and the stated intention by political appointees to ignore voter crimes committed by African Americans, Latinos and other minorities.
  18. Department of Justice purposefully allowing some states to continue their disenfranchisement of military personnel serving overseas in direct opposition to the 2009 Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act, which was established in response to the more than 17,000 military votes that were not counted in the 2008 election because ballots had arrived after the deadline.
  19. Recess appointment of Donald Berwick as head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services without even a token attempt to put him through the Congressional nomination process, signaling that Congress?s constitutional obligation to vet presidential appointees means nothing to Obama. The same can be said of the 30+ Obama administration czars.
  20. Spending $23 million of taxpayer money through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to support a constitutional referendum in Kenya in spite of the Siljander Amendment, which makes it illegal for the U.S. to lobby for abortion in other countries. The Kenyan referendum was partially written by Planned Parenthood and is designed to legalize abortion in that nation.
  21. The participation of the Obama administration in the firing of Sherry Sherrod from the USDA without due process because of publicized out of context remarks she made at a NAACP meeting in March 2010.
  22. The White House sham investigation of BP?s involvement in the release of the mass murdering Lockerbie bomber from prison. The Obama administration not only knew beforehand of the Scottish government?s plan to set Abdel Baset al-Megrahi free on ?compassionate? grounds, they even sent a letter to Scottish authorities stating their preference for his remaining in Scotland over his transfer to a Libyan prison.
  23. The canceling of 77 properly filed oil field development contracts approved by the Bush administration by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, preventing the extraction of up to 3 trillion gallons of oil buried under Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and North Dakota, more than enough to end our dependence on foreign oil and supply the U.S. with its energy needs for hundreds of years at current consumption rates.
  24. Investigations by the Department of Homeland Security to determine the political affiliation of people making Freedom of Information Act requests and the subsequent delay and even altogether ignoring of requests made by Republican affiliated individuals.
  25. The hardest to prosecute in court, but worst crime of all that Obama has perpetrated against the American people is the economic tyranny his socialist policies have wrecked upon our nation. While Obama has been living the life of a king including frequent 5 star vacations, dozens of concerts at the White House and endless rounds of golf, all paid for by taxpayer money?the increased transportation and security costs alone are in the millions of dollars?he has called for the rest of us to endure economic sacrifice. The annual trillion dollar deficits and borrowing of 41 cents of every dollar of federal spending by Obama is leading to unsustainable and potentially catastrophic national debt.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:57
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

There is no ?President Obama?

Print This Post

BUT THERE ARE TRAITORS IN CONGRESS, THE COURTS, AND THE WHITE HOUSE

August 17, 2010

Dear Editor,

?

If Obama is a usurper, will we ever see justice served and adequate punishment carried out?

The Obama ?Presidency? is nonexistent. The media refers to Barack Obama as ?President Obama.?? I have said it many times in the past and will reiterate it now:

Barack Obama has never?been the President of the United States of America.? Under the U.S. Constitution, one has to be a ?natural born Citizen,? which means born in the U.S., of parents, both of whom?are American?Citizens, in order to become President of the United States.

Given the facts and circumstances of Barack Obama?s birth, Obama had only one American citizen parent. Obama?s father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a British citizen. There is some talk that Obama may actually be the son of Malcolm X. Who really knows who Barack Obama is and if that is his real name?? His entire past has been purposely obfuscated.

Obama just fired his ?transparency Czar.? I suppose that he will be looking for an ?Obfuscation czar.? After all, Obama paid his lawyers to help him ?evade? the constitutional ?natural born Citizen? requirement. Indeed, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas laughingly told the U.S. Congress that the Supreme Court was also ?evading that issue.? John Paul Jones, American Revolutionary Naval Hero, once referred to England as a ?country of illegitimate corruption.? Has the United States arrived at that same juncture?

Obama is a criminal, a radical Islamist supremacist. Two hundred and thirty four years after declaring independence from Britain, a British-born citizen rules the U.S. This is the second Brit to do so. The other was Chester?A. Arthur. Arthur had his staff salute the British flag. Obama waved the Red Chinese flag over the South Lawn of the White House in 2009.

Obama has a very dark side.? He is a quisling, a traitor to the United States of America. I am of the opinion that he should be arrested and tried and if convicted, executed by firing squad (See 18 USC, Part 1, Chapter 115, Sec. 2381).

As reported by the BBC, Obama went to Kenya and while having owed allegiance to the United States, campaigned for Raila Odinga, a known enemy of the United States, giving Odinga aid and comfort. It was Odinga who wanted to be President of Kenya. He ran against President Mwai Kibaki, a Roman Catholic. Kibaki was/is an ally of the U.S. Obama campaigned against Kibaki and for Odinga. Obama has given a great deal of money to Odinga and has helped him lead Kenya down a billabong (Obama is ?leading? the U.S. down the same billabong). Currently, the U.S. State Department is downplaying Obama?s activities in Kenya and his having sent taxpayer money there. Odinga instituted Sharia law in Kenya and collaborated with the same Muslim groups which bombed two U.S. embassies. Obama interjected his support of these activities. By campaigning for Odinga, Obama became?a traitor to the U.S.

It is important to note that Hillary Clinton, an Obama cohort and accomplice?to fraud in the 2008 presidential?election here in the USA, is the current Secretary of State. The U.S. is having mid-term elections in November. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is making plans to run as Obama?s Vice-President in 2012.

The adage ?O, what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive? is appropos here. Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and many others in the same cabal have failed to take said adage seriously. This writer is a co-charging party in an International Criminal Court investigation of the Kenyan Election violence. I have submitted numerous documents to the ICC regarding Obama?s activities.

Obama?s name will go down in infamy in the history books. The names ?Benedict Arnold? and ?Barack Obama? are synonymous.? The terms ?traitor? and ?quisling? will have, as an addition, the term ?obama.? ?You are an ?Obama?? will be heard to describe one who has betrayed his duty to America.

Robert C. Laity
Founding President
Society for the Preservation of Democracy
and Human Rights

? 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.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:42
Comentarios (4)  | Enviar
Lunes, 16 de agosto de 2010
Viernes, 13 de agosto de 2010
??

JD Hayworth for Senate, Arizona media Blackout on Tea Party Choice

Turning the lights on in media blackout Arizona

?By Judi McLeod??Friday, August 13, 2010

Earth to Arizona mainstream media: patriots are already piercing sparks of bright light through your media blackout.

?Media censorship in Arizona has now become quite blatant.? Can Canada Free Press help,? patriot Annette McHugh writes CFP this morning.? ?Not only do the anti-SB1070 protesters get more media coverage than the pro-SB1070 supporters, but now there is blatant, unconstitutional censorship occurring in Arizona of media attempts to silence Conservative voices, activities, rallies, press releases and press conferences of Arizona Tea Parties!?


It seems that silence is not golden but deafening in Senator John McCain country.

?We?re asking for all Tea Party members, those who identify with the foundational principles of the Tea Party Movement, as well as individuals from every political party and ideology who value the First Amendment rights which apply to EVERYONE, to take quick action to bring this atrocity to the attention of our National news media,? writes McHugh.? ?Our attempts for local media acknowledgement and response has gone ignored repeatedly!? No matter which political candidate you support, no matter which political party you most identify with, we all agree that First Amendment rights apply to every individual?EVEN CONSERVATIVES!? Please contact, email, call every media organization in your state, even outside the U.S. to send this message quite loudly.? WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED!?

Good thing the Tea Parties are including the international media in their call for help,? as it seems that the British media and CFP care more about US media blackouts than does the American mainstream media.

McHugh?s concerns are echoed by Pam Stevenson, AZ Director, Tea Party Patriots: ?Last week the media was invited to the Press conference announcing that 16 Arizona TEA Parties were supporting/endorsing J.D. Hayworth for the senate race.? Although media representatives showed up from local TV stations, radio stations and newspapers?NONE of them ran the story,? Stevenson wrote in an SOS to patriots.

The media drank the bottled water, fanned themselves in the oppressive heat, returned to their offices and disappeared under a wall of it-didn?t-happen silence.

?Regardless of your choice for senate candidate; this should be a BIG red flag that the media can shut out the news if it does not fit with their agenda, says Stevenson.? ?Interesting enough, when John McCain ran for office in 2008, he complained that the media was in the tank for Obama and he did not receive adequate press coverage.? Now the tables have turned and McCain is the more progressive candidate so the media is shutting out news that can get a more conservative candidate elected.

?Please alert your groups that the media has shut us down and we need to let the nation know that we will not be silent.? We need to have hundreds of Tea Party members emailing their complaints and then blasting their phone lines if they ignore our emails.

?TEA Party Nation and ALIPAC have already made statements to alert their members of this injustice.? Please get this information out to everyone you now and ask them to tell the media they want to know the activities of the TEA Party groups.? We reserve our right to Free Speech!?

Meanwhile, the Tea Party Movement has two mighty weapons to fight off the media blackout in Sen. John McCain country:? Word of mouth and taking the story viral via the mightier-than-media Internet.

Somewhere the light is starting to pierce the darkness in media blackout Arizona.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:10
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

WND Exclusive


BORN IN THE USA?

No vacation for Obama

from eligibility question

Report: First Family likely

to see 'Where's the birth

certificate' on vacation


Posted: August 12, 2010
9:50 pm Eastern

??2010?WorldNetDaily

?

About half the nation was aware of the concern over the absence of public documentation of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president a year ago, a few months ago the dispute got top billing on CNN, and just a few days ago a new poll revealed six of 10 Americans are uncertain the president was born in the U.S.


Billboard near Navarre, Fla.

?

Now the dispute has been given top billing by the Associated Press, which has described itself as the world's oldest and largest new-gathering organization and of late boasts of being the "essential" news service.

The billing came in a story today by Melissa Nelson and Jennifer Kay about plans by the president and his family for their next vacation, in the Florida Panhandle.

But, the AP notes, "conservatives in this Republican stronghold haven't exactly rolled out the welcome mat."

The report continues by revealing that a billboard just outside of Panama City Beach "funded by the conservative media organization WorldNetDaily.com says 'Show us the birth certification.'"

Actually, the sign says "Where's the birth certificate?"

It's part of a campaign launched by WND founder and CEO Joseph Farah.


Billboard near Navarre, Fla.

?

It was in the same location that Obama earlier had a close encounter with the question about his eligibility, during a trip to the Gulf.

As an electronic sign, the billboard was able to go up on short notice.

The billboard campaign has posted signs in more than 50 cities since it was launched in 2009.

Farah attributes widespread interest in the great "birth-certificate controversy" to the billboard campaign that, he believes, rekindled the debate about Obama's constitutional eligibility for office. The campaign asks the simple but unanswered question, "Where's the birth certificate?"

The campaign has been sustained by contributions from WND visitors and others who have discovered it from simply driving past a billboard.

"It has certainly changed my life," explains Farah. "A year ago I was still getting regular invitations to be on cable TV shows and talk about the issues of the day. The minute I was labeled a 'birther,' I became radioactive ? just like Lou Dobbs."

He's also convinced that it's working.

"No matter how hard my colleagues try to make the public forget about this issue, no matter how hard they attempt to ridicule anyone who wants to see the proof, no matter how much they demean even decorated military officers who take their own oaths seriously, this issue will not go away. It's going to be around in 2012. It may even be the defining issue in 2012," he said.

Farah says he could not have pulled off the campaign without the support of WND's visitors. The cost of the billboards has been offset by donations ? and Farah says he wants to step up the campaign because it's winning.

The AP report noted the area has "voted overwhelming[ly] for Republican presidential candidates in [the] last 30 years."

The latest CBS?New York Times poll showed only 58 percent of Americans even think Obama was born in the USA. Another later poll by CNN indicated six in 10 hold doubts about Obama's birth and, therefore, eligibility.


Billboard near Talledega, Ala.

"I'm quite sure based on our own polls that if those people were asked whether they would like to see Obama release his birth certificate, more than half the country would say 'yes' ? and all the other personal papers he has refused to disclose," Farah said.

Farah says the billboards have had a lot to do with changing popular opinion ? even if the media don't get it.

"People simply shouldn't have to conjecture about where they think their president was born," he says. "It ought to be a matter of public record ? and it clearly is not."

Aside from the billboard campaign, WND has devoted more investigative reporting to the issue of eligibility than "all other media outlets combined," says Farah.

In addition, the billboard campaign was rejected by three major billboard companies, all owned by major media outlets ? CBS, Clear Channel and Lamar.


Billboard near Bethel, Pa.


"What I need Americans to understand is that this billboard campaign is working," said Farah. "There is no shortage of billboards available to us. The only thing there's a shortage of is the money to erect them. We need to raise tens of thousands of dollars a month just to keep them in place."

"The impact of the billboards is magnified by local television and talk-radio shows in every market they enter," explains Farah. "It's not just the billboard. It's the earned media that comes along with it. It's astounding. We have turned millions of people around on this issue with the billboards. It's just that simple."

In addition to the billboard campaign, Farah has:

"There are all kinds of things we need to do right now to get our country back on track, but I can think of nothing more important than for us to see that our Constitution is observed, followed, adhered to and honored, especially when it comes to such simple, straightforward matters as the eligibility of the president of the United States," says Farah. "Please help me bring this matter to a head right now."

See birth-certificate signs around the country.

Have you contributed to the "Where's the birth certificate?" billboard campaign yet? If you haven't contributed this month, please do so now.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:52
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

?


Nile Gardiner

Nile Gardiner is a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator. He appears frequently on American and British television and radio, including Fox News Channel, CNN, BBC, Sky News, and NPR.

The stunning decline of Barack Obama: 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown

?

?

?

President Obama: In decline? (Photo: AFP)

President Obama: In decline? (Photo: AFP)

The last few weeks have been a nightmare for President Obama, in a summer of discontent in the United States which has deeply unsettled the ruling liberal elites, so much so that even the Left has begun to turn against the White House. While the anti-establishment Tea Party movement has gained significant ground and is now a rising and powerful political force to be reckoned with, many of the president?s own supporters as well as independents are rapidly losing faith in Barack Obama, with open warfare breaking out between the White House and the left-wing of the Democratic Party. While conservatism in America grows stronger by the day, the forces of liberalism are growing increasingly weaker and divided.

Against this backdrop, the president?s approval ratings have been sliding dramatically all summer, with the latest Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll of US voters dropping to minus 22 points, the lowest point so far for Barack Obama since taking office. While just 24 per cent of American voters strongly approve of the president?s job performance, almost twice that number, 46 per cent, strongly disapprove. According to Rasmussen, 65 per cent of voters believe the United States is going down the wrong track, including 70 per cent of independents.

The RealClearPolitics average of polls now has President Obama at over 50 per cent disapproval, a remarkably high figure for a president just 18 months into his first term. Strikingly, the latest USA Today/Gallup survey has the President on just 41 per cent approval, with 53 per cent disapproving.

There are an array of reasons behind the stunning decline and political fall of President Obama, chief among them fears over the current state of the US economy, with widespread concern over high levels of unemployment, the unstable housing market, and above all the towering budget deficit. Americans are increasingly rejecting President Obama?s big government solutions to America?s economic woes, which many fear will lead to the United States sharing the same fate as Greece.

Growing disillusionment with the Obama administration?s handling of the economy as well as health care and immigration has gone hand in hand with mounting unhappiness with the President?s aloof and imperial style of leadership, and a growing perception that he is out of touch with ordinary Americans, especially at a time of significant economic pain. Barack Obama?s striking absence of natural leadership ability (and blatant lack of experience) has played a big part in undermining his credibility with the US public, with his lacklustre handling of the Gulf oil spill coming under particularly intense fire.

On the national security and foreign policy front, President Obama has not fared any better. His leadership on the war in Afghanistan has been confused and at times lacking in conviction, and seemingly dictated by domestic political priorities rather than military and strategic goals. His overall foreign policy has been an appalling mess, with his flawed strategy of engagement of hostile regimes spectacularly backfiring. And as for the War on Terror, his administration has not even acknowledged it is fighting one.

Can it get any worse for President Obama? Undoubtedly yes. Here are 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in serious trouble, and why its prospects are unlikely to improve between now and the November mid-terms.

1.The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people

In a previous post I noted how the Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien R?gime, extravagant, decaying and out of touch with ordinary Americans. The First Lady?s ill-conceived trip to Spain at a time of widespread economic hardship was symbolic of a White House that barely gives a second thought to public opinion on many issues, and frequently projects a distinctly elitist image. The ?let them eat cake? approach didn?t play well over two centuries ago, and it won?t succeed today.

2.Most Americans don?t have confidence in the president?s leadership

This deficit of trust in Obama?s leadership is central to his decline. According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, ?nearly six in ten voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country?, and two thirds ?say they are disillusioned with or angry about the way the federal government is working.? The poll showed that a staggering 58 per cent of Americans say they do not have confidence in the president?s decision-making, with just 42 per cent saying they do.

3. Obama fails to inspire

In contrast to the soaring rhetoric of his 2004 Convention speech in Boston which succeeded in impressing millions of television viewers at the time, America is no longer inspired by Barack Obama?s flat, monotonous and often dull presidential speeches and statements delivered via teleprompter. From his extraordinarily uninspiring Afghanistan speech at West Point to his flat State of the Union address, President Obama has failed to touch the heart of America. Even Jimmy Carter was more moving.

4.The United States is drowning in debt

The Congressional Budget Office Long-Term Budget Outlook offers a frightening picture of the scale of America?s national debt. Under its alternative fiscal scenario, the CBO projects that US debt could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent in 2035. While much of Europe, led by Britain and Germany, are aggressively cutting their deficits, the Obama administration is actively growing America?s debt, and has no plan in place to avert a looming Greek-style financial crisis.

5.Obama?s Big Government message is falling flat

The relentless emphasis on bailouts and stimulus spending has done little to spur economic growth or create jobs, but has greatly advanced the power of the federal government in America. This is not an approach that is proving popular with the American public, and even most European governments have long ditched this tax and spend approach to saving their own economies.

6. Obama?s support for socialised health care is a huge political mistake

In an extraordinary act of political Harakiri, President Obama leant his full support to the hugely controversial, unpopular and divisive health care reform bill, with a monstrous price tag of $940 billion, whose repeal is now supported by 55 per cent of likely US voters. As I wrote at the time of its passing, the legislation is ?a great leap forward by the United States towards a European-style vision of universal health care, which will only lead to soaring costs, higher taxes, and a surge in red tape for small businesses. This reckless legislation dramatically expands the power of the state over the lives of individuals, and could not be further from the vision of America?s founding fathers.?

7.Obama?s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive

While much of the spilled oil in the Gulf has now been thankfully cleared up, the political damage for the White House will be long-lasting. Instead of showing real leadership on the matter by acing decisively and drawing upon offers of international support, the Obama administration settled on a more convenient strategy of relentlessly bashing an Anglo-American company while largely sitting on its hands. Significantly, a poll of Louisiana voters gave George W. Bush higher marks for his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with 62 percent disapproving of Obama?s performance on the Gulf oil spill.

8.US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration

It is hard to think of a single foreign policy success for the Obama administration, but there have been plenty of missteps which have weakened American global power as well as the standing of the United States. The surrender to Moscow on Third Site missile defence, the failure to aggressively stand up to Iran?s nuclear programme, the decision to side with ousted Marxists in Honduras, the slap in the face for Great Britain over the Falklands, have all contributed to the image of a US administration completely out of its depth in international affairs. The Obama administration?s high risk strategy of appeasing America?s enemies while kicking traditional US allies has only succeeded in weakening the United States while strengthening her adversaries.

9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security

From the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the War on Terror, President Obama?s leadership has often been muddled and confused. On Afghanistan he rightly sent tens of thousands of additional troops to the battlefield. At the same time however he bizarrely announced a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces beginning in July 2011, handing the initiative to the Taliban. On Iraq he has announced an end to combat operations and the withdrawal of all but 50,000 troops despite a recent upsurge in terrorist violence and political instability, and without the Iraqi military and police ready to take over. In addition he has ditched the concept of a War on Terror, replacing it with an Overseas Contingency Operation, hardly the right message to send in the midst of a long-war against Al-Qaeda.

10.Obama doesn?t believe in American greatness

Barack Obama has made it clear that he doesn?t believe in American exceptionalism, and has made apologising for his country into an art form. In a speech to the United Nations last September he stated that ?no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.? It is difficult to see how a US president who holds these views and does not even accept America?s greatness in history can actually lead the world?s only superpower with force and conviction.

There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency and it?s not hard to see why. The most left-wing president in modern American history has tried to force a highly interventionist, government-driven agenda that runs counter to the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, and limited government that have made the United States the greatest power in the world, and the freest nation on earth.

This, combined with weak leadership both at home and abroad against the backdrop of tremendous economic uncertainty in an increasingly dangerous world, has contributed to a spectacular political collapse for a president once thought to be invincible. America at its core remains a deeply conservative nation, which cherishes its traditions and founding principles. President Obama is increasingly out of step with the American people, by advancing policies that undermine the United States as a global power, while undercutting America?s deep-seated love for freedom.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:39
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 11 de agosto de 2010

http://www.exposeobama.com/2010/08/11/retired-general-to-obama-show-birth-certificate-or-you-resign-from-office/

Retired General to Obama: Show Birth Certificate, "Or You Resign from Office"

?

Suspicion about the Barack Obama?s place of birth is not limited to civilians and second-rate talk show hosts anymore. Retired Major General Jerry Curry has said the president should clear up his eligibility immediately.

Maj. Gen. Curry responded to a caller during a recent episode of ?The Talk to Solomon Show? that the nation?s leaders, in both parties, should tell the president: "You?re under a cloud of suspicion, and we can?t continue running this country with you in charge under this cloud. Now either you clear it up, or you resign from office."

(You can view Floyd Brown?s recent appearance on "The Talk to Solomon Show" here. You can read more about this story at WorldNetDaily.)


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:02
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-army-captainret-requests-elected.html

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Video: Army Captain(ret) Requests Elected Officials Act Upon Obama's Usurpation of the United States, Got Misprision of Felony!?

?

This is in regards to the 'Stop the Treason' campaign. On July 27, 2010, retired Army captain Neil Turner stood before the Carlsbad City Council in California and valiantly explained Obama's treason and the 2008 usurpation of the United States by Obama, Pelosi, Calif. Sec. of State and the DNC.? Captain Turner then reminded the 8 member board they too could be charged with misprision of felony for failing to act.

Video of the presentation below...? The long list of other people speaking out here.? Hat tip and great commentary @ drkatesview.?

Via IroquoisChief(video); Campaign to present charges of Election Fraud and Treason against Nancy Pelosi, the DNC, and Barack Hussein Obama - to Mayors and City Councils and Elected Officials forums across the nation.

Since all of D.C., Congress, SCOTUS, Media and the Press, the Judiciary, and the Military leadership KNOW THAT OBAMA IS CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBLE for the Office of President and Commander in Chief, this campaign has been established to:

1. Make 'The People' aware that Obama is ineligible - and must be removed;

2. Have a public forum {and YouTube posting) of patriots speaking before their elected officials - thousands of times across the country, and;

3. 'SERVE' public officials with Citizen Grand Jury indictments - on which they are duty-bound to act, lest they themselves be chargeable with misprision of felony!


Obama Is a Usurper - Illegal President - 20100802 Issue Wash Times Natl Wkly - pg 5 ----------------------------------------
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:35
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 06 de agosto de 2010
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=188649


BORN IN THE USA?

Army gags officer

challenging

Obama eligibility

Escorts him from preliminary

hearing under guard to prevent

communications


Posted: August 06, 2010
4:37 pm Eastern

By Thom Redmond
??2010?WorldNetDaily

?

?
Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin

FT. BELVOIR, Va. ? A decorated military officer who is challenging ? in military court ? President Obama's eligibility to be president was taken into custody and escorted under guard back to Walter Reed Army Base today after a hearing, apparently so he could not talk to the press or his attorney about his case, according to his defense attorney.

The Army held a hearing today at Ft. Belvoir, Va., for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who posted a YouTube video challenging the Army to charge him after he refused to deploy to Afghanistan again this spring because of his concerns that Obama is ineligible to be president, and orders under his chain of command then would be suspect.

The hearing was on several charges of disobeying commands and "missing movement," and was held by Col. Denise Lind, who has been assigned to be the military judge in the case.

At the conclusion of the arraignment, Lakin was ordered not to speak with the press and was taken back to Reed under military escort, surprising and disturbing a civilian lawyer who has been working on his case.

"This was completely inappropriate. Col Lakin was brought here and taken away from here as if he was a common criminal. He was prohibited from talking to the press for two minutes; he was prohibited from talking to anybody, even me," Paul Rolf Jenson said.

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

Jensen said he was not sure how long Lakin was being detained because the Army offered no explanation as to why he needed an escort after the hearing. Jensen did say he thought it was because the Army did not want him talking to the press.

?There also now are several hearings scheduled in the case, starting with an Aug. 20 event that will deal with evidence in the dispute.

?

According to the court, a second hearing on Aug. 27 would be for government "objections" to the evidence, and Jensen said he expects opposition from the White House at that point.

That's because the strategy in the case will include requests for evidence that Obama is, in fact, eligible to be commander-in-chief, evidence that could come through depositions with Hawaii state records holders ? who presumably have access to Obama's original birth documentation if he was born there as he has written.

Two other hearings are set Sept. 2 and Sept. 14 in the case before the trial date of Oct. 13.

The 18-year Army veteran, decorated multiple times, is facing court martial where, if convicted, he could get up to four years of hard labor in prison and be dismissed from the military.

Lakin refused orders to deploy to Afghanistan in April of 2010 because he believes that President Barack Obama has failed to demonstrate that he is constitutionally eligible to be commander in chief.

The five charges brought against Lakin can be found in articles 87 and 92 of the military uniform service code of conduct. The five charges read aloud in a packed courtroom were three counts of disobeying a lawful order, one count of missing a movement, and one count of dereliction of duty.

As WND reported earlier, in June of 2010, Lakin and his civilian attorney, Jensen were preparing for an Article 32 pre-trial hearing where they hoped to present both testimony and evidence proving that President Obama is not a citizen of the United States.

However, all evidence in the case that pertained to the president, such as academic transcripts and his birth certificate on file in Hawaii, were banned by Army hearing officer Daniel Driscoll.

Driscoll issued an opinion that said only Congress and not a Unites States military judicial body should decide to use the president's credentials on file.

But that evidence dispute will come up again, Jensen has confirmed.

Lind noted that Lakin has the choice of supplying either his own counsel at his own expense or be provided military counsel at the government's expense. Lakin actually took a third option, which was retaining both military and civilian counsel, which he is entitled to do.

Lakin also has the choice of being tried by a jury of five military officers, who would vote by secret ballot on his guilt or innocence. Alternatively, he could choose to be tried by the trial judge alone, who would determine the result.

Jensen deferred that choice for the moment, but believes it would be better if Lakin is tried by a group of his peers.

After Lind requested that Lakin submit his plea of guilty or not guilty, Lakin's attorney said "No plea."

"A motion to dismiss must be brought before the plea is entered, and after the proceedings are commenced," Jensen explained. "In that thirty second period we didn't have time to bring the motion, but we will."

Asked how his client would plead, Jenson said if the motion to dismiss the charges is denied, Lakin would plead not guilty.

The trial will now move to the discovery phase, where Jensen will again be making requests for President Obama's birth certificate and other relevant documents to support Lakin case.

According to the Safeguard our Constitution website, which is supporting the officer, Lakin earlier release a statement that, "I am not guilty of these charges, and will plead 'not guilty' to them because of my conviction that our commander-in-chief may be ineligible under the United States Constitution to serve in that highest of all offices."

Lakin is board-certified in family medicine and occupational and environmental medicine. He has been recognized for his outstanding service as a flight surgeon for yearlong tours in Honduras, Bosnia and Afghanistan. He was also awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Afghanistan and recognized in 2005 as one of the Army Medical Department's outstanding flight surgeons.

The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

A number of challenges and lawsuits have been based on the constitutional requirement, some alleging Obama does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims. Others say he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen of the U.S. and the United Kingdom when he was born, and the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.

Complicating the issue is the fact that besides Obama's actual birth documentation, he has concealed documentation including his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, baptism records and his adoption records.

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

In at least one of the earlier disputes, the Army simply canceled the orders rather than allow the argument to come to a head.

Lakin, who previously has served in Afghanistan, refused orders this spring to go again, "because the president refuses ? even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary ? to prove his eligibility under the Constitution to hold office."

Now Lakin is facing a court-martial and as part of his defense wants the information about Obama from the state of Hawaii.

"The records Lakin seeks have been the subject of intense interest ever since the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign when a document appeared on the Internet purporting to be a certification that Hawaii's Dept. of Health had records showing he had been born in Honolulu," the foundation supporting Lakin's case confirmed.

"Since then, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the head of that agency, has made public statements on the subject, but has refused all requests for copies of the actual records in the department's custody. Recently, a former Hawaii elections clerk has come forward saying that he was told that the department's records showed Obama was NOT born in Hawaii," the organization said.

"The United States Constitution requires that a person be a 'natural born citizen' to be elected to the presidency. If Mr. Obama was not born in Honolulu as he has claimed, then he is unlikely to be a 'natural born citizen.' An examination of the records kept by the Hawaii Dept. of Health (is) an essential first step in ascertaining Mr. Obama's constitutional eligibility to hold the office to which he was elected in 2008," the foundation said.

The issue of the Hawaii records has been a volatile point in the argument. The state of Hawaii has gone so far as to approve a law that allows the state to ignore repeated requests for documentation about Obama's birth.

The state's governor, Linda Lingle, just months ago told a New York talk-show host that it was an "odd situation."

"This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it's one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country," she said on the radio show. "So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that's just a fact and yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue, and I think it's again a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this."

However, no news release from the state of Hawaii identified the birth location as Kapi'olani. And Lingle's statement also was contradicted by Fukino, who reported, "No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii."

Critics also note that while the Obama campaign posted a computer image of a "Certification of Live Birth" online during the 2008 election run-up, the procedures at the time allowed such certifications to be issued on the sworn statement of a relative for a child not born in the state.

The American Patriot Foundation said the records have been the target of many civil lawsuits over Obama's eligibility. But the lawsuits all have been dismissed on procedural grounds, such as the "standing" of the plaintiff, and none has yet addressed the merits of the arguments.

"While no civil litigant has obtained discovery of these records, and all the civil lawsuits seeking those records have been dismissed on procedural grounds, Lakin's case is different because he is the subject of criminal prosecution, and upon conviction stands in jeopardy of being sentenced to years at hard labor in the penitentiary," the foundation said.

The issue of Obama's birth "in Hawaii" also arose after he assumed the Oval Office when a letter was revealed that purported to be from the president claiming Kapi'olani as the place of his birth.

The letter, dated Jan. 24, 2009, was used by the hospital at a fundraiser but later concealed.

?
A photograph taken by the Kapi'olani Medical Center for WND shows a letter allegedly written by President Obama on embossed White House stationery in which he declares the Honolulu hospital to be "the place of my birth," The hospital, after publicizing the letter then refusing to confirm it even existed, is now vouching for its authenticity, but not its content. The White House has yet to verify any aspect of the letter.

"As a beneficiary of the excellence of the Kapi'olani Medical Center ? the place of my birth ? I am pleased to add my voice to your chorus of supporters," Obama purportedly wrote.

The letter was referenced by then-Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, during the Jan. 24, 2009, hospital dinner. Kapi'olani has said officials "know" the letter is real, but hospital spokeswoman Keala Peters refused to corroborate the content.

?

?

As WND reported, Lakin posted the video of his challenge to Obama to document his eligibility March 30.

In his latest video, Lakin said the issue of evidence is important:

?

?

Lakin said Driscoll's decision made it impossible for him to present a defense at the proposed Article 32 hearing, so he was waiving the hearing and instead will use the time to prepare for a trial.

He cited a long list of "reasonable arguments" raising questions about whether Obama was born on American soil. He also pointed out how the "documentation" provided by Obama during his campaign, a computer-generated Certification of Live Birth, until last year wasn't even recognized by the state of Hawaii itself for a number of uses. Also, officials in the state have refused to confirm its authenticity.

"Americans deserve answers, not a coverup," he said.

Lakin's attorney, Jensen, told WND that of the dozens of cases that have been brought to various courts over the issue of Obama's eligibility, Lakin's probably is the strongest.

Jensen expressed confidence that the necessary information will be obtained for the defense.

"This is a criminal case," he noted, with a possible punishment of several years in jail. "In order for a criminal defendant to defend himself in a criminal court he has to be given the opportunity to put on a defense.

"The records are relevant."

Jensen, in an earlier interview on the G. Gordon Liddy radio program, confirmed, "Every criminal defendant has to be allowed the benefit of doubt to discover information relevant or which may even lead to the discovery of relevant information that could support his case.

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

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

Hemenway is serving in emeritus status with the SafeguardOurConstitution website. He brought a previous court challenge, now on appeal, on behalf of a retired military officer, Gregory S. Hollister, who questioned Obama's eligibility.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The court ultimately backed off its threat of sanctions.

In a separate case, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threatened sanctions against attorney Mario Apuzzo, but quickly backed off when he noted that under the rules of court procedure, being subjected to sanctions and penalties would give him the right to discovery in the case, possibly including Obama's birth certificate.

The Constitution requires a president to be a "natural born citizen," and, while the term is not defined in the Constitution, many legal analysts believe at the time it was written it meant a person born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents. Critics say Obama clearly does not qualify under that definition, since he has admitted in his book his father never was a U.S. citizen. Some legal challenges have argued he wasn't even born in Hawaii.

Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for Honolulu, has said there "definitely" are problems with Obama's Hawaii birth story.

"As of the time I was in Hawaii working in the elections office we had many people who were asking about the eligibility of Senator Obama to be president. I was told at the time there is no long-form birth record, which would have been the case if President Obama was born in [a] hospital in Honolulu. There is no such form in Hawaii," he said.

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


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 19:10
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

'Birther' colonel's attorney wants charges dismissed

?

By the CNN Wire Staff
August 6, 2010 2:22 p.m. EDT
President Obama's birth certificate was deemed authentic. The announcement appeared in print in 1961. (credit: State of Hawaii)
President Obama's birth certificate was deemed authentic. The announcement appeared in print in 1961. (credit: State of Hawaii)
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • NEW: Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin's attorney wants charges thrown out
  • NEW: Lakin did not enter a plea at Friday's hearing
  • Lakin said he does not believe President Obama was born in the United States
  • Hawaiian officials have said they have documents that prove otherwise

Fort Belvoir, Virginia (CNN) -- Charges against the Army officer who refused deployment to Afghanistan because he says President Barack Obama doesn't have the authority to send him, should be thrown out says his attorney, Paul Jensen.

Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin went before a military judge -- and a standing-room-only courtroom -- in Virginia on Friday to face three charges of disobeying a lawful order, one count of missing movement (not deploying with his unit) and one count of dereliction of duty.

He did not enter a plea at the arraignment hearing, and Jensen asked to defer any plea until after the court could consider a motion to dismiss the case.

Judge Denise Lind, an Army colonel who was wearing basic camouflage fatigues under her black robes, agreed to the request and gave Lakin's attorneys until August 20 to file a motion to dismiss. Both the prosecution and the defense will then have until August 27 to formulate and send written responses to the motion. Hearings on the motion will follow on September 2 and September 14. Future hearings in the case will be at Fort Meade, Maryland.

If the charges are not dismissed, court martial proceedings will begin on October 13.

Lakin and his legal team -- Jensen, Jensen's assistant and Lakin's free-of-cost military attorney -- arrived 15 minutes late, then the lawyers went into a meeting with Lind. The colonel remained in the 34-seat courtroom, which was full of soldiers, primarily officers, all wearing basic camouflage fatigues.


  • Barack Obama

Lakin smiled once while talking with Jensen's assistant but otherwise didn't convey much emotion or say much except "Yes, ma'am," and "No, ma'am" to the judge.

In addition to pushing back his plea, Lakin waived the opportunity to choose whether a judge or jury would decide his fate.

Lakin is a decorated Army doctor and an 18-year veteran who is now facing court martial for disobeying orders to ship out for another tour of duty in Afghanistan. He specializes as a primary care physician and flight surgeon. Doctors in those positions often fly in medevac helicopters in the war zone.

Lakin says the orders are illegal because, he claims, Obama -- the commander in chief -- has not proven he was born in this country and is therefore ineligible to be president. Lakin wants Obama to produce his birth certificate.

"It's a fundamental of the Constitution, and my oath of office is to the Constitution. And I believe we need truth on this matter," Lakin told CNN's "AC 360" in May.

Two newspapers in Honolulu, Hawaii, published announcements of Obama's birth there in August, 1961. The Republican governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, has recently certified Obama's birth certificate as legitimate.

"I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health," Lingle recently told WABC. "The president was in fact born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that's just a fact."

"It's been established he was born here," the governor continued. "I can understand why people want to make certain that the constitutional requirement of being a natural-born American citizen ... but the question has been asked and answered. And I think just we should all move on now."

Despite the evidence, roughly a quarter of Americans remains skeptical, including Lakin and other so-called "birthers."

Birthers have argued that Obama was not born in Hawaii, or that if he was, his citizenship was invalidated by living overseas as a child.

Lakin has been steadfast in his own defense.

"I am not guilty of these charges, and will plead 'not guilty' to them because of my conviction that our commander in chief may be ineligible under the United States Constitution to serve in that highest of all offices," Lakin said in a news release issued this week by the American Patriot Foundation -- a group that has established a fund for his legal defense.

"The truth matters. The Constitution matters," he said. "If President Obama is a natural-born citizen, then the American people deserve to see proof, and if he is not, then I believe the orders in this case were illegal."

CNN Pentagon Producer Larry Shaughnessy contributed to this report

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

More information at http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/

?

LTC Terry Lakin has tried in vain to get the same verification from our President that he has been asked to provide countless times in his career, for many jobs, and to obtain a security clearance for the trusted positions he has held within the U.S. Armed Forces.

He has put his life on the line all over the world and served with honor, and will be glad to do so again, but only under a Commander in Chief he knows is legally eligible to lead.

LTC Lakin has questioned the President's "natural born" status, as mandated by the U.S. Constitution's Article II, Section 1. After months of seeking answers, he has not received a definitive response either from the Department of Defense or from his Congressional delegation that would assure him of the President's Constitutional eligibility.

Click here to make a tax deductible contribution to contribute to the legal defense fund of a courageous officer standing up for the Constitution.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:48
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 02 de agosto de 2010
??

Lt. Col. Lakin Arraignment scheduled for Aug. 6

?

American Patriot Foundation, Inc.
1101 Thirtieth Street, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20007
www.safeguardourconstitution.com

PRESS RELEASE

ARMY REFERS CHARGES AGAINST LAKIN TO COURT MARTIAL

____________________________

Military Judge Appointed

_____________________________________

Arraignment Set for Hearing on August 6, 2010

?

Lt. Col. Lakin will face a court martial on August 6. But is the court martial legitimate if Obama is not?

(Aug. 2, 2010) ? Washington, D.C.?? The Army has now referred charges against LTC Terrence Lakin for a General Court Martial. This action triggered the appointment of a Military Judge to preside over the trial, which will likely be scheduled before October, and held in Washington, D.C. at Ft. McNair.

On August 6, 2010 at Ft. McNair in Washington, D.C., the court will convene for the purpose of Judge Lind taking Lakin?s plea to the charges which consist of ?missing movement? and of refusing to obey orders. Today Lakin stated: ?I am not guilty of these charges, and will plead ?not guilty? to them because of my conviction that our Commander-in-Chief may be ineligible under the United States Constitution to serve in that highest of all offices. The truth matters. The Constitution matters. If President Obama is a natural born citizen then the American people deserve to see proof, and if he is not, then I believe the orders in this case were illegal.? If convicted, Lakin faces up to four years at hard labor in a federal penitentiary.

LTC Lakin is a doctor and is in his 18th year of service in the Army. He is Board Certified in Family Medicine and Occupational and Environmental Medicine. He has been recognized for his outstanding service as a flight surgeon for year-long tours in Honduras, Bosnia and Afghanistan. He was also awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Afghanistan and recognized in 2005 as one of the Army Medical Department?s outstanding flight surgeons. In March of this year, he announced in a video posted on YouTube that he would refuse to obey orders until receiving proof of the President?s eligibility. So far, more than 200,000 people have viewed that video.

Army Col. Denise R. Lind will preside over the trial. Before becoming a judge, she served tours of duty both prosecuting and defending soldiers in court martial proceedings. She is a 1982 magna cum laude graduate of Siena College, and earned her law degree from Albany Law School in 1985. As Military Judge, she will decide all matters of law, including requests from the defense for discovery, and a motion the prosecution has said it will make to determine the lawfulness of the orders LTC Lakin is charged with refusing to obey. A ?jury? comprised of Army officers will decide based on the facts whether Lakin is guilty or not guilty of the various felony-equivalent charges pending against him.

In standing up for his convictions and in keeping with his training that illegal orders must be disobeyed, LTC Lakin has been widely praised for upholding the rule of law and the paramount supremacy in our society of the United States Constitution.

Lakin is represented by military counsel, and by Paul Jensen, a civilian attorney from California who has been provided to him by the American Patriot Foundation, a non-profit group incorporated in 2003 to foster appreciation and respect for the U.S. Constitution, which has established a fund for Lakin?s legal defense. Further details are available on the Foundation?s website, www.safeguardourconstitution.com.

?-end?-

for further information,

contact: Margaret Hemenway at (202) 725-7659

? 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.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:50
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
?

Inconsistencies found in passport applications released by State Department for Obama?s alleged mother

STANLEY ANN DUNHAM SOETORO PROVIDED TWO DIFFERENT MARRIAGE DATES, USED SEVERAL NAMES, AND MENTIONED VIRTUALLY NOTHING OF HER ALLEGED CHILDREN

by Sharon Rondeau

Stanley Ann Dunham's photo from her 1981 passport application

(Aug. 1, 2010) ? The U.S. State Department has released 14 pages of documentation in response to a Freedom of Information Act request made by Mr. Christopher Strunk dating back to October 2008.

Strunk was originally directed to make his request to the Bureau of Customs and Border Control, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security.? He did so and stated that the records he had requested ?do not fall within any of FOIA exemptions items? (page 7).

He also claimed that ?The above requested documents are extremely critical and important to Petitioner as well as the general public and are of substantial public interest? (page 8).

Strunk stated that Obama was born in ?Mombasa, Kenya? and, citing the 1940 Nationality Act followed by the 1952 Nationality Act, claimed that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, ?did not meet the citizenship requirements to register Barry Soetoro?s birth as ?natural born?? (page 11).

He further contended that Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, was registered as an Indonesian citizen to attend the Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, and that ?The Indonesian? school, upon registration of a new student, verified the citizenship status and name of the child with the Indonesian Government; moreover, Indonesian Immigration and police checked all public schools on a weekly basis to ensure the only students attending were in fact Indonesian citizens? (page 12).

The? original response letter to Strunk from the State Department is as follows:

Undated letter from the State Department in response to Christopher Strunk's Freedom of Information Act request for the travel records of Barack Hussein Obama and Stanley Ann Dunham. The letter is stamped "January 12, 2009"

Strunk was denied the ?expedited processing? he had requested and access to Obama?s records because Obama had not granted permission for them to be released.? Strunk then filed a lawsuit dated November 26, 2008 in which he suggested that Barack Hussein Obama might be an illegal alien based on the school registration form from? his former elementary school in Indonesia designating his citizenship as ?Indonesian.?

Alleged school registration form which indicated that Barry Soetoro was an Indonesian citizen

Strunk also alleged that it appeared that someone was using Stanley Ann?s social security number illegally while working for the Ford Foundation in New York (page 7).

Strunk had claimed that none of the information he had requested should qualify for the government to refuse to release it.

On April 23, 2009, the named defendant, the Department of State, denied most of Strunk?s allegations and filed a Motion to Dismiss.? On page 2, the respondents claimed that the plaintiff was not ?entitled to relief.?

A judge?s decision of March 16, 2010 is here.

On July 29, 2010, 14 pages containing passport applications were released to Strunk, who had requested records from 1960 and onward.? In its letter, shown below, the State Department said that ?Many passport applications and other non-vital records were destroyed during the 1980s in accordance with guidance from the General Services Administration.?? However, the General Services Administration website produces nothing when a search for such ?guidance? is requested.

Dunham seems to have applied every five years for a passport for international travel.

She provided two different birth dates for Lolo Soetoro:

Full page of passport application where Lolo Soetoro's birth date is listed as Jan. 2, 1935

Lolo Soetoro's birth date is given as Jan. 2, 1935

His birth date is stated as Jan. 2, 1936 on a subsequent passport application:

There are two locations? and dates given for her marriage to Lolo Soetoro:

Passport application which states Stanley Ann Dunham's marriage to Lolo Soetoro was March 15, 1965

Passport application which cites marriage date as March 5, 1964. Why would there be two different dates and locations?

and a missing social security number:

Passport application box for social security number was left blank

After her 1980 divorce from Soetoro, she evidently reverted to using her maiden name:

1986 passport application for Stanley Ann Dunham. On the records released, Dunham used three different names: Stanley Ann Dunham; Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro; and Stanley Ann Soetoro.

Although little has been reported about any of Obama?s family members, news reports during the 2008 presidential campaign stated that Madelyn Payne Dunham, Stanley Ann?s mother, worked at the Bank of Hawaii.? However, on one of her passport applications, Stanley Ann stated that it was her father who worked there:

Stanley Ann Dunham (or whomever completed the application) indicated that it was her father who was employed at the Bank of Hawaii, not her mother.

News reports had stated that Stanley Armour Dunham was a furniture salesman.

On her 1986 passport application pictured above, Stanley Ann listed an address of 1512 Spreckels, Apt. 402, Honolulu, HI? 96822, but it is crossed out with a handwritten note which reads:? **4/9/86 ? ppt mailed to perm. address per her written request ? attached.?? Lower on the form is her parents? address, 1617 S. Beretania Street, although she mistakenly wrote their names as ?Stanley Ann Madelyn Dunham.? She indicated that she would be traveling to the Philippines for a week.

A handwritten note seems to imply, however, that 1512 Spreckels St. was her permanent address:

Did Stanley Ann Dunham ever have a permanent address?

Neil Sankey, a private investigator, developed a list of names and addresses which appear to relate to Stanley Ann Dunham from Hawaii to New York City.? She has been known by many different names.

The State Department employee who wrote to Strunk upon release of the documentation suggested that Stanley Ann Dunham?s passport records prior to 1965 were destroyed.? However, the National Archives states that passport records from 1795 and forward have been maintained, stating, ?Passport applications can be an excellent source of genealogical information, especially about foreign-born individuals.?

Is that the reason why the State Department refuses to release Obama?s passport information?

First page of letter releasing certain documents to Christopher Strunk

Second page of letter from State Department to Christopher Strunk

A 1971 application states that Dunham?s passport ?is not valid.?

Why was Stanley Ann Dunham's passport "not valid"?

The wording reads:

I have been informed that my passport is not valid and that a valid passport is required by law to enter the United States.? I request that an exception be granted to me, as provided in Section 53.2(h), Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations.? I understand that a fee of $25 is required under Section 53.2(h) and I will remit such fee to the Passport Office, Department of State, Washington, D.C., 20524, within 30 days.

Is that because she became an Indonesian citizen or dual citizen?? Why could she not obtain a ?valid? passport at that time?

Directly below her signature is the text:? ?Report ? Pursuant to Section 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952″.? However, lower on the form, in response to ?Identity Documents Presented? are the words ?Passport as shown above.?

The space for an official stamp has a handwritten date of October 21, 1971:

Date stamp on "invalid" passport statement is handwritten

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 established U.S. citizenship for those born in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.? It deals primarily with immigration of foreign-born individuals to the United States but defines both ?aliens? and ?citizens.?

Her ?Date and Place of Entry? were indicated as ?October 21, 1971, Honolulu, Hawaii,? and at the bottom of the form, a note was written in what appears to be purple magic marker:? ?Bill Sent ? 11/29/71″.

The form also states:? ?Identity and citizenship established.? Exception granted under 22 CFR 53.2(h)?.

There is one reference to one of Stanley Ann?s alleged children on the released records.? On page 4, in the area designated ?Amend to include (exclude) children,? the name ?Barack Hussein Obama? appears with ?(Soebarkah)? below it, but the entire text is crossed out:

Was this a reference to the man who now occupies the White House or someone else? What does ?Soebarkah? mean?

?Soebarkah? appears to be a common Indonesian name. However, it does not appear in the Indonesian dictionary, of which The Post & Email checked three.? The last name ?Soetoro? also yields nothing.

If it is a surname, does this mean that Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro?

A warning appears on some of the passport application pages which reads:

False statements made knowingly and willfully in passport applications or in affidavits or other supporting documents submitted therewith are punishable by fine and/or imprisonment under the provisions of 18 USC 1001 and/or 18 USC 1542?

If Stanley Ann Dunham was Obama?s mother, what did he learn from her?

? 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.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:41
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 01 de agosto de 2010

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26062

Will Obama ?Persuade? Americans their Slavery is Inevitable?

By Sher Zieve??Sunday, August 1, 2010

For months, virtually each and every day Usurper-and-Dictator-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama has been removing one or more of We-the-People?s liberties. Whether one wishes to ignore it or not, Obama is now in an all-out war against the American people and their soon-to-be former way of life. And he has no intention of stopping until American citizens are slaves to The Obama and illegal immigrants (aka ?Obama Amnestees?) are his indentured servants. Please note that under the thumb of The Obama, illegals already have more ?rights? than US citizens.

Using taxpayer monies, The Obama has already begun his 2012 campaign for POTUS?when he will again NOT have to even remotely prove any natural-born US citizenship. Apparently, Article II of the US Constitution is now no more than a novelty or an historical footnote. Obama?s Campaign of Lies begins anew, as he tells us ?his? economy is getting better while all empirical evidence to the contrary tells us it is getting worse?much worse. The Obama smiles crookedly as he tells us that he has ?saved? [impossible to calculate] or ?created? 3.6 million jobs, while he has actually lost over 8 million. Even Obama?s VP Joe Biden said: ?There?s no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession.? But, still they blame President George W. Bush; the POTUS who brought us the lowest unemployment in decades. US World and News Report during the Bush Administration showed ?Productivity growth for 2000-2005 is 3.4%, the highest of ANY five year period in FIFTY years?. This growth occurred, I might add, even though we were brutally attacked by Islamists on September 11, 2001.

In actuality, when the proverbial economic dam burst it was due to the Democrats? slush funds Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and an extremely suspicious?if not carefully planned by the Left?electronic run on the banks just prior to the 2008 US General Elections. It was for these reasons that T.A.R.P. was enacted. Facts are stubborn things but, Obama & Co has worked tirelessly to delete them. And don?t forget which political party was in control of the Senate and House of Representatives after the 2006 midterm elections?Democrat. As we have leaned with The Obama and his Marxist Dems, elections can have dire consequences. And Marxists and all totalitarians consistently rewrite and mischaracterize factual history.

When The Obama usurped the US Presidency he entered with the expressed agenda of destroying the United States of America and creating a Marxist/Maoist slave-state in his own image. He has been remarkably successful in destroying the US economy and the middle class, as his mentors Saul Alinsky and George Soros instructed him to do. Obama?s media have also worked (and continue to work) tirelessly alongside him and his Marxist Czars and Congressional members to suppress any and all truth about the dictator; as did the respective leftist media during the reigns of Stalin, Hitler and Mao.

What The Obama Hath Wrought

Since he rose to power over We-the-People, Obama has destroyed our economy and most hopes to soon correct it, sent our taxpayer monies overseas, repaid his political supporters and cronies (aka labor unions) again with our monies, taken control of our bodies with his ObamaCare, is in process of destroying Medicare and on his way to eliminating seniors, funded abortion?which he said he wouldn?t do?in the USA and now illegally in Kenya. He also still plans to?one way or another?force some version of Cap & Trade down our throats, so that we will no longer be able to afford electricity.

Obama has seized the US auto industry and is now manufacturing ?green? electric cars?which cost more than traditional cars, do not provide the same performance levels, and which consumers do not want to buy. But, Obama will force you to buy them if you want to buy a car. Obama also now has several schemes in place to force Illegal Aliens? Amnesty through, so that he can create a new Democrat voting bloc.

Has The Obama yet persuaded you that your slavery is a good thing? Every day and with every new Executive fiat, our Republic becomes a thing of the past and our bondage becomes more pronounced. Are you ready to submit to The Obama?s will? Has he convinced you, yet, that you have no choice? Is it time to surrender or time to fight back against the most oppressive and corrupt US government and elected officials in the history of the United States of America? We-the-People do know the answer. And, this time, we?re coming for them. If the American people are willing to fight for it, it is never too late for freedom and liberty.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:00
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/our_patrick_henry_moment_is_he.html


Return to the Article



August 01, 2010

Our Patrick Henry Moment Is Here

By Monty Pelerin

Obama's election was supposed to transform America, at least in his mind.

This country's first socialist president strode into office confident that he would remake this country. Fortunately for the country, the timing of his election was twenty, if not fifty, years too late. Socialism has failed in its pure form wherever it has been tried. Now it has failed in its modified form. While much of the world realizes this, President Obama is either ignorant or has more sinister plans for the country.

In the 1920s, Ludwig von Mises demonstrated via economic reasoning why socialism could not work. His argument was that without market prices, there was no way to properly allocate resources. About ten years later, Friedrich Hayek supported Mises' conclusion from a different angle. He approached it as a "knowledge problem" and argued that no central authority, regardless of how intelligent, could possess enough information to make proper and efficient decisions for tens of millions of people and businesses.

History validated the theory of the two Austrian economists. Russia, China, Eastern Europe, Cuba, and North Korea produced inevitable the misery, poverty, and brutality. The two countries that continue the system are amongst the poorest countries in the world, held together only by totalitarian rule and outside economic support.

With the recognition that socialism did not work, "do-gooders" changed their efforts to a system that would be part capitalism and part socialism. They believed that capitalism could be used for resource allocation while the "caring nature" of socialism could ensure equitable distribution of wealth. President Clinton expressed interest in what was then referred to as a "third-way." Western Europe had adopted this approach decades earlier.

Interestingly, Mises argued that a "third way" could not work, either. In the 1940s, Mises demonstrated that one intervention begets additional interventions. A so-called mixed system is nothing more than capitalism with interventionism imposed. Mises showed that any such system eventually degenerates into full-fledged socialism. In a collection of essays entitled "Planning for Freedom," Mises concluded:

There is no other alternative to totalitarian slavery than liberty. There is no other planning for freedom and general welfare than to let the market system work. There is no other means to attain full employment, rising real wage rates and a high standard of living for the common man than private initiative and free enterprise.

The countries of Western Europe have, as Mises predicted, deteriorated into social welfare states likely never imagined or intended at their inceptions. As full-blown socialism approached, these countries became insolvent. Soon all will be forced to either dismantle their welfare states or incur sovereign defaults. The U.S., while never formally adopting either socialism or the mixed system, drifted into the mixed system by gradually adopting many socialist programs. As a result, the U.S. faces the same future of insolvency as its European counterparts.

In terms of history, the mixed system dates back only to Bismarck in the 1880s. It was initiated in a few countries in the first quarter of the twentieth century. Its widespread acceptance occurred after World War II, when several countries chose not to return to the decentralized economies that existed prior to the war. England was the prime example. Industries nationalized for the war effort remained nationalized after the war. England rapidly devolved into a third-rate economy as a result. Prime Minister Thatcher reversed the decline by re-privatizing most of these industries.

It took only about fifty to seventy years for the mixed systems to fail. That is literally a moment in terms of history. Many people are still reluctant to admit that socialism is a failure despite the theoretical warnings and the actual failures themselves. With socialists, it is never the system and always the people that are the cause of failure. "If only we had better leaders." As Hayek and Mises pointed out, it has nothing to do with leadership. There is a fatal flaw in the concept.

As a result of attempting to extend the socialist myth, governments and their populations are now burdened with debt, much of which will never be paid. We are on the verge of a worldwide depression that will hit as governments run out of resources. It is likely that politicians will continue to play the game of "extend and pretend." But we have reached Ms. Thatcher's end-point: "The problem with socialism is that you run out of other people's money."

How ironic that President Obama's first major achievement was ObamaCare. In May, Greece was ordered to privatize its health care system. This month, it was reported that England was going to overhaul their health care system. England was frequently referenced as a model of affordable, efficient health care by ObamaCare advocates. Apparently, the English government and its people view it differently.

These instances are not one-time events. Nor will they be limited to health care. The welfare states of Europe will soon be dismantled in part or whole. So too will the entitlement programs in the U.S. The laws of economics and physics are immutable. They are above legislation. Countries do not have the resources necessary to honor their commitments, period!

Our Founding Fathers, without using the term socialism, designed a Constitution to protect against such incoherent schemes. Over time, the Constitution was vitiated by "living document" interpretations, penumbras, and other nonsense. Now, the U.S. stands on the precipice of failure just as Western Europe. It is insolvent, and there are no other alternatives than to default or dismantle.

The world is at a very dangerous inflection point. We are about to enter a depression. Politicians are not going to back away from socialism willingly. They and large numbers of other beneficiaries will do whatever they can to retain the status quo. Despite the unequivocal failure of the modern welfare state,?it is unlikely to disappear quietly. The status quo is always difficult to change. It becomes especially so in desperate economic times and for people who believe they are entitled to be taken care of by others.

The welfare state is headed for the dustbin of history. That is certain because it is no longer sustainable. The critical question is what will replace it. As Mises pointed out, there are only two alternatives: freedom or totalitarianism. There is no middle ground. There is no political compromise that can bridge this gap.

Regardless of which side of the issue you are on, the battle will be bitter and likely last a decade or more. Economically, everyone will be hurt, including many of the "well-off." Whether our moral and ethical code is strong enough to get through this together is moot. We are not like our ancestors in the sense of their strong commitment to community, responsibility, forbearance, and integrity. We are the pampered generation, entitled to gratification now and willing to cut corners to get it.

In many ways, this problem is more serious than that faced by our Founding Fathers. After all, King George had little control over their lives or fortunes. Yet these principled men risked both rather than accept even a little bit of tyranny. Theirs was a fight of principle; ours is one of survival. The fight is made more important when it is coupled with a depression. We know what monsters rose to power during the last depression and their effect on the world.

We will either get liberty or totalitarianism. There is no middle ground. For me, the choice is clear and was stated by Patrick Henry more than two centuries ago: "Give me liberty or give me death."

I am willing to sacrifice just as much as our Founding Fathers did so that my grandchildren and their grandchildren can live in the same country I grew up in. I hope enough others feel the same.

Monty Pelerin blogs at www.economicnoise.com.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:43
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
??

Are all of the federal judges now scofflaws also?

?

SHOULD JUDGE SUSAN BOLTON HAVE HEARD THE ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LAW CASE?

by jtx

?

John Marshall was Secretary of State under President John Adams as well as the longest-serving Supreme Court Chief Justice, serving as such from 1801 to 1835.

(Aug. 1, 2010) ? I?ve recently sent a couple of emails to Governor Jan Brewer of AZ with the last one reading:

I?ve emailed you before that Judge Susan Bolton acted in violation of Article III of the Constitution in the dispute between the US and AZ which ? per the black letter law of our land ? should have been taken up under the original jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court (not the Federal District Court).

Certainly Judge Bolton should have known this and acted accordingly. Since she chose to ignore the law, I would urge you to seek sanctions or impeachment of the judge, as clearly a simple reprimand is not sufficient.

In fact, since the preponderance of evidence now shows that we now have someone who has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies, I would urge you not only to seek a SCOTUS hearing of original jurisdiction on the SB1070 matter, but to ALSO ask SCOTUS to furnish the appropriate rulings/orders to seek discovery of complete early life records on Obama to include not only his original 1961 long-form birth certificate but the many other documents that may (or may not) support that information. Clearly you have standing to do that since if not legally eligible to hold the office, any laws or other orders the man gives are null and void ? including his actions vs. AZ.

I ? and MILLIONS of other Americans ? believe this man is not legally eligible under Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution and should be required to comply with the Constitution which says ?shall? in the cited article. The Supreme Court I believe can take such action under their Rule 17, if not under their normal proceedings. Please note that if you make this discovery effort, at least the two Obama-appointed justices should recuse themselves due to the obvious conflict of interest.

Should you need further legal guidance in the matter, I?d suggest you contact this website along with at least the Lead Plaintiff in the Kerchner et al litigation:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/?

The first email contained much the same information except that it pointed out that Article III of the Constitution specifies that disputes like the one over SB1070 are given to the original jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court, not the Federal District court. So that there was no mistake about how wrong Judge Bolton actually was, I included the quote in the opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1821 in the case Cohens v. Virginia when he said:

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

?and I continued to point out that in attempting to take jurisdiction as she did Judge Bolton was not only legally wrong but had committed (as Marshall said) ??treason to the Constitution??

She should be severely sanctioned, if not impeached. This seems to be a very popular action among Federal judges these days.

?

?

? 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.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:19
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar