Jueves, 30 de septiembre de 2010

Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for Kerchner et al vs. Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al Lawsuit

Print This Post

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. represents CDR Charles Kerchner and three other plaintiffs in the case Kerchner v. Obama & Congress

30 September 2010, 8:00 P.M. EDT

CONTACT: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Jamesburg, New Jersey
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Tel:? 732-521-1900
Fax: 732-521-3906
Email: [email protected]

Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for Kerchner et al vs. Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al Lawsuit.

JAMESBURG, NJ ? (Sept. 30, 2010) ? Attorney Mario Apuzzo of Jamesburg, NJ, today filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington DC, on behalf of plaintiffs, Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lehigh County, PA; Lowell? T. Patterson, Burlington County, NJ; Darrell J. LeNormand, Middlesex County, NJ; and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr., Middlesex County, NJ.? Plaintiffs are challenging the recent decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, PA, which affirmed the dismissal by District Judge, Jerome? Simandle, sitting in the Federal District Court, Camden, NJ,? of plaintiffs? lawsuit in which they charge that Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, has NOT conclusively proven to any controlling legal authority that he is Article II,? Section 1, Clause 5 ?natural born Citizen of the United States? and thus constitutionally eligible to serve as the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military, and that he has hidden all his early life records including his original long-form birth certificate, early school records, college records, travel and passport records needed to prove he is even a born Citizen of the United States

Obama was born a British Subject/Citizen to a British Subject/Citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother.? Obama?s father was not a U.S. Citizen and never intended to be one. Obama?s father was never even an immigrant to the USA nor was he even a permanent legal resident. Obama?s father was a foreign national sojourning in the USA to attend college. Obama is still a British Subject/Citizen to this day because he has never renounced that citizenship. According to this lawsuit, Obama was born a dual-citizen with dual allegiance and loyalty and is therefore? not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military. The founders of our country and framers of our Constitution required the President to have unity of citizenship and sole natural allegiance to the USA from the moment of birth, which Obama does not and cannot have. This was a national security issue to the founders and framers. Obama has multiple foreign allegiance claims on him because of his British citizenship which also converted to Kenyan citizenship at age 2.? Obama was also an Indonesian citizen as a youth when he was adopted or acknowledged by his Indonesian step-father when he married his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.

The lawsuit seeks a trial on the merits to determine the true facts of Obama?s legal identity and exact citizenship status and to require Obama to prove to the courts that he is eligible for the federal office he sits in per our Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The legal term of art, natural born citizen, is defined by the world renowned legal scholar, Emer de Vattel, in his pre-eminent legal treatise and enlightenment to the world of jurisprudence in the revolutionary period, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, and which was used by the founders by the Continental Congress during the formation of our country and by the framers of our U.S. Constitution, and whose definition of natural born Citizen is incorporated in several U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Vattel and U.S. Supreme Court decisions agree that a natural born citizen is a person born in the country to two parents who are both citizens of the country.? Obama?s father was not a U.S. citizen, nor even an immigrant to the USA. Thus Obama is not a natural born citizen of the USA, and that is the reason for the lawsuit.

The original lawsuit was filed early in the morning of January 20, 2009, before Obama was sworn in.? The case was dragged out by delays by the government in addressing the case and deciding on whether the case would proceed to a fact finding trial on the merits or not. The courts have decided that it will not go to the merits and have dismissed the case using technical and procedural tactics to keep the Plaintiffs from getting to the merits of the charges.

By the lower Courts finding that plaintiffs do not have standing and that their claims present a political question, the lower Courts were able to avoid having to address the underlying merits of the Kerchner case. With such a decision, the American People unfortunately still do not know conclusively where Obama was born and whether he is an Article II ?natural born Citizen? and therefore constitutionally eligible to be President and Commander in Chief. Being a born ?Citizen of the United States? is a necessary part but is NOT sufficient to be an Article II ?natural born Citizen of the United States?. ?We have asked the relevant questions and provided for the U.S. Supreme Court in our Petition various reasons why it should accept this case and promptly resolves this constitutional crisis.

?more?

A copy of the Petition for the Writ of Certiorari may be viewed and downloaded at this site.

For a copy of the Petition and more information about the lawsuit see these links:

Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for Kerchner et al vs. Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al Lawsuit

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19914488/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-Table-of-Contents-2nd-Amended-Complaint

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/Kerchner-et-al-v-Obama-Congress-et-al-filed-at-250-am-20Jan2009-2nd-Amendment-filed-09Feb2009

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17748032/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-Docket-Report

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22556305/Docket-Report-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-U-S-3rd-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals-Philadelphia-PA

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/real-kerchner-v-obama-congress-case-is.html

http://puzo1.blogspot.com

http://www.protectourliberty.org

For additional comments or information please contact Mario Apuzzo, Attorney at Law, 185 Gatzmer Avenue, Jamesburg, NJ, 08831, Tel: 732-521-1900, Fax:
732-521-3906, Email: [email protected]

? 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 @ 21:02
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Third National Conference on Barack Obama's Missing Birth Certificate
College Records and Muslim religion 9/30/10 today!!!

WHAT: Internet powerhouse Andy Martin will announce his Third National Conference
on Barack Obama's Missing Birth Certificate, College Records and Muslim religion

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

WHEN: Thursday, September 30, 3:00 P. M.

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

(HONOLULU, HI) Obama author and honorary Hawaiian "Ali'i nui" Andy Martin will convene his Third National Conference On Barack Obama's Missing Birth Certificate, College Records and Muslim religion in Honolulu beginning November 9th. Martin will hold a New York City news conference September 30th to announce the Honolulu convention. Martin says the American people increasingly disbelieve Obama's profession of Christianity. Martin has been credited by some in the alternative media with swaying public opinion to take a more critical look at Obama's religious roots as well as triggering growing concerns about Islam in America. Almost one hundred million Americans now believe and follow Andy Martin's questions about Barack Obama's family origins. Martin is known as the "King of the Birthers" because of his relentless efforts to seek release of Obama's original, typewritten birth certificate.



Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin will announce a Honolulu conference on Obama's missing birth certificate, college records and Muslim religion

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


ContrarianCommentary.com

"The Internet Powerhouse"

Andy Martin

Executive Editor



"Factually Correct, Not Politically Correct"



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:



ATTENTION DAYBOOK/ASSIGNMENT EDITORS



ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW YORK NEWS CONFERENCE THURSDAY 9/30/10



ANDY MARTIN SAYS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE RIGHT TO BELIEVE BARACK OBAMA IS A MUSLIM

MARTIN SAYS OBAMA'S LATEST PROFESSION OF CHRISTIANITY IS A HOLLOW ONE

ANDY MARTIN, AMERICAN'S MOST INFLUENTIAL OPINION WRITER AND BARACK OBAMA'S INTERNET OPPONENT FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS, PLANS A BLOCKBUSTER CONFERENCE IN HONOLULU


(NEW YORK)(September 29, 2010) ContrarianCommentary.com's Executive Editor, Andy Martin, will hold a New York City news conference Thursday, September 30th to announce his Third National Conference on Barack Obama's Missing Birth Certificate, College Records and Muslim religion. Martin's new national conference will be held in Honolulu.

"Yesterday (September 28th) Barack was at it again, claiming to be 'Christian,'" Martin says:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/28/AR2...


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sc-dc-0929-obama-cam...



"Well, the American people don't believe him. They believe me.



"My original 2004 column on Obama's Muslim religion may have become the single most influential piece of opinion journalism in print, broadcast or internet media. One writer credits me with being one of America's most influential political analysts and the man who became the harbinger of America's changing attitudes towards Islam:



http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/297321



"Why have I been so right over the past six years, and why has Obama been so wrong? [This release is Part One of a Two Part analysis (Part Two will come Friday, October 1st after our September 30th news conference)] I have been scrupulously honest in searching for the truth and seeking to find the facts about Obama's family history. It has not been an easy journey.



"Obama refuses to release his original 1961 typewritten Hawai'i birth certificate. Why? Why are Hawai'i officials hiding this historic document? Why is there no plaque commemorating the 'birthplace' of Barack Obama in Hawai'i? Where was he born? Who was the doctor? All missing.


"Last year I predicted Obama would suffer because of his machinations, and he is.


"My columns and my book and movie have led almost 100 million Americans to question Obama's origins. Two years into his presidency doubts are growing, not slowing, as I predicted in 2009.


"Yesterday Obama was at it again, saying he is a Christian. Well, to paraphrase the immortal phrase of the late Senator Lloyd Bentsen, 'President Obama, I know Christians, and you're no Christian.


"Let's analyze what Obama said on Tuesday.


"First, Obama obviously felt the need to have the phony question about his religion planted at a political meeting. His claim that the question was spontaneous is nonsense. Obama poll tests everything in advance. There is no spontaneity to anything he does. Everyone who was in the New Mexico back yard was vetted by the secret Service and they were screened in advance. The American people are no longer being fooled by Obama's bogus photo ops.


"Second, Obama claimed he came to Christianity 'later in life.' When will he provide a specific date when he was baptized?


"In my own denomination, the Episcopal Church, you can only become a Christian through Holy Baptism:


www.stthomaswhitemarsh.org



[Look under "To become an Episcopalian"]



"So when Obama was baptized? Is there a baptismal book with his name in it? Is there a certificate? To date he has produced nothing to verify his conversion to Christianity.


"I also have a great deal of experience with conversions to Christianity. In the Episcopal Church we get converts from other Christian denominations as well as occasional converts from other religions such as Judaism. So I know 'converts.' Obama exhibits none of the usual attitudes of a convert.


"People who convert to a religion pay special attention to theology and preaching. Obama claims he 'converted,' and then ignored the sermons at Trinity United for the next twenty years. Convert? No.


"Obama gave his daughters Muslim first names after 'converting' to Christianity. Convert? No.


"Christians universally celebrate Christmas; I suspect Michelle Robinson Obama's family celebrated Christmas. The Obamas do not celebrate Christmas. Ironically, even the most loosely attached Christians flood churches at Christmas and Easter; Obama does not. Convert? No.


"For me, my faith is my life. I seriously doubt that anyone would make that statement about Mr. Obama.


"The bottom line: Barack Obama is not a Christian. He is still a Muslim as we will discuss further on Friday.


"Obama's 'religion' became a major public issue three years ago. Since then, the more Obama has 'explained' who he is and what he believes, the less the American people believe him. That is an extraordinary record of retrogression by the Great Speechifyer.


"My writing in 2004 inadvertently created a political movement that now approaches one hundred million Americans who doubt who and what Barack Obama is. It is not an exaggeration to say my 2004 remarks became the most powerful and influential opinion column in American history. People believe me because they know that despite my political differences with Obama I am completely honest and impartial when dealing with Obama's personal life. I just search for the truth and am constantly trying to find the facts.


"That is why our latest and largest national conference on Barack Obama will take place in Honolulu beginning on November 9th. To continue to find the facts and to search for the truth about Obama.


"We'll have new sponsors and offer new opportunities to examine Obama's Hawai'i 'roots.' Obama's staffers will be paying close attention to our meeting. His thugs are always on our tail. Be there," Martin says.

Martin plans to post registration details for his Honolulu conference after his Manhattan news conference Thursday. To receive email updates on the Conference please send a request to: [email protected]


Andy Martin on Sean Hannity:





COMING FRIDAY:

PART TWO OF WHY OBAMA IS A MUSLIM

SEPTEMBER 30TH NEWS CONFERENCE DETAILS:


WHO:
ContrarianCommentary.com Executive Editor Andy Martin

WHAT:
Internet powerhouse Andy Martin will announce his Third National Conference on Barack Obama's Missing Birth Certificate, College Records and Muslim religion



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


WHEN:
Thursday, September 30, 3:00 P. M.


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


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:59
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:02
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar


Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 3:14 PM

Earlier this week Houston authorities reported on a massive voter registration scandal involving more than 23,000 bogus registrations.
FOX News reported:

Two weeks ago the Harris County voter registrar took their work and the findings of his own investigation and handed them over to both the Texas secretary of state?s office and the Harris County district attorney.

Most of the findings focused on a group called Houston Votes, a voter registration group headed by Sean Caddle, who also worked for the Service Employees International Union before coming to Houston. Among the findings were that only 1,793 of the 25,000 registrations the group submitted appeared to be valid.

The other registrations included one of a woman who registered six times in the same day; registrations of non-citizens; so many applications from one Houston Voters collector in one day that it was deemed to be beyond human capability; and 1,597 registrations that named the same person multiple times, often with different signatures. . . .

?The integrity of the voting rolls in Harris County, Texas, appears to be under an organized and systematic attack by the group operating under the name Houston Votes.?

Now we find out the group Houston Votes is linked directly to the Barack Obama website.
Wizbang reported:

The fraudulent voter registrations were the product of a group called Houston Votes, an ACORN Lite. Houston Votes volunteers were recruited through President Obama?s web site, www.barackobama.com. (He doesn?t actively run it, but turned it over to his campaign staff after the election, now operating as ?Organizing For America.?) And one of the chief recruiters was a local Democratic activist (a very active one) named Maria Isabel.

To call Isabel ?active? would be like describing Jeffrey Dahmer as ?a man of interesting appetites.? She once brought a friend and fellow organizer for www.barackobama.com to a health care town hall hosted by crazy whackjob Representative Sheila Jackson Lee. The friend stood up and said that she, as a doctor, backed ObamaCare. But the friend was about as much of a doctor as I am.

Here?s a flashback on Maria Isabel?
Patterico discovered last year that the so-called doctor and Obamacare supporter who asked a question at Rep. Sheila Lee?s town hall was a fake.
Roxana Mayer was not a doctor.
But she was an Obama state delegate!

In this video fake Dr. Roxana Mayer asked Rep. Lee a question:

?

The fake doctor plant attended Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee?s town hall with the crazy Che fan Maria Isabel who ran an Obama office in Houston.

** The Lone Star Times has the story. **

Here?s Maria Isabel?s office during the election.

It looks like crazy travels in packs.

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

SEE/VER?? HTTP://WWW.CHEASESINO.COM



Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:16
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 28 de septiembre de 2010


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 22:54
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar


BORN IN THE USA?

Army judge tells officer:

Shut up and be punished!

Defense counsel warns 'fair trial'

impossible under military rulings


Posted: September 28, 2010
9:01 pm Eastern

By Brian Fitzpatrick
??2010?WorldNetDaily

?

FORT MEADE, Md. ? An Army judge has made it "impossible" for a career medical officer to get a fair hearing on charges he refused to deploy to Afghanistan because of concern that obeying orders in the chain of command under an ineligible commander in chief would be illegal, his attorney says.

The rulings came today from Col. Denise Lind, who in so many words told Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin to pound sand. Rocks actually. He faces up to four years at hard labor if convicted in his case.

"We got absolutely slammed today," said Paul R. Jensen, lead counsel for the defense. "It's impossible for us to have a fair trial under these rulings."

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

Jensen continued, "The judge did what she thought was right, but the result is to deprive us of any opportunity to have a defense."

Lakin believes any order issued under Obama's authority as commander in chief of the armed forces may not be valid because his eligibility to serve as president is unproven. After fruitlessly requesting the Army to verify Obama's eligibility to serve as president, Lakin wrote directly to Obama asking for proof of eligibility.

?But without a response, Lakin decided it was his duty to refuse an order to deploy with his unit as part of Obama's Afghanistan surge. As one of the defense briefs states, he "... [took] the distasteful route of inviting his own court martial."

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

In her decision, Lind, acting as judge in the case, censored the last remaining arguments Lakin planned to make in his defense: motive and duty. Lakin had intended to explain his motive for disobeying the order and contend that it was his duty as a good soldier to disobey orders that he believes to be illegal.

The defense also planned to call as witnesses Ambassador Alan Keyes and retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney. Keyes was to explain the constitutional issues involved in the case, and McInerney was to talk about the training soldiers receive regarding when they should question and even disobey orders.

Lind was following up on her rulings from Sept. 2, when she rejected defense plans to introduce evidence concerning Obama's eligibility. The defense also requested for Lakin's defense documents referencing Obama's birth records on file in Hawaii, but Lind refused to allow that either, noting that providing the documents might prove "embarrassing" to Obama.

"Our arms were cut off last time," said Jensen. "Our legs are being cut off this time."

In rejecting Lakin's right to discovery of Obama birth documents, Lind joined a host of other judges ? in civilian courts ? who have refused to allow plaintiffs suing Obama to obtain his birth records. Jensen told WND he had hoped the court would permit Lakin to go to discovery, because Lakin is the defendant in a criminal case and has the right to mount a full defense.

In objecting to the participation of Keyes and McInerney and the presentation of Lakin's planned arguments, the prosecution argued that all issues related to Obama's eligibility, Lakin's motives and the good soldier doctrine were "irrelevant."

"We have to have the opportunity to present some defense!" Jensen countered.

Just before Lind recessed the hearing to prepare her decision, Jensen asked rhetorically whether the government intended to allow him to call any witnesses at all and thundered, "This is all we had left!"

Jensen's pleas fell on deaf ears. Less than two hours after the court recessed following arguments, Lind returned to the bench to render a lengthy, detailed decision. Reading in a dry monotone, Lind reaffirmed her Sept. 2 decision and ruled out discussions of motive and duty.

Lind, with her rulings, effectively has restricted the scope of Lakin's trial to what the government wanted: the simple questions of whether the officer had received orders to deploy to Afghanistan and whether he complied.

Neither of these facts is in dispute

But Jensen said the trial will not end the case.

"We will look to appellate courts for justice. With these constraints it's not possible here," he said.

When Lind made her earlier rulings, denying Lakin access to potentially exculpatory evidence in his case, Judge Roy Moore, who battled political correctness as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court a decade ago, said Lind has forgotten the Constitution.

Judge Moore, who now operates through the Foundation for Moral Law, has personal experience with challenging the powers-that-be to follow the Constitution. His dispute centered on a Ten Commandments display he put in a state building to recognize the God who inspired the Founders of America. He ultimately was removed from office by those who followed a federal judge's order that the Ten Commandments be removed without questioning whether it was right.

"The highest law in this country is not the order of the Supreme Court of the U.S., not the order of the commander in chief, or any subordinate officer," Moore said.

Instead, it is the Constitution, Moore explained, which in Lakin's case demands that the president be a "natural born citizen."

There have been dozens of lawsuits and challenges over the fact that Obama's eligibility never has been documented. The "Certification of Live Birth" his campaign posted online is a document that Hawaii has made available to those not born in the state.

"Lt. Col. Lakin has every right to question the lawfulness of the orders of the commander in chief," Moore has said.

It doesn't matter, he said, that orders come from a colonel, or a general or even the Pentagon.

"The same thing applies in the military as in the judicial system," he explained. "The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it's not the order of a higher officer, not the order of a judge."

Lakin has been charged by the Army with missing a movement, disobeying a lawful order and dereliction of duty.

Lind's first round of censorship decisions came just days after a retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant general who commanded forces armed with nuclear weapons said the disclosure of Obama's documentation is not just critical to Lakin's defense, but to the preservation of the nation itself.

The vehement statements came in an affidavit from McInerney, a Fox News military analyst, that was disclosed by an organization generating support for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin.

McInerney, 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, since officers are obligated both to follow orders and to disobey illegal orders.

"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 explained "good order and discipline requires not blind obedience to all orders but instead requires officers to judge ? sometimes under great adversity ? whether an order is illegal.

"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.

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.

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

In a later 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 @ 21:53
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

??
??

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

LTC Lakin Court-Martial Update--Judge Denies Defense Motions

?
One of our 3L law student interns who is also an Army veteran made the trek up I-295 today to watch the latest hearing in the strange case of LTC Terrence Lakin, the Army doctor who refused to obey various orders related to a deployment to Afghanistan.

At today's court-martial session, the defense and trial counsel argued a number of motions. The defense first argued that the military judge should abate the court-martial until the Army Court of Criminal Appeals rules on a writ petition the defense inexplicably ("for reasons I can't get into right now," according to a defense counsel) filed just yesterday, in response to the military judge's ruling from last month. The defense went on to argue why a host of documents were discoverable. The defense also attempted to convince the military judge that several prospective witnesses who were the subject of prosecution motions in limine were relevant to the defense case. These witnesses included former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and a retired Air Force general. The defense sought to qualify these gentlemen as experts in the areas of constitutional history and military training regarding the chain of command and obedience to orders, respectively.

The trial counsel argued that bringing evidence of motivation for refusal to follow the orders was irrelevant and should be excluded, citing a previous anthrax shot refusal case in which the military judge did just that. (I'm not sure which case it was, but the case of another military doctor--Air Force Captain John Buck--comes to mind.)

The military judge responded by determining that the orders (Specifications 1-3 of Charge II) given LTC Lakin were lawful. She continued by taking judicial notice of an Army regulation regarding orders and ruling that the witnesses who were the subject of the government motion in limine were precluded from testifying as experts, although they could end up testifying in sentencing if the case proceeds that far. Furthermore, the military judge granted the prosecution motions to prevent the defense from raising irrelevant issues regarding President Obama's eligibility to serve as the commander-in-chief and LTC Lakin's motivation for disobeying the deployment orders during the findings phase of the trial. Again, the motivation might become relevant in sentencing.

Hearing this, the civilian defense counsel remarked that this gutted the defense case, and he had to put on some sort of defense. Apparently, LTC Lakin is chomping at the bit to testify in his own defense, so that might be the sum total of the defense case after today's rulings.

The court-martial is set to resume at Ft. Meade on November 4. Stay tuned for more on this saga.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:00
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
??

Obama attorneys aid Obama in illegal activities, Robert Bauer Perkins Coie help Obama hide birth certificate records, Payments to?attorneys

Obama attorneys aid Obama in illegal activities, Robert Bauer Perkins Coie help Obama hide birth certificate records, Payments to attorneys

?Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records???Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

Robert F. Bauer was a partner in Perkins Coie before becoming White House Counsel in 2009. Bauer also began defending Barack Obama in eligibility lawsuits in 2008. Perkins Coie has represented Obama for America for over 2 years. Bauer is married to Anita (?I look to Chairman Mao?) Dunn.

Here is the payment total to Perkins Coie from Obama for America for the second quarter 2010.

DISBURSEMENTS BY PAYEE
OBAMA FOR AMERICA
????? PO Box 8102
????? Chicago, Illinois?? 60680

FEC Committee ID #: C00431445
This report contains activity for a General Election
Report type: July Quarterly

Filed 07/15/2010

Perkins Coie??? 152,978.58?


Total Disbursements This Period??? 461,104.98?

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2010/Q2/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html

It is a crime for an attorney to aid a client in illegal activities. By definition, aiding Obama in hiding his birth certificate and other records, is a criminal activity if not treasonous.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:21
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/09/pixel-patriot-exclusive-peoples-proxy.html


PIXEL PATRIOT
Exclusive Report
?9.28.2010
* YOU CAN?T HANDLE THE TRUTH *


A hearing is on the trial docket for today for the Courts Martial of LTC Terrence Lakin at the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps 1st Judicial Circuit.


From LTC Lakin?s website, as of 2pm ET, September 27, 2010 @ 2 pm ET: ‟We have now filed our Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in the Army Court of Criminal Appeals"

According to sources here, the writ "a drastic remedy that should be used only in truly extraordinary situations." It is generally disfavored because it disrupts the normal process of orderly appellate review. For that reason, "to justify reversal of a discretionary decision by mandamus [or prohibition], the . . . decision must amount to more than even gross error; it must amount to a . . . usurpation of power." The petitioner has the burden of showing that he has "a clear and indisputable right" to the extraordinary relief that he has requested.

On behalf of the members of The Veterans Council, The United States Patriots Union issued the third in a series of White Papers that calls for specific actions including members of Congress, Tea Party candidates, veterans, veteran?s family members?and ALL of the public figures who claim to be ?behind the soldiers? and ?for the US Constitution? to ?take a stand here and now for both LTC Lakin and his right to a real defense complete with discovery as well as the national future of constitutional law.?

?If these members of congress, candidates for congress and public figures fail to stand up with Lakin and the nation now, then all of their promises of a brighter future are exposed as nothing more than campaign rhetoric.

We are convinced that Barack Hussein Obama cannot be a ?natural-born citizen? of the United States and therefore, currently holds the office of Commander-in-Chief illegally. On this basis, the Veterans Council of the U.S. Patriots Union stands with Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely in his open call for the immediate resignation of the entire Barack Hussein Obama administration, in which Maj. Gen. Vallely stated the following;

?A civil uprising is brewing. We now must call for the immediate resignation of Barry Soetoro (AKA President Barack Hussein Obama) ?..based on Incompetence, Deceit, Fraud, Corruption, Dishonesty and Violation of the US Oath of Office and the Constitution. - And a call for a National Petition for new elections to select the next President of the United States of America must be initiated. We can wait no longer for a traditional change of Power and New Government.?

On Sept. 2nd as previously reported here Col. Lind denied LTC Lakin ?discovery? or a defense in his court-martial for refusing to obey orders until Obama AKA Soebarkah AKA Soetoro proves his Constitutional eligibility to be Commander-in-Chief.

The defense asserted that the President, as Commander in Chief under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, is the source of all military authority.


Retired Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney has supplied an affidavit to the court in support of Army Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin acknowledging pervasive concerns over Obama?s Constitutional eligibility and demands the putative President release his birth records or the court authorize discovery.

LTG McInerney states ?All officers must be and are trained that their loyalty to the Constitution requires them to obey all lawful orders, but they are also trained that they must disobey an illegal order, and that the failure to do either is equally a betrayal of their oath.?

In Col. Lind?s decision, she stated that ?the authority of military officers to issue lawful orders and the concomitant duty of military service members to obey such lawful orders does not depend on whether the president is qualified under the constitution to hold office?


Let?s review the estimable insights by Brigadier General John S. Cooke on ?MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL 20X? during a speech presented March 10, 1998:

?As with most legal questions, a good place to begin is the Constitution. I know you are all familiar with the powers of Congress and the President over the armed forces and military justice, but I would like to begin with an even more fundamental point, the Preamble??

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

?It is important to recall two things when you consider those words. First, as lawyers and as military officers, we have as large a role as any members of our society in helping to meet those goals that the Framers adopted. That is something of which we can be proud.

Second, those words remind us that all power flows from the people and that, through the genius of our constitutional structure, there is a direct bond between the people and the men and women in the armed forces. Every soldier, sailor, airman and marine takes the following oath??

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

?That oath is not to the President, the Congress, the Government, or to the fatherland or motherland; it?s to the Constitution, and thereby to the people. At the same time, the people, through Congress and the President, assume responsibility for the men and women of the Armed Forces, and a primary means by which they have exercised that responsibility is mentioned in that oath ? the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).

As those charged with the administration of the UCMJ, we must bear in mind our responsibility and accountability to the people and their elected representatives. This is our system; but in a greater sense it is theirs. We are simply the trustees.?

As a trustee with accountability to ?We the People?, it appears that Col. Lind has violated her oath to the Constitution by denying LTC Terrence Lakin a means of a defense through discovery merely because it might ?embarrass? the President.

Brigadier General Cooke continues:

?The American people want and expect an effective, disciplined force in which the rights of each servicemember are protected.

This concern for soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines reflects another fundamental truth ? what I call the eternal truth. Success in any military mission depends on many things: the equipment, the doctrine, the plan, the supplies, the weather and so on. Such factors have varied greatly through history, but ultimately the success of every military mission depends on a group of relatively young men and women doing their jobs well under difficult, demanding, often dangerous circumstances. That success, their success, does not just happen; it is the product of a system of individual and group development which builds competence, confidence, cohesion, morale and discipline. George Washington said it best: ?Discipline is the soul of an Army??

?When we say we want a disciplined force, we mean we want people who will do the right thing when the chips are down. That discipline, ultimately, flows from within ? it is that quality which motivates an individual and an organization to do the right thing even when the right thing is very, very hard to do.

The unfailing formula for production of morale is patriotism, self-respect, discipline and self-confidence within a military unit, joined with fair treatment and merited appreciation from without. It will quickly wither and die if soldiers come to believe themselves the victims of indifference or injustice.?

Brigadier General Cooke?s view on the so-called information revolution:

?This ranges from fax machines to CNN to, of course, the Internet. For all its benefits, this also poses some problems. The speed with which information is moved depersonalizes and compresses the decision cycle ? at a cost of the leavening effect on decision-making of old fashioned conversation and contemplation. Related to this is the phenomenon that what once might have been only a matter of local interest can now become an international incident in a matter of minutes. Aggravating these problems is the fact that the information is not always accurate; satellites and computers simply mean that one person?s bad idea, or bad facts, can now be shared with millions, rather than dozens, almost instantly.?

Brigadier General Cooke?s view on evidence:

?Today, a contested case that does not involve multiple motions, some tough evidentiary questions, and at least one expert is relatively rare. In military as in civilian courts, the role of science and experts has become more significant and more difficult for courts to deal with. In sum, we may be trying fewer cases today, but what we do try is relatively serious and tends to be more complex.

The increasing significance of scientific evidence and expert testimony has important implications. These include not only what is or is not admissible, and how to help fact finders rather than confuse them - I think courts will work that out under our current rules, albeit with some difficulty. A less noticed but no less important systemic issue is the cost associated with this evidence which carries the real risk of making some courts-martial too expensive to handle out of a command operating budget. A single case can easily run up bills in the six figures. Equally important is ensuring that the defense has fair access to pursue and present such evidence. I do not know the answer, but I am sure we will face the problem.?

Brigadier General Cooke?s view on ?Change you Can Believe In?:

?The public?s, and more specifically the Congress? and our civilian leadership?s increasing lack of familiarity with our legal system cannot be ignored. Fewer members of Congress have military experience than any time since World War II. Any initiative to secure changes, particularly legislation, must be undertaken with this in mind. This lack of familiarity increases the risk of changes that will do more harm than good.?

Brigadier General Cooke?s view on the ?myth of the monolithic Pentagon?:

?Decisions on the disposition of offenses begin, and often end, at the lowest levels. The discretion of higher level commanders can be constrained by the prior decisions of lower commanders. This is a product of our hierarchical system, and of rules against unlawful command influence especially designed to protect service members from certain effects of this system. Because of our history, a number of rules operate as ?default mechanisms? in favor of the accused. Consequently, power is diffused, resulting in the increased likelihood of disparity of decisions concerning disposition. Our rules against unlawful command influence prohibit issuing general guidelines, exacerbating the disparity problem.

Therefore, the commander should decide whether to invoke the judicial process or whether some other action is appropriate. Many of us would view turning this function over to lawyers or someone else to be a usurpation of command authority.?

Brigadier General Cooke?s view on the judicial process:

With respect to counsel, along with teaching them the techniques of advocacy, we must provide a strong foundation in ethical rules and ensure they understand and respect the judicial process. They must understand the difference between the dogged pursuit of justice and a dogfight. We need them to help preserve the dignity of the deliberative process. This is one area where we really do not want to follow the civilian trend.

Justice Ginsburg?s concurring opinion on Military Justice:

In Weiss v. United States, 510 U.S. 163, 2 (1994)

?The care the court has taken to analyze petitioners? claims demonstrates once again that men and women in the Armed Forces do not leave constitutional safeguards behind when they enter military service. Today?s decision upholds a system notably more sensative to due process concerns than the one prevailing through most of our country?s history, when military justice was done without any requirement that legally-trained officers preside or even participate as judge.?

___________________________________________________

?

  • President Lyndon B. Johnson honors American soldier, September 28, 1967.?
  • Usurper Barack Hussein Obama dishonors American soldier, September 28, 2010 by allowing an 18 year Army officer and flight surgeon, highly decorated with an exemplary record to be court-martialed rather than honorably proving his eligibility.
____________________________________________________


For a comprehensive understanding of Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution and why Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible for the office of the Presidency and Commander in Chief, read all of Attorney Mario Apuzzo?s court filings here including his exhaustive research and writings. He is representing Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR(Retired) in another epic court battle Kerchner v Obama & Congress against the putative President Obama with their Writ for Certiorari expected to be submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by the end of this week.

In addition to the United States Patriot Union action items you can also take a stand and get engaged in the fight for Truth and Justice by way of supporting any one or all of these efforts:

1. http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com
2. http://puzo1.blogspot.com
3. http://www.protectourliberty.org
4. Support LCDR Walter Francis Fitzpatric, III http://thejaghunter.wordpress.com
5. Share the news of this historic travesty with your friends, family and fellow countrymen.
6. Call the media and demand they start reporting on this Constitutional crisis. With irrefutable evidence of the fraud and corruption designed to usurp the office of the Presidency, this breach of national security stands as one of the most egregious acts of treason ever in our nations history.
7. Take the time to read the Constitution, and be a part of the regeneration of the spirit of America as the nation as a whole unites behind the principles of liberty, freedom and our God given inalienable rights as enshrined by our Founding Fathers in those glorious documents that established our Constitutional Republic.

?

?All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.? - Thomas Jefferson
____________________________________________________

When the rule of law is restored, we all win.


Previous reports by Pixel Patriot located here, here and here. Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence and people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].
Courts Martial of LTC Terrence Lakin - White Paper 3 - Staying the Course - 9/27/2010

Obama Ineligible - I tried and lied but it won't go away! Wash Times Natl Wkly 2010-09-20 pg 5


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

Monday, September 27, 2010


BREAKING: Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Filed in the Army Court of Criminal Appeals for LTC Terry Lakin.

Via Safeguard Our Constitution; September 27, 2010 @ 2 pm ET - We have now filed our Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, but the trial court is going to proceed with a hearing tomorrow (Tuesday) as scheduled. Stay tuned for more news after the hearing. Source; http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com? [This post will be updated once more info is released]

Via Wise Geek; - What Is a Writ Of Mandamus? -

A writ of mandamus is a court order which compels someone to execute a duty which he or she is legally compelled to complete. This type of writ can also be used to order a lower court to complete a duty which is assigned by law. The writ of mandamus is rarely used, because it must be demonstrated that there is no other remedy available and that someone is suffering an injustice as a result of the failure to complete a legally required duty. It can also be very disruptive and for that reason judges are reluctant to grant such writs unless they are truly necessary.

In some cases, the writ of mandamus may order someone to complete a task, while in other cases, it may order that an activity be ceased. For example, if a couple wanted to get married and they were refused a marriage license by the clerk despite the fact that there were no legal barriers to their marriage, they could file for a writ of mandamus to compel the clerk to issue the marriage license. Conversely, someone could file for a writ to ensure that a court will not pursue a case which is outside its jurisdiction.

When a writ of mandamus is imposed on a court, the writ must come from a higher court which has authority over the lower court. In situations where the highest court appears to be neglecting its legal duties or performing tasks which are outside its scope of authority, people may have to resort to other measures to compel the court. The person or court subjected to the writ can also oppose it if it can be argued that the writ of mandamus is not appropriate to the situation.

Writs like this can only be used when there is a clear legal duty which is not being met. A writ of mandamus could not, for example, be used to compel someone to do something which she or he is not obligated to do by law and position. Likewise, if there are over equitable remedies which can be pursued they must be considered before a writ of mandamus will be granted. Source; http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-writ-of-mandamus.htm

Previous reports on LTC Terry Lakin can be found here. Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence and people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].
United States v LTC Terry Lakin - Ruling on Motions(Discovery) ? September 2, 2010
Courts Martial Defense of LTC Terrance Lakin - Researched and Reviewed By The United States Bar Association...
Follow-up to Courts Martial of LTC Terrence Lakin - Unacceptable Consequences - 9/10/2010
Irrefutable Proof that Obama is Not Eligible to be President of the United States, the Facts Don't Lie!


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

Monday, September 27, 2010

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/09/house-majority-whip-james-clyburn.html

House Majority Whip James Clyburn: Republicans will investigate Resident Obama's birthplace if they take over Congress. YES WE CAN!!!

Snippets via the Hill; - Dem Whip: GOP majority will issue birther subpoenas - By Jordan Fabian

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) warned Republicans will investigate President Obama's birthplace if they take over Congress [YES WE CAN!].

Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House, said Republicans will grind the government to a halt by issuing subpoenas against the Obama administration over a number of issues if they take power. He predicted that "gridlock" in Congress would "define" Obama's first term if Republicans win the House, but expressed confidence his party would prevail...

..."The White House will be full-time responding to subpoenas about where the president may or may not have been born, whether his mother and father were ever married, and whether his wife's family is from Georgetown or Sampit," Clyburn said in an interview published Monday on TheGrio.com, an African-American news website....

...Issa has promised to ramp up his probes into the Obama administration, but his spokesman said he would not pursue the "birther" controversy and that the congressman has not spoken about the issue [WE SHALL SEE ABOUT THAT!]....

...Some Republican congressional candidates and lawmakers have raised questions about Obama's country of birth and citizenship since he took office [SEE THE LONG LIST HERE]. Activists who have expressed skepticism of Obama's American citizenship have been labeled "birthers."

Obama was born in Hawaii, and the White House released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate [BULLSH!T, THAT IS NOT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND IT WAS HIS CAMPAIGN/SUPPORTERS NOT THE WHITE HOUSE]. But that has failed to silence arguments that he was not born in the U.S [THAT IS BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE THE USURPER WAS BORN, THIS IS ABOUT A "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" NOT A "CITIZEN"]....

...complete report continued here; http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/121059-rep-clyburn-gop-majority-will-issue-birther-subpoenas-against-ob?page=2

Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence and people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].
Irrefutable Proof that Obama is Not Eligible to be President of the United States, the Facts Don't Lie!

- FIVE ATTEMPTS TO RE-DEFINE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN SINCE 2001 -

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


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

WND Exclusive
BORN IN THE USA?

Lt. Col. Lakin backers

?clash over eligibility

?strategy

Retired officers weigh in on case

challenging Obama's authority to

give orders


Posted: September 27, 2010
9:31 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
??2010?WorldNetDaily

?


Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin

?

Disagreement arose today among supporters of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, the Army doctor facing military court-martial for refusing orders to deploy to Afghanistan after questioning Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to be president.

A group of retired military officers organized as the Veterans Council and the United States Patriot Union in Sheridan, Wyo., issued a white paper calling on Lakin's legal defense team to change strategy.

The so-called "White Paper No. 3" urged tea-party members and Congress members who signed the "Pledge to America" to support Lakin's right to discovery at his court-martial. The officers want Lakin to obtain Obama's long-form birth certificate and other relevant birth documents from Hawaii's Department of Health, as well as college and law-school records, to determine whether the president applied as a foreign-exchange student.

On Sept. 2, Army Col. Denise R. Lind ruled in a preliminary hearing to Lakin's scheduled October court-martial that Lakin could not pursue Obama's presidential eligibility as part of his legal defense.

Lakin's civilian defense attorney Paul Rolf Jensen had argued that under U.S.C. Rule 46, a defendant put on court-martial has the right to call all witnesses and obtain any evidence necessary to present a full defense.

?

Lind ruled it was the responsibility of Congress to impeach a sitting president, noting the discovery evidence Lakin sought to obtain could be an "embarrassment" to the White House.

In their White Paper No. 3, the veterans groups expressed concern that Lakin's defense team's refusal to change its strategy from an eligibility defense will almost certainly result in a conviction by the court-martial for refusing orders.

The paper took exception with the strategy, arguing "the Lakin team has vigorously refused to make any alterations to a defense strategy they know is wrong, and have been told by Col. Lind that they cannot even use, resting their faith in a CAAF (Court of Appeals for Armed Forces) appeals process also run by presidential appointees."

The Veterans Council and the United States Patriot Union offered to reinforce Lakin's defense with one legal expert in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and another expert criminal defense lawyer.

But Margaret Hemenway, a spokeswoman for the American Patriot Foundation, the D.C. non-profit group organized to pay for the Lakin defense, explained to WND why Lakin's defense was rejecting the offer.

"LTC Lakin is a medical officer, not a JAG or a constitutional scholar," she said.

"He is a modest and humble man who simply seeks affirmation, per his positive duty, to affirm the legality of his lawyers," she continued, stressing that Lakin is "staying the course."

In their previous two white papers, the USPU and Veterans Council had argued that Lakin was making a mistake in searching for Obama's Hawaiian long-form birth certificate, which would only prove Obama's birthplace and date of birth, his "native-born" status, not his "natural-born" status, as required by Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution.

"LTC Lakin has chosen to stay the course on the basis of advice from his existing legal team, and we must accept this decision," the USPU and Veterans Council noted in their White Paper No. 3. "LTC Lakin and his legal team are 100 percent committed to staying the course of Obama's birth records or 'native-born' status and the USBS and Veterans Council is committed to doing all that we can to promote a full defense for Lakin, complete with mitigating discovery and evidence."

By urging the public to write members of Congress who signed the "Pledge to America" and Tea Party members to side with Lakin on the grounds of his right to present a full defense, the USPU and the Veterans council expressed hope that government officials and Tea Party members would "engage on behalf of LTC Lakin."

"Nearly six months ago, LTC Lakin asked for assurance that his military orders were legal ? he is not claiming to be sole arbiter of the president's constitutional eligibility," Hemenway said.

"The burden of proof rests with the Pentagon leadership and the administration to provide this affirmation of the lawfulness of military orders within the unified chain of command based on a commander-in-chief who is legally serving. LTC Lakin's legal approach, consistent with his training as an officer, remains constant in pursuit of the answer to his question ? are his orders legal, or are they not?"

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


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:55
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
S?bado, 25 de septiembre de 2010

This is NOT an option! This is MANDATORY and when the Senate and House is regained, this MUST

Administration?s inaction criminal and impeachable

September 25th, 2010 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Constitution, Immigration | 1 Comment ?

Constitution: Obama guilty of treason, must be impeached

http://laiglesforum.com/administrations-inaction-criminal-and-impea...

By Don Hank

I recently published a column on the gradual seizure of ranches in Arizona

by Mexican cartels with the tacit consent of the current administration.

I need to clarify that any person in a position such that he/she can be reasonably expected to be protecting US assets (US president, Homeland Security Chief, Border Patrol chief, etc) and who refuses to protect said assets is on a par with ? but in fact is more culpable than ? the actual perpetrators (in this case, the cartels, Mexican criminals and other?invaders) of the harm to the assets.

This means that these people are liable and must be brought to justice as soon as possible.

Obama and his administration have made it clear that they not only will not meaningfully defend our borders and perform a modicum of their duties to protect American lives and assets (see the definition of security in the above-linked column). They have in fact clearly sided with the criminals, aiding and abetting them in harming a state and its citizens. Suing the state of AZ for protecting borders that can be expected to be protected by the federal government and is their duty to protect under the Constitution, is nothing short of treachery.

Here are the parts of the Constitution that are being directly violated ? first an Article that applies indirectly, then an Article that applies directly:

??Art. IV, Section 3: ?.The Congress shall have the Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the US; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any claims of the US or of any particular State.?

The Obama administration has ?construed? the Constitution ?so as to prejudice the claims of? a ?particular State? (AZ). That is a flagrant violation of the Constitution.

Further, and more directly:

It the administration has violated Section 4 of Art. IV, which clearly states:

?The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican form of government and shall protect each of them against Invasion?.?

There is no wiggle room here for the Executive. Obama and the agencies subordinate to him, must protect the states against invasion and?they are?failing to do so, in flagrant violation of Constitutional Article IV. In fact, they are illegally suing AZ under color of law in an attempt to cover their tracks.

This passive refusal to protect a state and the pro-active frivolous and malicious lawsuit against AZ for attempting to defend itself amount to a ground for impeachment explicitly stated under Article II, Section 4, because the inaction on the one hand and the active step on the other hand are quite simply treason. There can be no other word for it.

It does not matter what the Supreme Court says. Each state has the right to decide whether the government has denied them aid.

Regardless of this, it is time for the states to defend themselves against all blatant violations of their Constitutional rights, whether these violations be perpetrated by the Executive or a higher court, including the SC.

When a higher court violates the Constitution, it is up to the people (on the state level first) to assert their rights and just say no ? as Sheriff Joe Arpaio has done, BTW, in refusing to provide documents?improperly requested by?the feds.

Arpaio is in his right under the 10th Amendment, which states:

?The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.?

The Constitution does not grant to the federal government the right to interfere with law enforcement activities on the State level.

Nor did AZ, according to this same Amendment, have to accept the intervention of the higher court to hamstring their immigration law. They chose to do so. It needs to be recognized, in this regard, that Jan Brewer is willing to defend AZ only in part, but not in whole. She is behaving first as a politician and, as a distant second, as a defender of her State and its Constitutional rights.

Her endorsement of John McCain is evidence that she is only willing to half-heartedly defend her people.

The fact that the people chose McCain in the primary election is evidence that they are willing to allow the tail to wag the dog.

They have not fully grasped the Tea Party principles and the significance of the Constitution.

And there is one salient reason for this: Neither Brewer nor the people have actually read the Constitution she is sworn to uphold.

Nothing significant will happen until the Articles mentioned above are read and understood by a majority of the people.

You can help by distributing this column.

?

be made TOP PRIORITY!!

?

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 21:15
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

?

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Taitz v Obama Quo Warranto: Taitz has presented a mountain of evidence showing that Obama committed fraud in his assertion of eligibility to U.S. presidency.

?


Via Attorney Orly Taitz; - First Amended Reply to motion - [image source]

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO 60 B MOTION

On September 15, 2010 Steven Breyer, Justice of the Supreme Court, appeared on CNN Larry King show. When asked whether he will attend future "State of the Union" addresses in light of Barack Obama's verbal attack on the Justices of the Supreme Court during the last "State of the Union Address", Justice Breyer wisely responded, that he will attend, that the public needs to know, that they are protected, that these judges and this court will protect even ones that are not popular, institutions that are not popular, that this document (meaning U.S. Constitution o.t.) protects them. He proceeded by reminiscing about his trip to Russia in 1993. He was invited by Boris Yeltsin to a meeting with thousands of judges from all over Russia to assist them in building a new fledgling democracy after years of Marxist tyranny. Yeltsin promised those judges, that he would protect them from "telephone justice". U.S. Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer was on hand to assure thousands of Russian judges that democracy is possible, that real justice is possible.

In the case at hand the plaintiff Dr. Orly Taitz is specifically the type of individual described by Justice Bryer. She is an attorney, who previously represented active members of US military, requesting verification of eligibility of Barack Obama as a Commander in Chief in light of the mountain of evidence, showing lack of proper vital records for such eligibility. She is that unpopular individual, greatly unpopular with the Obama administration, who was damaged. She became a victim of a form of "telephone justice". The only way for her to get compensation for damages suffered, to be made whole, is to proceed with her legal action for fraud committed by Barack Obama prior to election. While this court previously found no particularized damages, in her FRCP 60 B motion Taitz presented new evidence of particularized damages suffered recently, new evidence of fraud committed by Obama and a nexus between those damages and fraud committed.

This case is akin to Horn v Huddle,647 F.Supp 2d (DDC 2009) and 699F. Supp. 2d (DDC 2010), where just last year, both the DC circuit court of Appeals and Your Honor reinstated a case, where an individual was harmed by actions of the Federal Government and CIA and by ?fraud on the court? committed by top federal officials and an attorney representing the federal government. In the current case Taitz was damaged and had to pay $20,000 in sanctions, after she was threatened by the Department of Justice with her home will be subject to sale to cover this lien and all of her bank records were subpoenaed by the Federal government as a result of fraud committed by Obama and a cover up by some attorneys of the Department of Justice. In Horn v Huddle, Your Honor requested that top federal officials and attorneys provide justification, why sanctions should not be assessed against them for ?fraud on the court?. In this case, similar ?Misrepresentations to this Court that were material and intentional ? were committed and similar questions should be posed to Obama and the US Attorney?s office.

August 1 2010 the State Department released to the public some of passport records of Ann Dunham, Obama?s mother. It clearly shows that Obama was listed on those records under name Soebarkah, not Obama. There is no evidence of Obama ever officially changing his name from Soebarkah to Obama, therefore he took an oath of office as US president under a name not legally his, which makes his oath invalid. Taitz could not obtain those records, as Department of Justice refused to cooperate in her prior cases, or in prior FOIA requests, however this information was readily available to the attorneys of the Department of Justice. This information provides a necessary confirmation and link to a previously released AP(Associated Press) report of Obama?s school registration in Indonesia, where he is listed as Indonesian citizen. This fits with the fact that recently released immigration file of his stepfather, citizen of Indonesia Lolo Soetoro, contain redaction of some 11 pages in the interest of privacy, while due to the fact that Lolo Soetoro and his immigration sponsor, his wife Ann Dunham, are legally deceased, provide no justification for redaction, since there is no consideration of privacy of deceased individuals. The only consideration of privacy can be a cover up of the fact that Barack Obama used a different last name and was part of the immigration file of Lolo Soetoro. This would negate his claim of Natural Born Citizen status, a necessary prerequisite for U.S. presidency. This new information provides a necessary link to the fact that the released Dunham ? Obama divorce agreement contains a missing page and Dunham-Soetoro divorce agreement states that the couple has two children, which is an indication of adoption of Obama by Lolo Soetoro, since Sotoro and Dunham had only one biological child, Maya Soetoro, who was born in 1970, long after Soetoro?s immigration papers were submitted to INS.

It, also, shows an egregious pattern of fraud and intent to cover up by Obama, which ultimately led to Taitz damages, since in his Illinois bar application Obama states, that he did not use other names. However, recently released 1969 passport records ( Exhibit 1 ) show that he went by the name Soebarkah and his School registration from Indonesia (Exhibit 2) shows him using name Barry Soetoro.

A. Defendant did not provide opposition to the merits of the motion and therefore conceded the motion. Defendant intentionally misrepresented the case in order to confuse the court.

Defense intentionally misrepresented to the court the main point of 60B motion, namely the fact that Taitz suffered $20,000 damage as proximate cause and foreseeable result of fraud committed by Obama.

Previously this court ruled that Taitz did not have standing, due to the fact that her damages were generalized, not particularized. Defendant claims that the fact that Taitz was sanctioned $20,000 when Judge Land believed Obama's assertions of being legitimate and ruled that challenge of this assertion is frivolous "lacks any articulated or plausible connection to the actions of Defendant."

This statement represents misrepresentation of the facts, made simply because the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, making the shots in this defense is not acting as a U.S. Attorney representing the people of the United States, but rather as a private attorney for Mr. Obama, defending him in the matter of fraud committed before the election.

Taitz has presented a mountain of evidence showing that Obama committed fraud in his assertion of eligibility to U. S. presidency. Evidence previously submitted include the transcript of the March 25 th session of the Assembly of Kenya, when James Orengo, Minister of Lands, clearly stated that Obama was born in Kenya.

Affidavits of three licensed investigators, including John Sampson, retired senior Deportation Officer from the Department of Homeland Security show that Obama has been using, for most of his life, Social Security number 042-68-4425, issued to another individual in the state of CT. An affidavit of one of the top forensic document experts, Sandra Ramsey Lines, states that the short version abbreviated Certification of Live Birth, obtained by Obama recently, in 2007, and posted on the Internet, cannot be evidence of birth in HI withtout seeing the original with the name of the doctor, name of the hospital and signature, that Obama refuses to release in spite of over 100 legal actions filed and reportedly $1.7 million spent to keep those basic documents sealed. Taitz was damaged by $20,000 in sanctions due to the fact that Judge Land believed fraudulent statements by Obama and believed that the challenge is frivolous. The only way for Taitz to proceed is in a legal action for fraud, unsealing the records, showing that Obama indeed committed fraud, therefore Taitz?s actions were not frivolous and Taitz is entitled to these proximately related and foreseeable damages suffered as a result of fraud committed by Obama. Taitz clearly satisfied requirement of the damage to be not conjectural and hypothetical, not generalized but particularized, as required by Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Until now the court could rule that the damages were conjectural, however after Taitz?s payment of $20,000,- the damage became actual and particularized. The clear cause for those damages was fraud committed by Obama, the chain of causation was not broken, the actions by Judge Land were foreseeable.

Now the defendant does not claim lack of particularized damages, but rather claims lack of nexus Defendant?s opposition no longer claim lack of damages, but rather claims lack of nexus.

New evidence submitted

Taitz submitted new evidence, that was not available previously, namely the fact that a newly released passport of Ann Dunham, deceased mother of Obama, show him under the name Soebarkah. While previously one might have had doubts about fraud being performed, new evidence of his use of a different last name, while in Indonesia, shows that fraud indeed was committed and gives more weight to previously submitted school registration for Barack Obama, showing him as a citizen of Indonesia. ...continued below on page 7. Exhibits in PDF format can be viewed here.

Previous reports on Attorney Taitz can be viewed here. Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence and people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].
Taitz v Obama Quo Warranto - Reply to Opposition to 60 B Motion - 9/23/2010

Previous reports on Obama's Social Security problem can be viewed here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Neil Sankey - Barack Hussein Obama Addresses & SS Numbers -

Affidavit of Deportation Officer John Sampso n Regarding Obama's Social Security Number 8-11/2010

Susan Daniels Affidavit Regarding Obama's Social Security Number(s)

SSNs & addresses belonging to dozens of Barack Obama's, Stanley Ann Dunham and Michelle Obama.

Obama's Social Security Number(s) - Jerome Corsi on the Jeff Kuhner Show - 5/18/10 - White House Response -




Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:59
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 24 de septiembre de 2010

JAGs protecting Obama have committed treason

Print This Post

IS THE ?FIX? ALREADY IN FOR LT. COL. LAKIN?? IF SO, WHAT DO WE DO?

by James H. Roberson

?

The position of Judge Advocate General is appointed and provided for by Title 10 of the U.S. Code

(Sept. 23, 2010) ? Folks, we may be getting close to Civil War II.

Lt. Col. Lakin (M.D.- Active Army) ? first asked the Army to affirm that Obama was constitutionally eligible to serve as President, and when his chain of command refused, he then refused to deploy to Afghanistan until ?eligibility? was established (to force the issue to a head).???Lakin?s argument is simple and direct:? a soldier must not be compelled to obey an ?unlawful order?; an ?ineligible person? cannot serve as President and Commander-in-Chief and, thus, cannot issue ?lawful orders.?? He has thereby laid his liberty and whole career on the line? in order to honor his Oath to Support and Defend the Constitution (especially Article II, Section 1, Clause 5), which must not be violated!

In preparation for his court martial, scheduled for October, his defense counsel asked the Judge Advocate General (JAG) court to authorize ?discovery? of Obama?s birth records in order to prove Lakin?s innocence. Col. Lind, Presiding JAG Judge, has recently ruled that LTC Lakin can?t depose (question under oath) the Hawaiian Custodian of Birth Records, nor view any of their documents.? The judge claimed that birth records might contain ?embarrassing information? about the putative President.? The judge further ruled that it is ?irrelevant? for the military to prove that Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief.? She said that LTC Lakin?s deployment orders came from the Pentagon and, ?on its face,? that?s all he needs to know.? In other words, along with her Commanding General, Col. Lind has just decided that the chain of command originates at the Pentagon, and the President is NOT an integral part of? it. Both Lind and her commanding general have now violated the Constitution?s clear specification that the ?President is the Commander-in-Chief.

Col. Lind is either a disgrace to the uniform, or a coward who has just covertly handed LTC Lakin?s defense team a ?home-run? issue to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court!? A lengthy but very insightful interview with a legal military justice expert explains the background and history of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and WHY we must never give Obama an opportunity to declare ?martial law,? which is brutal and NOT civilized, constitutional law as we normally comprehend it.

So far, three generals, all retired, have offered support for Lt. Col. Lakin.? Retired Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney, the highest-ranking officer yet to lend public support, has supplied an affidavit ?in support of defense request for discovery/motion to compel.?? The affidavit acknowledges widespread concerns over the putative President?s constitutional eligibility and demands that he release his birth records or the court authorize discovery.? Lakin faces trial on October 13-15.

Extracts from the affidavit include:

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 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 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 presumed 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?

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.

The second general, Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely (Ret.) was less subtle when he said:? ?We need to demand resignations of Obama, his cabinet, and members of Congress.?? He also stated that Obama is both ?incompetent? and ?ineligible.?? Further,? ?The fix is in? and ?The damages have been so great that we can?t afford to wait until the 2012 elections.?

The third General, Army Major General (Ret.) Jerry Curry, a decorated combat veteran, has issued a statement indicating that he agrees with Lakin that the (putative) President should provide proof of eligibility. Curry served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Carter administration, as Press Secretary to the Secretary of Defense for the Reagan administration, and has worked in international relations, public affairs, management, aviation, and research and? development.

Folks, I?m terribly concerned about the future of our Republic.? It is disgraceful that nearly every member of Congress knows Obama? is ineligible.???What are they afraid of?? Are they are all afraid to act for fear that this will cause more racial uprisings?? with big cities looting and burning??? as happened before, following the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rodney King events?? Or is there some other powerful force keeping them?? and major media?? silent about this matter?? When people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O?Reilly, Neal Boortz, and Sean Hannity are all afraid to discuss the matter, there is cause for real alarm.? Even the U.S. Supreme Court is afraid to address the issue.? Justice Clarence Thomas, testifying before Congress, stated, ?We (the Supreme Court) are ?evading that issue.?? At the 1:00 min. mark of this 1:17 min video, Justice Thomas ?spills the beans??? and then tries to act as if it were a joke.

Attorney General Eric Holder (a demonstrated racist) was talking about? our fears of honestly discussing racial issues when he asserted, ?We are a nation of cowards!????He was indeed correct.???Nevertheless, as a Citizen, you do need to understand this important issue of? ?eligibility? if you don?t already.? Every patriotic citizen has a positive duty to understand the limitations imposed on our governments by the Constitution so that our liberties can be protected.

A five-minute video clearly explains why Obama is ineligible under the U.S. Constitution to be President (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5).? Please view it.? You will then understand why he is a bold Usurper.

Some Closing Thoughts

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be? their own governors must first arm themselves with the power that knowledge imparts. ? James Madison ( ?father of the U.S. Constitution?)

Hold on to the Constitution?and the Republic for which it stands?? what has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen again.? Hold on to your Constitution. ? Daniel Webster

We must not let an audacious, clever, glib Marxist subvert it, nor diminish it.? ?Native born? (born in the land), is NOT the same as ?natural born? (both parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of birth).? Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 makes clear that the Founders recognized that there were various categories of ?Citizens.?? They decided that only? ?natural born? met the strict criterion of? undivided allegiance needed for the President.

?Remember in November.? We must settle this with ballots; otherwise, bullets may be the ultimate solution.

Please, pray for our Republic.

? 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 @ 9:36
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 22 de septiembre de 2010
UPDATE: MY MESSAGE BELOW WAS DELETED FROM? COURT MARTIAL PAGE.??

??
?I posted the link to an article at

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/09/19/military-law-manual-authority-to-order-courts-martial-resides-with-the-commander-in-chief/

?In reference to Military Law Manual: Authority to order courts-martial resides with the Commander-in-Chief.

And Mr. Sullivan gave me his opinion. Here is my answer to him and his words.

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

?Thanks for your opinion Mr.Sullivan I'm not a lawyer, my English is broken since is not my first language, I posted the link to the article? by Fitzpatrick, I thought it was?educational,?but I would like to ask?you some questions? since I guess you are a lawyer?and please forgive me if I give my opinion on?another issue. I will understand since is not related to the Court Martial if you ignore me. I will post this at the source? of the article at http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/09/19/military-law-manual-authority-to-order-courts-martial-resides-with-the-commander-in-chief/

??
-----------------------------------------
??
??
"Section 2. Clause 1. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, (1)?when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Office, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
??
Please explain the meaning of below.
??
1-When called into the actual Service of the United States,.
??
The Limited View.?The purely military aspects of the Commander-in-Chiefship were those that were originally stressed. Hamilton said the office ?would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the Military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy.?112 Story wrote in his CommentariesEnfurru?ado2) ?The propriety of admitting the president to be commander in chief, so far as to give orders,
??
2-The propriety of admitting the president to be commander in chief, so far as to give orders
??
??
U.S. Army Major Stefan Cook has had his deployment order revoked. Yesterday we told you about Maj. Cook and his assertion that President Barack Obama is not a legal, natural-born U.S. citizen, and therefore does not have the authority to send soldiers to war. Today that deployment order was revoked with no statement from the military.
??
??
See this video from December 1, 2009 at West Point at 10.20
??

??

00:10:20
Obama, Barack - President, [D] United States

This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S troops to Afghanistan

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

Mr. Sullivan

If Obama is a Constitutional president and per the Constitution the Commander in Chief like he said? he is and he determined to send troops, why any judge or any military in service who took the Oath to the Constitution could not ask, verify or make sure after so many cases in court or comments by Constitutional experts? to see his real long birth certificate verified by Hawaii ?as step one for his Constitutional post? Then after is done by the State ,the Senate should declare him natural born as they did with McCain, both parents at birth had to be citizens but Obama's father was not citizen, then Senate will not override what they declare before? it will have to be done by the Supreme Court, but they do not want to get involved like Judge Thomas said at Congress. What should We do then? Let it go, wait few years for the truth to come out or solve? now by two ways, first at this Court Martial or an investigation by Congress to impeach the Usurper.

In the 19th century?some new Republics in Latin America had their Constitutions similar to ours. Mexico in their 1917 Constitution has that to be elected president has to be a Mexican citizen by birth, in the full enjoyment of his rights, and the son of Mexican parents by birth.
?
In reference to your opinion below it's like chinese to me, I do not understand.
If the ?Court Martial is giving to a soldier for not obey orders, and the cause for his reason exist but can not be seen by any one, like do not exist, the consequence is that we have the Constitutional Crisis we are facing. Some times I wonder how smart was Ben Franklin,? when he gave us a Republic, and how ignorant we are?because? we didn't know how to preserve it.
?
?
?
Dwight Sullivan 09.21.10 at 18:27

Ms. Mata, Colonel Winthrop indicated that the President has the power to convene general courts-martial as both an incident of his Commander in Chief authority and by statute under the Articles of War. Under Article 22(a)(1) of the UCMJ, that continues to be the case. But the President?s own power to convene general courts-martial doesn?t mean ? and it isn?t the case ? that military officers derive their authority to convene courts-martial from the President. Article I, Section 8, clause 14 of the Constitution gives Congress the power and authority ?To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces.? Congress exercised that power by adopting the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Article 22 of the UCMJ (10 U.S.C. 822) governs who may convene general courts-martial. Among the classes of individuals so authorized is ?any other commanding officer designated by the Secretary concerned.? There is almost certainly a Department of the Army General Order in which the Secretary of the Army has designated the Commander of the Military District of Washington as a general court-martial convening authority. That is the source of the convening authority?s power to create the general court-martial that is currently trying LTC Lakin and to refer LTC Lakin?s case to that general court-martial.

BTW, Walter Fitzpatrick?s account of history is seriously flawed.

?


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:24
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 20 de septiembre de 2010

Pravda Runs Obama Eligibility Report: AKA Obama fans: All together now ? say OMG!!

Via Pravda and some; - AKA Obama fans: All together now ? say OMG!! - by Sam Sewell 1. Oh what a tangled web we weave... It isn't hard to imagine the gnawing anxiety that AKA OBAMA lives with, day in...

Pravda Does it Again; No evidence of Hawaiian birth for AKA Obama. What about Kenya?

Via Pravda; - No evidence of Hawaiian birth for AKA Obama. What about Kenya? - Obama's 'Certification of Live Birth' form reveals his Birth Registration was FILED in 1961 but was never fully ACCEPTED...

?

Pravda: Even if Obama were born in Hawaii* he would still be ineligible to serve as President because of his dual (perhaps triple) citizenship.

Via Pravda; - What we know for sure that makes aka Obama ineligible - Continued. Read Part I and Part II of the article There isn't one single, credible source that has any concrete facts whatsoever,...

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 19:38
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

How is it that Mr. Obama is not required to provide the Court documents requested by Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin's Defense Counsel for his Court Martial?

Records on Obama? ... Go Fish!

?By William R. Mann??Friday, September 17, 2010

?Alea iacta est!?

Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin, a decorated Army Flight Surgeon, is being Court Martialed for failing to deploy to a war zone. This is a serious charge. LTC Lakin has refused to deploy, saying that the order is invalid. You see, Lakin believes that President Obama is not authorized to order him to do anything. He alleges that President Obama has not provided appropriate documentation to prove that he is eligible to be President of the United States, much less Commander in Chief, despite the 2008 election results.


A Military Judge has ruled that a request by the Defense for Obama?s birth and school records would provide ?the potential for embarrassment ? to the President.

How is it that Mr. Obama is not required to provide the Court documents requested by Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin?s Defense Counsel for his Court Martial? Whether or not these ?Birther? assertions might be simple horse dung, Mr. Obama should submit the requested materials, i.e. real documents, if he wants to put these accusations to rest. This debate holds forth in many quarters on the internet and elsewhere. But, you won?t see it on the nightly news, unless the news is bad for LTC Lakin.

I have been on record since the beginning of this Court Martial action saying that LTC Lakin would not get a full and fair hearing in the Court Martial. Frankly, I don?t think any subordinate can fall on their sword in such a fashion and win ... and you can only fall on your sword once. We have all seen what happens to Four Star Generals for far lesser comments about or challenges to Presidential Authority.

As a Retired Officer and US Army Veteran, I can only object to LTC Terry Lakin?s treatment in this Court Martial. If this request for discovery of records on Mr. Obama were denied, so as not to provide ?the potential for embarrassment? to the President, then I suggest we all need a reminder. Watergate showed that even a President is not immune. Someone remind the Military Judge that Obama may be the President of the United States of America, but he is not some Divine Right King! The Defendant, though military, still has a Constitutional Right to a fair trial.

Hmmm. What if this were a request for records from Nixon, Reagan or Bush Sr.? I can?t speak for the military judge. But, I would be willing to bet that there would have been no such hesitancy by the MSM to side with such a request. They would have been all over this, especially if such records might have provided even a whiff of scandal. Come to think of it, the Press did seek to diminish Reagan for his non-combat role in the Armed Forces, and Nixon for his Navy Service as a mere Logistics Officer.? George Bush Senior?s valor was indisputable.

I recall that Former vice-President Dan Quayle?s Indiana National Guard service was presented, mocked and questioned in 1988 as ?Dodging the Draft.? Does the public know how many National Guard and Reserve units were called up to serve in Vietnam? Being National Guard or Reserve was no sure way to Dodge the Draft. Serving in the National Guard and the Reserve are honorable opportunities to serve as Citizen Soldiers.

Bill Clinton was, in-deed, a Draft Dodger. There was ample record of his contrivances to avoid the Draft. But because he was the Liberal Poster Boy, the MSM left him alone. What convenient amnesia by the Media and by the American Public. There has been built, since the 70s, an opaque screen that hides memories of shameful behaviors in the 60s and 70s when a large number of American males avoided service to their country. [BTW: I still have my Draft Card from 1967 and I kept it in my wallet until recently when i retired it to a scrapbook. I will bet that a lot of Vets still have theirs.]

George ?W? Bush had to answer all questions about his service record. But John Kerry did not ... recall? Kerry blustered, hemmed, hawed, and blamed ?Swift Boaters ? for lying about him ... you know, those fifteen or so guys that served with him every day that he was in Vietnam ... however long it took for him to build his ?war hero? myth. What Chutzpah! Kerry claimed that he was wrongfully ?Swift Boated,? but it was Bush who was scorned and smeared. And while we are at it, why did they go after Dick Cheney?s deferment? Student & Family Deferment or not, Cheney, who has had a long history of serious cardiac deficiency, would probably not have passed muster for service then or now.

Free speech: It was all so easy and free to call ?W? a Nazi, or to make assassination films about him [did you miss that one?], or call him outrageous names, or falsely assault his Texas National Guard Service Record [claims proven false by investigators]. But not one MSM reporter trusted his word. It was bloggers who exposed Dan Rather?s forged documents.? Every utterance by the First Lady was scrutinized by the MSM to find cracks in the Bush?s relationship. The Bush?s beautiful Daughters were not even off limits with the MSM despite polite requests. Finally, how many times did the MSM seek to find evidence that ?W? was drinking again ... even so far as to photo-shop a picture of him drinking beer in China at the Olympic Games?

OK: One more case in point. I want to know why John McCain had to provide proof of his Father serving in the US Navy at the time he was born in Panama, to prove natural Born American citizenship and eligible to run for President? Both of his parents were American citizens and Panama Canal Zone was at that time American Territory. Why did some in Congress and much of the MSM challenge McCain?s eligibility, but not Obama? Was it smokescreen to create a tempest in a teapot and to give Barack Obama cover?

Like it or not Full Disclosure became precedent for Presidents in 2004 and earlier, when the Press chose to make it so. The Press has an important job to do, however they have shown themselves to be scandalously negligent in their reporting of this President?s actions. Like this President, when it came to certain Liberal scions of the past, or Bill Clinton?s scandals with female Staffers, Press disclosure was muted if not unreported.

So is Obama to be immune to this precedent?

Why is everyone so afraid of challenging Obama? Are folks afraid to be called a racist? This is already irrelevant, Obama himself has played this card too often. Are folks afraid of ?the Chicago Way,? the unleashing of threats and bullies? Are folks scared they will be hounded by Secret Service as a person of interest where there is no crime, or by the FBI as a ?dangerous radical,? or audited by the IRS as a tax cheat by Geithner?s minions, or having property searched by Federal Marshalls for subversive materials on a trumped up warrant issued by AG Eric Holder? I don?t know.

Don?t be afraid, my friends. If and when we ever got to that point, it would be ?game over!? I still think the First Amendment and our strongly individualist society believes in fair play. This still should trump any possibility of ?government vigilantism.? We have had enough visceral and vigilant public reactions to past events like Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the Elian Gonzales missteps to put and keep this monster back under the bed. Call me an optimist!

Mr. Obama, despite his puny protestations of victimization, should not be immune from the same standards you and I would have to meet to do public show and tell? My gosh People! This is the President of the United States, arguably the most powerful man on earth. But, maybe this is exactly why the FOIA and Discovery Requests go nowhere. Maybe certain people are afraid of what the reaction might be in the USA as well as to our friends and adversaries abroad to such disclosures.

My friends, we dug this hole ourselves. The time to vet Mr. Obama came and went in 2008 and earlier. No one was listening to Sean Hannity?s and other?s warning alarms. We have what we have. This Court Martial of LTC Lakin is unfortunate. The Government could have offered him an opportunity to resign his commission, but now I wish they would comply with his disclosure request. I think it may be too late. Brother Lakin, I am sorry for your troubles and I wish you luck, but I believe the cards are stacked high against you. You may not get that opportunity to produce your evidence of Obama Records. Mr. Obama will not have to show and tell until election day 2012. On that day there will be a verdict on this entire shroud of denial and secrecy. Let us allow this man to pass quietly into history, a mistake, un-rehabilitated and un-reconstructed.

In 2008, the majority of Americans were so excited and in a big hurry to elect the First Black American President. We forgot to ensure that Obama was qualified to be President by any and all standards that apply. He has however, pioneered new ways to use a teleprompter.

Caveat emptor!


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:06
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Military Law Manual: Authority to order courts-martial resides with the Commander-in-Chief

Print This Post

OFFICERS MIGHT BE PROSECUTORS, BUT THEIR AUTHORITY COMES FROM THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF

by Sharon Rondeau

?

Cover page of William Winthrop's 1886 work, "Military Law and Precedents"

(Sept. 19, 2010) ?William Winthrop was a colonel in the United States Army who wrote a treatise entitled Military Law and Precedents first published in 1880 as a compilation of JAG opinions.? The second edition was published in 1920 but shows a copyright date of 1896.? The work has been called ?The blackstone of military law.?? The book was reissued in 2000 by Beard Books and is available from several vendors, including in Canada.

Prior to his enlistment in the U.S. Army, Winthrop was a practicing attorney.? His 1895 revised compendium acknowledged changes in ?Army Regulation? and ?statutory authority? and was used for ?the instruction of the Cadets of the Military Academy? (page 7).

The current publisher describes the work as follows:

This comprehensive treatise details early military law, written and unwritten, and explains all of the intricacies of the courts martial process. Notable adjudications by civil courts and in military trials as well as the opinions of law officers are covered. Separate treatment is offered on the law of war and on the civil functions and relations of the military.

The second volume of Winthrop?s book makes reference to ?The Law of Nations? and states that ?the Law of War? ?is quite independent of the ordinary law?Finding indeed its original authority in the war powers of Congress and the Executive, and thus constitutional in its source, the Law of War may, in its exercise, substantially supersede for the time even the Constitution itself??

Chapter VI discusses ?The Constitution of General Courts Martial?:

The law authorizing and relating to the constituting of General Courts-Martial is contained in the provision of the Constitution making the President the Commander-in-chief of the Army.? In the Seventy-Second and Seventy-Third Articles of war, and in Secs. 1230 and 1320 of the Revised Statutes.? By this law the authority to constitute these courts is vested in?I, The President; II, Certain military commanders.

In regard to the authority to convene a court martial, Winthrop provides the following historical background:

Upon the adoption of the Constitution and the division of the powers of the government, the executive power, previously exercised by Congress, was transferred to the President, and with it the function of commander-in-chief?Among these powers was the authority, properly incident to chief command, of issuing to subordinates and the army at large such orders as a due consideration for military discipline might require, and, among these, orders directing officers to assemble and investigate cases of misconduct and recommend punishments therefor?in other words orders constituting courts-martial.

Winthrop states that several presidents, both during peacetime and war, had used their authority to convene courts-martial (pp. 59-60).? He then states:

Meanwhile, indeed, the provision of 1830, now incorporated in the second clause of the 72d Article, had specially devolved it upon the President to appoint the court whenever the military commander, otherwise competent for the purpose, should happen to be the ?accuser or prosecutor? of the officer to be tried; but the effect of this, according to recent ruling, was ?to limit the authority of commanding officers, not to confer power upon the President.?? And the authority of the President to order such courts, generally and at discretion, as commander-in-chief, continued to be exercised irrespective of such provision.? Otherwise indeed it would have resulted that many officers and soldiers, not under the command of a ?department? or ?army? commander, including general officers, certain officers of the general staff, cadets of the Military Academy, and sundry enlisted men of the Engineer Battalion, or Ordinance or Signal corps, or acting as clerks in the War Department, would, prior to 1874, (or, in the case of the cadets, 1873,) have remained exempt from amenability to military justice, to the serious prejudice of discipline. (page 60)

On page 61, Winthrop states:

??a general power given by a statute to a subordinate is given necessarily to the superior, since the greater, in the system of military discipline and authority, must contain the less?A military officer can not be invested with greater authority by Congress than the Commander-in-chief, and a power of command devolved by statute on an officer of the Army or Navy is necessarily shared by the President?

2. UNDER THE 72d ARTICLE OF WAR. In the second clause of this Article it is provided that when a military commander authorized by the first clause to ?appoint? a general court-martial, is the ?accuser or prosecutor? of an officer of his command proposed to be brought to trial, the court shall be appointed by the President.?

Cdr. Walter Fitzpatrick (Ret.) generously gave his time to The Post & Email to explain the concept of ?attainder,? to whom the authority belongs to convene a court-martial, and the impact of a broken chain of command if indeed Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible to serve as President of the United States.? He discussed in detail how it affects Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who has refused to obey orders based on his contention that Obama may not meet the constitutional qualifications to issue orders.? Cdr. Fitzpatrick also discussed the potential results of Col. Denise Lind?s recent claim that she and the Pentagon have the authority to conduct Lakin?s court-martial without authorization from the putative commander-in-chief.

MRS. RONDEAU: What is ?attainder,? and why is it used in the military?

CDR. FITZPATRICK: I?ve worked very hard over the years to make the idea of ?attainder? easily understood and accessible to anybody who comes to it.? You?ve already published it:? Punishment without law, punishment without a jury.? That?s what ?attainder? is.? A court-martial is the practice of attainder.

MRS. RONDEAU: How did the practice of ?attainder? evolve?

CDR. FITZPATRICK: Attainder is the practice of kings and parliaments, dictators and generals, when a single person has the power to rule alone; they don?t need anyone else to accuse a person and then find them guilty of some kind of criminal act and then visit punishment upon that person.? The examples in British and European history, more widely, are found everyplace.

At the point in American history when we were under attack from the British and being oppressed by King George III, the moment of battle came upon us very rapidly.? In the colonial administration, the Continental or colonial Congress, had all it could do with getting ready to fight that war and then actually engage the enemy, which included all the kinds of things that go into standing up against an armed force such as Great Britain.? We didn?t have time to make rules for the military, but we had to have something.? John Adams probably summed it up most succinctly, which is to say that before the British, the Romans used this system of military law; why don?t we just use it, too??which is the court martial.

It is indeed the practice of attainder:? to rule by a single person, to punish troops summarily and quickly with expediency.? There are certain circumstances when you can come up on a troop who?s in a foxhole, asleep on watch, and shoot that man dead.? That has happened.? That?s the kind of summary judgment you have in the military: an expedient command that you have of people in the use of attainder, and it?s used for any number of reasons.? The motives behind exercising punishment by the state directly against the citizen are a long list.? But in our early days, we didn?t have time to figure out how; it was a distraction that we could not afford.? We needed to get engaged with the enemy right away, so it?s one of the few times in history where you had the enemy, the combatants, fighting against each other using the same rules.? We adopted the British rules of martial law to govern our armed forces during revolutionary times.

When the war was over and we were looking at standing up a brand-new Congress under a brand-new constitution that was to govern a brand-new nation, there came a point in time when our legislators in this country had a duty and an obligation to take a look at the rules for the military and reconcile them with the brand-new constitution.? We came under a brand-new government with the United States Constitution upon its ratification.? That reconciliation has never occurred.? There was a time between the Revolutionary War and the ratification of the Constitution and its acceptance as our form of government.? There was a period of time when we didn?t have an army and we didn?t have a navy.? We stood them down.? So those rules that have been used for the Army and the Navy no longer applied because we didn?t have an army or a navy.? And that was at the moment in time when the Constitution came to life.? So the Founders had an obligation to take a hard look at the rules for the military, reconcile those rules with the Constitution, and they never did that.? Because the military has been declared a different part of our country, they don?t get the same protections that you and I have as regular citizens, it came to pass that those people who are defending the Constitution with their lives are not protected by the Constitution.? It?s because we?re still using a form of government in the military that finds its source in the British practice of attainder.

MRS. RONDEAU: Can the military system be changed?

CDR. FITZPATRICK: It has to be changed.? It?s a matter of a constitutional command.? Through all of its 200+ years of history, there has never been enough force to bring upon the Congress, in the House of Representatives and the Senate, to make them look at this, deal with it and fix the problem.

Back in the day, John Adams was there, and he talked about the difficulty that would be placed upon us in trying to do that.? It was not an easy issue, and I think it would be much easier today to bring our troops in under the protection of the Constitution.? I don?t see where it would be that difficult.? So the Congress has always been able to punt.? We?ve never forced them to fix it.? There have been several times in United States history where we came close, but the Congress had still never substantively dealt with reconciling the Constitution of the United States with the Articles of War.? During the Revolutionary War, they were called the ?Articles of War,? but they?ve been renamed the ?Uniform Code of Military Justice.?

And of course, because of the facility of attainder, it works very well for someone who wants to rule by himself or force the rules on a citizenry.? Military commanders love it.? That?s why they?re not objecting to it.? But it?s a problem that has never been substantively addressed.? It normally comes up after a war or a major conflict.? The Uniform Code of Military Justice became the UCMJ at the conclusion of World War II when we had anywhere from 12,000,000-16,000,000 people in uniform.? On any given day, the number could be different; it depends on whom you talk to.? But then you have their extended families.? During World War II, a whole lot of people were connected to the military; more than most times of our history.? A lot more people during World War II were exposed to the scope and operation of the military discipline system during that period of time than almost any other time? in U.S. history, and they were not happy with what they found.? They were pretty upset.

So the vets came home at the end of the war and related to their neighbors, friends and families and to the Congress exactly how draconian this system of martial law was.? And that?s when the Articles of War used during the Second World War for the Army and Navy became the Uniform Code of Military Justice.? There was another dynamic at work at the time, which is that we had the beginning of the United States Air Force.? The U.S. Army Air Force was being transitioned into the U.S. Air Force, so that was another dynamic in the late 1940s when they were wrestling an alligator, and it was a contortion of conflicting interests to try and get this thing cobbled out to make it look as if it was? a system of justice that paralleled, or very closely mirrored, what goes on in a civilian criminal setting.

This is written in Winthrop?s Curse, which I sent to you.? The military discipline system has never been anything other than a patchwork; a smorgasbord:? Pick from Column A, pick from Column B?it has been nothing but a mess.? During the course of the Civil War, again, the exercise of the Articles of War was draconian, and that was not necessarily the driving force behind an inspection of the Constitution and the President?s role in the exercise of our Constitution.? Lincoln was under extraordinary scrutiny from, among other people, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Taney.? Because Lincoln, during the course of the Civil War, suspended certain parts of the Constitution.? His famous quote was ?The Constitution is on a suicide pact.?

Having said that, there are moments in our history when the Constitution cannot be our law of the land; we must go to a dictatorship; we must go to a military martial law.? It?s at those times when the country is facing extreme necessity at the point of death.? That was part of what was going on during the Civil War.? At that time, the Constitution doesn?t work.? If we had armed forces coming here from another country right now, we would have to turn off the Constitution; we couldn?t use it.? We?d have to go to a dictatorship so that we could martial our forces in a way where we could prevail and survive as a nation, and then with that, by extension, keep our form of government alive.? But the Constitution is not well-suited to defend a nation when it?s under the kind of attack that might end the life of the nation.? Those moments in time come and go, but they?re brief in their span, all things considered.

So there?s a need for martial law; I understand it, and I would hope that in those times we have decent people doing the right thing, but that doesn?t always happen.? However, there is a time and a place for martial law, and it was during the course of the Civil War that Lincoln, for example, found that to be the case and said, ?We just can?t do this anymore,? and for that, he came under extraordinary scrutiny.

MRS. RONDEAU: Because the people were afraid that he was turning into a dictator and that things would stay that way?

CDR. FITZPATRICK: Right.? But Lincoln was murdered, and I believe that in that moment in time, he was getting ready to restore the Constitution to its full glory.? I?m sure that?s what he would have done, but that happened anyway.? In the moment, you had military personnel such as this Colonel Winthrop who recognized the danger that came from a Supreme Court scrutiny which would have engendered legislative scrutiny into the scope and operation of the military discipline system.? And it was a mess.

So after the Civil War, Winthrop put together this two-volume text, although it didn?t begin as two volumes.? He wrote and published; then he wrote more and published; then he wrote some more and he published.? The two volumes that I have here are his work as it existed and was republished and recast in 1896, three years before he died.

But you get the sense of it.? After the Civil War, Winthrop wanted to maintain this military discipline scheme, and he recognized that it was not constitutional, so in his defense of this military martial law, Winthrop discusses early on in his 1,000-page work that ?the Constitution is too weak; it?s too feeble; we can?t use it for the military; it doesn?t work quickly enough; it?s not encumbered by the embarrassment of the civil law, etc.?? So Winthrop was clearly writing as a man who was intent upon maintaining the military?s own government.

MRS. RONDEAU: Was that over civilians as well?

CDR. FITZPATRICK: Yes, as a matter of fact, but to a limited degree.? Winthrop wrote about civilians who are embedded with the military.? During the Civil War, they were called ?camp followers.?

Do you know where the term ?hooker? came from?

MRS. RONDEAU: No, I don?t.

CDR. FITZPATRICK: Joseph Hooker was a Union general, and he had camp followers, some of them women.? These camp followers became known as ?Joseph?s Hookers.?? So what I?m saying is that there were many, many kinds of civilians near an army for any number of reasons:? to provision them, resupply them, carry their goods and provide services of any type and kind.? Winthrop recognized the need to bring these camp followers under the military law because they had information which could have been very dangerously compromised or delivered to an enemy force.? For that, Winthrop correctly observed that when people were close to the army like that, they have to be governed in a military environment.? But only in that time of war that I?ve described:? War with a capital ?W,? when the life of the nation is at risk.

Take, for example, the War of 1812.? Who knew where that was going to go at that time?? We were being put asunder by an enemy force, the Brits.

So for part of the civilian populace, the Articles of War apply, but only in that time of war as I use it here with a capital ?W.?

Winthrop stated that martial law (military law) is of such great age and dignity, it is so grand and so efficient and so good that it should be imitated.? He said, ?The lawyer who, if he has not been led into the old error of confounding the military law proper with martial law, has perhaps viewed this as consisting of merely an unimportant and uninteresting scheme of discipline, and the lawyer will, it is hoped, discover in these pages that there is a military code of greater age and dignity and of more elevated tone than any existing American civil code.?

When he says ?American civil code,? he?s talking about the United States Constitution.? Let me read that again:

The lawyer will find in these pages a military code of greater age and dignity and of a more elevated tone than any existing American civil code, as also a military procedure, which, by its freedom from the technical forms and obstructive habits that embarrass and delay the operations of the civil courts, is enabled to result in a summary and efficient administration of justice well worthy of respect and imitation.

Winthrop?s attack on the Constitution is veiled, but it?s there.? If nothing else, he wanted to ensure the survival of the military law proper.? That?s where his Military Law and Precedence comes from, and he wrote a very impressive work.? There is a need for a military law.? Maybe by cleaning it up the way he did, when it did come into operation, it was more efficient in its application of the Articles of War than it was before he wrote these books.? But to suggest that it should become the law of the land is frightening.

MRS. RONDEAU: Is that what we?re seeing between Gen. Carla Hawley-Bowland and Col. Lind with the court martial of Lt. Col. Lakin?? Are they forcing military law on both him and the rest of the population?

CDR. FITZPATRICK: It?s worse than that.? I believe that if Winthrop, writing this in 1896, could have pulled it off, he would have said, ?The military doesn?t need a commander-in-chief.? We can operate on our own.? We can do this all by ourselves.?? To his credit, in his writings, Winthrop recognizes the authority of the civilian commander-in-chief.? The first paragraph of the preface to the 1886 edition of Military Law and Precedence begins:

In view of the absence and want of a comprehensive treatise on the science of Military Law, it has been for some years the purpose of the author?a member of the bar in the practice of his profession when, in April, 1861, he entered the military service?to attempt to supply such want with a work, which, by reason of its extended plan and full presentation of principles and precedents, should constitute, not merely a text book? for the army, but a law book adapted to the use of lawyers and judges.

In other words, ?You know, the new people coming into the military scheme of things are going to be shocked by this, so let me see if I can square it away.?? So he started in 1861.? He says, ?The present treatise was essentially completed in 1880,? which meant that he worked on it for almost 20 years, and he was doing what he could in those days in the field to get this squared away.? It started in 1880, and it was 16 years in its gestation to come to the point where I?m holding it in my hand.? This is a paperback reprint which comes from the year 2000.? This book is still in print; I?m using it now today, in this conversation.? This is the foundation of military discipline.? This is how we know what we know.

I have another book, actually more of a pamphlet, which talks about the patchwork.? This came from medieval Europe.? Now to come back, how does this all relate to what?s going on today with Lt. Col. Lakin, Gen. Hawley-Bowland and all these other people?

I?ve been talking about treason as it?s practiced by military commanders for 21 years now.? When Obama came to office, I see now that the impostor commander-in-chief, the fake, disrupted the military chain of command in a way that it?s never been disrupted in our history.? This cannot be allowed to continue.? Mr. Obama?s treason is extraordinary.? He?s been attacked over and over and over on this treason.? The significance with what?s going on with Col. Lakin today is that you now see, as has been predicted, military personnel joining in Mr. Obama?s treason.? They are trying to visit upon Col. Lakin an authority that this country does not recognize at all, or ever, which is the authority of the military on its own to do whatever it wants.? They?re breaking their own rules because under those rules, they recognize that they don?t exist; they cannot operate without a legitimate civilian president as commander-in-chief.? That?s the first issue.? You can?t operate the United States Armed Forces under our Constitution and under these adopted Articles of War; everywhere you look, you will always find a legitimate civilian president as commander-in-chief.? You find it in Winthrop, and you find it in the Manual for Courts-Martial, which has been around since the early 1950s.? You see it everyplace.

There has never been a time when there has been a question about the legitimacy of a civilian president as commander-in-chief, and there has to be a civilian president as commander-in-chief for the Armed Forces to be issued orders.? Now you start getting into the details about how this particular court-martial is operating, and they have just given us a window into what it is they?re doing.? The ruling of 2 September told us this:? Bowland and Lind do not know for themselves whether or not Obama is legitimate.? Have you read that ruling?

MRS. RONDEAU: Some of it.

CDR. FITZPATRICK: It?s only ten pages, and you don?t have to read every word of it, but it says in there that in arguendo, the Latin term for ?the sake of argument,? ?We don?t know whether Obama is legit, but that?s not the issue here.? ? So they admit to the fact that they don?t even know, but they?re going to proceed on their own authority to court-martial Lakin.? That?s really dangerous, because they can?t proceed on their own authority.? That?s against the law.? Do you know what that?s called?? That?s called treason.? They cannot proceed on their own.

As you find in Winthrop, the court-martial is the creature of an order, and this is military jurisprudence vs. constitutional jurisprudence.? It?s in there.? The court-martial is the creature of an order.? What is an order?? It?s an executive mandate.? This comes from Winthrop; again, the bedrock of military law and discipline.? There?s no argument about that.? So let?s just make believe that today we don?t have a Col. Lakin; we don?t have anybody who?s standing in the dock, and all of a sudden, the commander-in-chief or someone acting on his behalf recognizes that there?s been a crime committed inside the military which is justiciable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.? Let?s say it?s Sharon Rondeau.? Come hither, Sharon, we?re going to court-martial you, and the reason we?re going to court-martial you is that we?ve received an order from our commander-in-chief, a civilian president.? We have an executive mandate here which says that we must court-martial you and by that, determine whether or not you have committed a crime, and then within that, determine what punishment you should receive if that?s appropriate.

The first duty of the people who have received the order from this man, the commander-in-chief, is they must know if he?s legitimate.? They have to know for themselves that Mr. Obama is legit.? For the sake of this conversation, let?s just say that he is legit.? Then all of this stuff about Lakin would be a non-issue, wouldn?t it?? Lakin is saying the same thing:? whatever order this man gives is not lawful because he?s not the commander-in-chief.

Lakin could have brought any dog into this courtroom that he wanted.? And every court-martial that?s been conducted under Obama is unsustainable for the reasons that I?ve already laid out.? You can?t do it.? So the military is using this opportunity to disconnect itself from the requirement, the constitutional command, that a legitimate commander-in-chief be in office.? The military is saying here, ?We don?t need him.?? That?s really bad.? That?s the significance of the Bowland-Lind operation as it exists today.? They say, ?We do not know for ourselves that Obama is legit.?? So then the question becomes, ?OK, ladies, how is it, then, that you can proceed with the court-martial if you don?t know for yourselves that his orders are lawful??

Now the issue of attainder returns, because once you get into that court-martial environment, they can do whatever they want to you because there?s no jury.? It?s punishment without the oversight of a jury.? If there were a real independent jury of people from a community as is stated in the Constitution, Lakin could walk away from this thing.

MRS. RONDEAU: But these ladies, in this case, are totally disregarding the Constitution and essentially saying, ?We don?t care if he?s legitimate or not.?

CDR. FITZPATRICK: That?s right.? What they?re saying is that it?s not a factor in the Terry Lakin court-martial, that it doesn?t play a part.? And I?m thinking to myself, ?Excuse me, it is at the heart of this case.?

MRS. RONDEAU: Because Lakin wants to know whether or not Obama is legitimate, and they won?t answer the question.

CDR. FITZPATRICK: They can?t answer the question for themselves; they say that they?re not going to answer. So how can they proceed?? They?re not operating under a lawful order, either.? That?s Lakin?s defense.? All he has to do is stand up and say, ?OK, from where does the authority flow into this court-martial hearing room??? In other words, Lakin can ask them the question:? ?OK, this court-martial is proceeding because you two have determined for yourselves that it can.?? And this goes back to 1 September, because we didn?t know where Bowland and Lind stood exactly, but now they?ve put it in writing, so hallelujah.

But on the first of September, anybody could have stood up and said, ?Excuse me, ladies, but how do you know that he?s legit?? That?s your duty; you have to figure that out first for yourselves.?? And they didn?t do that.? Now they?ve told us that they don?t care; it?s not the issue, and they?re not going to deal with it.? And I?m saying to them, ?Oh, no.? This is the issue that?s out there.?

So that?s where you get the White Paper.? Then you see the consequences that come from a court-martial of Terry Lakin.? Whether or not he?s punished or not punished, this court-martial, which is under way right now, without a legitimate commander-in-chief, allows the military to be free from the command of a civilian president as commander-in-chief and to do whatever it wants.

MRS. RONDEAU: The U.S. Constitution was supposed to protect us from that by designating the President as Commander-in-Chief.

CDR. FITZPATRICK: Exactly, but that?s not the case anymore.? This is treason in its highest form.? And you have military commanders who have yet to stand up to Mr. Obama and say, ?Excuse me, sir, but I have a question about your eligibility here, your birthright?? and no active-duty military commander has done that, except Lt. Col. Lakin.? There have been military officers who have objected, and I?m one of them, but no active-duty people that I can point to other than Lakin.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think it is fear that?s preventing them from confronting him?

CDR. FITZPATRICK: Upton Sinclair said it well:? ?It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.?? In other words, these admirals and generals get promoted because of their go-along-to-get-along demeanor.? They?re like leaves in the wind.? McChrystal would be one of them.? They?re animals, frankly, political animals.? They drive me nuts, and I?ve run into them before.? So they?re going along to get along; it?s the avarice of rank.? They?re wearing stars on their collar; that?s a very, very empowering kind of thing.? That?s what you strive for in the military:? to succeed in what you?re doing.? It?s what I call the avarice of rank and the position and power that come with that.? They get a pretty hefty retirement; they get to be called ?Admiral? or ?General? for the rest of their lives; it?s a very lofty kind of feeling; it?s rarefied air that they breathe.? That?s part of the reason why.? Once they retire, if they go along to get along, who knows what other kinds of jobs and positions and power will come their way?? General Jones, who is now the national security adviser, is one example.? I could point to other admirals and generals as well.? Why would they not talk against this?? Because it?s not in their best interest.

MRS. RONDEAU: Personally, yes.? But what about the Constitution that they took an oath to uphold?

CDR. FITZPATRICK: Now isn?t that the pesky question?? Where is their allegiance?? This is what I have been saying for a long, long time, and this should stand the hair on the back of your neck on end.? I know it does.? I learned 21 years ago, and I have been saying it from that day to this day that I realize the betrayal by my senior officers, and I have been calling this out for 21 years.? You have military officers in high rank who are no more obedient to the United States Constitution than is Mr. Obama.? We have military commanders working against the Constitution.? They?re working against it for their own self-interests.? We see that going on now in real time, in demonstrable, real ways, with Gen. Hawley-Bowland and Col. Denise Lind.

MRS. RONDEAU: In a corporation or private company, if the executives are caught embezzling money or committing some other crime, they are normally brought to account.? Isn?t what?s going on within the military now criminal?

CDR. FITZPATRICK: Yes.? You have a government machine here which is doing everything it can to protect itself.? This is tyranny writ large; this is treason writ large.? Anybody who stands up and speaks against the government gets knocked down.? Their families get knocked down or they get knocked down.? There are people out there who are cowards and they?re going along to get along because, you know what? It?s working for them.? Sinclair Lewis said, ?When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.?? That?s what we have going on today.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? SEE ? MORE ??????????????????????


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:54
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
S?bado, 18 de septiembre de 2010

Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States Sufficient to be President? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided It Was Not!

?
Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States Sufficient to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of Our Military? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided It Was Not!

By: CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., (Retired)
18 September 2010



During the process of writing the U.S. Constitution Alexander Hamilton submitted a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Alexander Hamilton?s suggested Presidential requirement appearing in the first draft of the Constitution wherein Hamilton on June 18, 1787 submitted the following:

"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."

Many of the founders and framers had a fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future be President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. He was also be Commander in Chief of the Military. This fear of foreign influence on a future President was particularly strongly felt by John Jay, who later became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He felt so strongly about the issue of potential foreign influence that upon reading the proposed language put forward by Hamilton that he took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements. John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly
Vattel's codification of natural law. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the President should be a "strong check" against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the requirement be open only to a "natural born Citizen", not just simply a "born Citizen" as Hamilton had proposed. See his letter dated 25 Jul 1787 at this link. This is the relevant change part in Jay's letter proposed by John Jay to strengthen in Article II above what Hamilton had proposed and to require more than just being a "born Citizen" of the United States to serve as a future President.

"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. "

This
letter from Jay was written on July 25, 1787. It is historically in direct response to Alexander Hamilton?s suggested Presidential qualification requirements appearing in the first draft of the Constitution wherein Hamilton ? five weeks earlier on June 18, 1787 - which required only a "born Citizen of the United States". General Washington passed on the recommendation from Jay to the convention and it was adopted in the next draft and was accepted adding the adjective "natural" making it "natural born Citizen of the United States" for future Presidents. Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation and the answer.

Hamilton?s original drafted presidential requirement that a Citizen simply had to be a born Citizen of the USA, i.e., a
Citizen by Birth. But that status was rejected by the framers. Instead of allowing any person "born a citizen" to be President, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended John Jay to block any chance of the person with foreign allegiances or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military. No person having any foreign influence on them or claim of allegiance at birth to other than the USA could serve as a future President. The person must be a "natural born citizen".

Jay recommended the additional adjective be added before "born Citizen" that was proposed by Hamilton. And that word means something that modifies just being born a Citizen of the USA such as being simply born on the soil of the United States. The adjective added "natural" comes from Natural Law which was codified by Vattel in his preeminent legal treatise
used by the founders, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. In Vol.1 Chapter 19 Section 212 of Vattel's Law of Nations, the naturels or "natural born Citizens" are those born in the country to Citizen parents (plural). Such a person is born with unity of Citizenship and sole allegiance at birth due to having been both born on the soil but also being born to two Citizen parents. The person who would be President must be a second generation American, the child of two Citizens and born in the USA. This is a much stronger check to foreign influence than simply being born a Citizen say on the soil of the USA but with one or the other parent being a foreigner, such as is the case of Obama. The situation with Obama's birth Citizenship status is exactly the problem that the founders and framers did not want. They did not want the child of a foreigner serving as President and Commander of our military. This was a national security concern to them. And it is a national security concern now.

Barack Hussein Obama II may or may not be a born Citizen of the USA depending on what the 1961 contemporaneous birth registration documents sealed in Hawaii reveal. And Americans have good reason to be greatly concerned about the truth as to where he was physically born as opposed to where his birth may have been falsely registered by his maternal grandmother as occurring in Hawaii as this Catalog of Evidence details. But he can never be a "natural born Citizen of the United States" since his father was a foreigner, a British Subject who was never a U.S. Citizen and was not even an immigrant to the USA. Since his father was a British Subject and not a U.S. Citizen when Obama was born, Obama was born a British Subject. The founders and framers are probably rolling over in the graves knowing this person was sworn in as the putative President and Commander of our military.

The founder rejected simply acquisition of Citizenship by
birth on the soil without consideration as to who were the parents. That is clear from the history and evolution of the writing the eligibility clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which specifiies who can be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

So can a "
born Citizen" be President of the USA? The answer is a resounding no per the founders and framers. Only a "natural born Citizen" can be the President of the USA. Obama is not constitutional eligible (to constitutional standards) to serve as President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

P.S. Here is a chart which lists and explains the
five (5) Citizenship terms used in the U.S. Constitution.
P.P.S. Being a "born Citizen" or "Citizen at Birth" is
not identically the same as a being a "natural born Citizen".

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:25
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

The new Congress elected in November will surprise everyone. They will seriously consider impeaching Barack Obama.

Growing under the radar of the mainstream media is a movement that is gathering momentum.

More than one million citizens have signed petitions calling on the U.S. Congress to impeach Barack Hussein Obama. Some of the soon-to-be-elected members of Congress are amongst those who have signed up, and they are not about to be cowered by establishment Republicans scared silly of the issue.

Ultimately, it comes down to a commonly shared belief amongst Tea Party activists that Barack Obama is systematically trying to hurt America. Obama, the argument goes, is not an incompetent boob in over his head. Nor is he is not some well-meaning community organizer who has seen his plans go astray.

Barack Obama is a dishonest, manipulative liar who actually is pursuing an agenda that he hopes will take America off the international leadership stage. He wants America to fail so that the vision of internationalist socialists can be realized. America is hated by the elite intellectuals of the world because we have been the single biggest roadblock to their plans to establish a one world governing system with them in charge.

Americans has consistently rejected socialism. Whether it is Hillarycare or Obamacare, Americans are speaking with a loud, clear voice against socialism.

The Left hates America because of our belief in God, our belief in rugged individualism, our belief in private property, and our belief in the right to keep and bear arms.

It is only through impeachment that the new Congress can send Barack Obama a clear and unambiguous message that he does not have carte blanche to run roughshod over America.

Impeachment is the political tool given by the Founders to correct abuse by a president. Impeachment is often misunderstood because of confusion about what exactly constitutes an impeachable offense.

Former President Gerald Ford, while serving in the House of Representatives, said an impeachable offense was ?whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.?

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: ?The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.?

The key phrase here is ?high crimes and misdemeanors,? a concept in English common law that was well-known to our Founding Fathers but is grossly misunderstood in this day and age.

?High crimes and misdemeanors? essentially means bad behavior.

Here?s a passage from C-Span.org which succinctly and beautifully summarizes the historical significance surrounding the inclusion of the term ?high crimes and misdemeanors? in the Constitution:

?High crimes and misdemeanors? entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment ? treason and bribery ? were not enough. He worried that other ?great and dangerous offenses? might not be covered? so Mason then proposed ?high crimes and misdemeanors,? a phrase well-known in English common law. In 18th century language, a ?misdemeanor? meant ?mis-demeanor,? or bad behavior.

In other words, ?high crimes and misdemeanors? does not refer to a criminal act, as some would lead you to believe. Our Founding Fathers fully intended to allow for the removal of the president for actions which are gross incompetence, gross negligence, outright distasteful, or in the case of Barack Hussein Obama, actions which clearly show ?malevolence toward this country, which is unabated.?

And for those who mistakenly hold the illusion that impeaching Barack Obama would be a simple matter of ?playing politics,? the Founders fully intended that the impeachment of a sitting president be a political act.

The Founding Fathers deliberately put impeachment into the hands of the legislative branch rather than the judicial branch, thus transforming it from strictly a matter of legal definition to a matter of political judgment.

The Obama administration qualifies as the poster-child for bad behavior.

Obama and those around him are ravaging this great country and adding a sorry chapter to a noble history.

Impeachment, as written in the Constitution, was tailor-made for Barack Hussein Obama and our Founders placed it in our Constitution for such a time as this.

?

source: Floyd and Mary Beth BrownSource: Floyd Reports website


Comment by American Grand Jury:

Most all of us agree at American Grand Jury that Obama is an illegal Usurper ? he never qualified to serve as President as he is NOT a ?natural born? citizen.

However, most Americans simply can?t understand the ?Usurper? concept. I believe it is ignorance mostly or that people simply refuse to take the time to research the mountain of evidence against Obama. With that in mind, when in Rome do what the Romans would do! Why fight it? The Birthers arguing against the Impeachers is really non-productive. It is merely an argument that allows the left to claim we are swimming in circles. If we argue amongst ourselves the criminal [Obama] gets a free pass. I say, if the New Congress will impeach Obama, have at it. Don?t forget, the minute the impeachment process is started the ?birther? issue will come out. The Congress will be looking for any and all evidence that convicts Obama.

Vote Up or Down
on this Article

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:08
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 17 de septiembre de 2010
??
??
?

Concord, NC says goodbye to Army Pfc. James McClamrock

?
Posted by: Sister Toldjah on September 15, 2010 at 7:32 pm

Via the Concord Independent Tribune:

CONCORD, N.C. ? All of Concord stopped briefly Wednesday afternoon to honor a fallen soldier.

PFC James McClamrock returned home from Iraq to cities that closed up shops, cleared an interstate and stood silently on the sides of the roads to pay tribute to him and his family.

McClamrock, 22, was killed on Sept. 7, when a man dressed in an Iraqi army uniform fired on American soldiers. He was one of two killed after major combat operations were declared over on Aug. 31.

Hundreds of people lined the streets as the mile-long procession drove from Charlotte-Douglas International Airport to its final destination at Hartsell Funeral Home on Branchview Drive.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg authorities closed down northbound Interstate 85 from the airport to Dale Earnhardt Boulevard as the processional passed. On every overpass I-85 in Mecklenburg and Cabarrus counties, firefighters lined bridges, running their emergency lights and displaying large American flags to passersby.

Residents slowly made their way onto several of the overpasses, paying their respects as the long line of Patriot Guard Riders, emergency personnel and others in the processional snaked north to Dale Earnhardt Boulevard.

As the cavalcade reached surface streets, it was again met with an outpouring of community support. School children from Beverly Hills Elementary School lined Church Street.

Alongside the children, many of the businesses people stopped working to step onto the sidewalk and salute the fallen soldier. Others stood silent, waving flags or covering their hearts with their hands.

In downtown Concord, storefronts closed about noon and people lined the sidewalks on Union Street as the procession rolled through.

Business owners passed out small American flags to bystanders as they waited for the procession. The Lions Club left out flags from Labor Day on the sidewalks.

About 12:45 p.m., the procession came around Cabarrus County Courthouse on Corban Avenue and slowly made its way up to Concord City Offices. The Patriot Guard Riders ? 100 strong ? rode ahead of the hearse and the family van, the noise of their motorcycle engines reverberating off the buildings.

Then the hearse stopped and the van stopped in front of city hall.

A Concord Fire and Life Safety honor guard stood in the street, flanked by city council. Mayor Scott Padgett and Dr. Hector Henry quietly spoke to the family, presenting them with a key to the city.

Henry, a colonel in the Army Medical Corps who served six months in Iraq last year, was dressed in his fatigues.

All activity stopped in downtown Concord for five minutes as the mayor made the presentation. There wasn?t a sound, save for the van engine and a distant news helicopter. Then the family boarded the van to continue the trip to the funeral home.

Battalion Captain Ed Shaver, commander of honor guard, broke the silence, calling a troop of police officers and firefighters to attention. They saluted as the hearse and family van drove on.

God bless the McClamrock family, and may Army Pfc. James McClamrock RIP.

You can view photos of the tribute procession here and here. Have the Kleenex handy.

?Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don?t just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.? ? Former US Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) ? 2004 Republican National Convention



Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:40
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
http://p2tre.emv3.com/HSL?lang=us&a=DNX7Cqk-fRTl8SA9MKJL-RfnGHxKLJ3zygq1
http://p2tre.emv3.com/HS?a=DNX7Cqk-fRTl8SA9MKJL-RfnGHxKLNr22gpZ A Free Press For A Free People


Documented: Grounds for impeachment
'This is the beginning of the end for the United States unless ...


http://p2tre.emv3.com/HS?a=DNX7Cqk-fRTl8SA9MKJL-RfnGHxKLNr22wpYLying, 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.

"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.

"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."

http://p2tre.emv3.com/HS?a=DNX7Cqk-fRTl8SA9MKJL-RfnGHxKLNr23wpU
Click here to get
"The Case for Impeachment:
Why Barack Hussein Obama
Should be Impeached to Save America"

?

?


?
http://p2tre.emv3.com/HSL?lang=us&a=DNX7Cqk-fRTl8SA9MKJL-RfnGHxKLJ3zygq1
?
WND Operator

Call Toll-Free to Order:?
If you prefer to order by phone, you can call our friendly, Midwestern customer service reps
toll-free at 1-800-4WND-COM? (1-800-496-3266),
Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm Central.

?
You may also enjoy these items ...
http://p2tre.emv3.com/HS?a=DNX7Cqk-fRTl8SA9MKJL-RfnGHxKLNr20gpR http://p2tre.emv3.com/HS?a=DNX7Cqk-fRTl8SA9MKJL-RfnGHxKLNr20wpQ http://p2tre.emv3.com/HS?a=DNX7Cqk-fRTl8SA9MKJL-RfnGHxKLNr20ApT http://p2tre.emv3.com/HS?a=DNX7Cqk-fRTl8SA9MKJL-RfnGHxKLNr20QpS
http://p2tre.emv3.com/HS?a=DNX7Cqk-fRTl8SA9MKJL-RfnGHxKLNr21got http://p2tre.emv3.com/HS?a=DNX7Cqk-fRTl8SA9MKJL-RfnGHxKLNr21wos http://p2tre.emv3.com/HS?a=DNX7Cqk-fRTl8SA9MKJL-RfnGHxKLNr21Aov http://p2tre.emv3.com/HS?a=DNX7Cqk-fRTl8SA9MKJL-RfnGHxKLNr21Qou
http://p2tre.emv3.com/HS?a=DNX7Cqk-fRTl8SA9MKJL-RfnGHxKLNr26gop http://p2tre.emv3.com/HS?a=DNX7Cqk-fRTl8SA9MKJL-RfnGHxKLNr26woo http://p2tre.emv3.com/HS?a=DNX7Cqk-fRTl8SA9MKJL-RfnGHxKLNr26Aor
http://p2tre.emv3.com/HS?a=DNX7Cqk-fRTl8SA9MKJL-RfnGHxKLNr26Qoq http://p2tre.emv3.com/HS?a=DNX7Cqk-fRTl8SA9MKJL-RfnGHxKLNr27gol http://p2tre.emv3.com/HS?a=DNX7Cqk-fRTl8SA9MKJL-RfnGHxKLNr27wok http://p2tre.emv3.com/HS?a=DNX7Cqk-fRTl8SA9MKJL-RfnGHxKLNr27Aon

?


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:00
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 15 de septiembre de 2010

Obama & Co. speeding its Implementation of Collapsing America

Print This Post

IS THE DEMISE OF AMERICA INEVITABLE?

by Sher Zieve, ?2010

(Sept. 15, 2010) ? Maintaining his corrupt policy of ?say one thing to the American people and then do the opposite,? Dictator-in-Chief Obama remains true to his primary mission?collapse and destroy the USA and her people.? Applying the directives of Saul Alinsky, the Cloward-Piven Strategy and?of course?Karl Marx, Obama and his merry band of demolishers are working feverishly to destroy the USA before a potentially new and more conservative-run House of Representatives takes the majority.

As a review of the anti-American people programs The Obama has already implemented, we have:

1. ObamaCare that collapses the US healthcare system.? Despite the majority of the American people?s protests against it, Obama smiled and said he and his Marxist Dems don?t care what We-the-People think?as we are no longer important or necessary to their arrogant and increasingly demonic purpose.? While laughing at us, Obama signed his suppressive anti-human bill.? Note:? After well over a year of lying about its reducing healthcare costs, ObamaCare is already forcing them to go up.? And they will go up exponentially, as Obama & Co implements its plan for government to completely take over from private insurers; effectively forcing them out of the marketplace?entirely.

2. Knowing that his planned-to-collapse-energy-in-the-USA via Cap & Trade (aka Cap & Tax or ?The American Clean Energy and Security Act? or ?the pollution reduction bill?) is extremely unpopular with the American people, the tyrant Obama has already hedged his bets by giving power to his EPA to control companies carbon emissions.? Note:? One way or another, Obama plans to win his war against We-the-People of the United States of America.

3.? Although not yet an absolute reality, the Obama?s plan to collapse the US Constitution?s First Amendment is well on its way to being approved by the currently almost completely corrupt US Congress.? The ?Internet kill switch? bill is designed to provide Dictator-in-Chief Obama with total control of the USA?s Internet and will allow him total censorship of opposition viewpoints.

4.? On his way to completely collapsing the now wide-open-to-anyone Southern border, Obama?s now wholly-controlled ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) announced that it will no longer prosecute or deport illegals.?? Note:? This, of course, will give The Obama and the Democrats a huge new voting bloc of illegals.? He has effectively provided Amnesty without having to go through a pesky Congress and has, again, smilingly thwarted We-the-People.

5.? Collapsing the economy, the US free market system and the US middle class by destroying its jobs (which Alinsky said would have to be done in this way) is actually the Crown Jewel of the Obama regime?s accomplishments, thus far.? And The Obama, his masters and minions are justifiably proud of themselves!? In less than two years in office, Obama has almost destroyed our entire country.? Note:? In several of my columns before The Obama ?won? the leadership position of the USA, I warned it wouldn?t take him long.? I also warned that he would not leave the White House willingly?even if voted out.? We will have to wait and see on that one.? I hope I?m wrong.

6.? The collapse of any morality by the Obama?s bypassing US law and not only allowing embryonic stem cell research in the USA but, funding abortions abroad is occurring with a chilling regularity.?? Note:? Obama?s stance is clearly and firmly anti-human life.

The above are only a few of what I believe to be the most egregious of the Obama programs.? Each and every day, The Obama is working to collapse more of this country?s Republic, while saying he is ?saving? it.? Does this remind anyone of Taqiyya?the Islamic practice of routinely lying to ?infidels??? Note:? He may not be a Muslim, but he seems to use some of their methods quite well.

Please remember in November that election fraud will be at its highest in US history to date.? Remember in November that the ObamaThugs will be out in force to intimidate non-Democrat voters.? Remember in November that all Marxists (Democrats AND RINOs) and anti-US Republic candidates are on their way out.? Remember in November that We-the-People MUST turn out to vote in numbers never before seen in our country.? But, most of all, remember on 2 November 2010 that this is the date We-the-People begin to take back our country.

? 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 @ 20:02
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
??
GySgt Bob Pinkstaff USMC Retired

NOW IS THE TIME FOR ALL GOOD AMERICAN CITIZENS TO COME TO THE AID OF THEIR COUNTRY & U.S. ARMY LT COLONEL LAKIN!

??
??
??
NOW IS THE TIME FOR ALL GOOD AMERICAN CITIZENS TO COME TO THE AID OF THEIR COUNTRY & UNITED STATES ARMY LT COLONEL LAKIN!
THE "KANGAROO COURT MARTIAL" OF U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL PATRIOT LT COLONEL LAKIN, SANCTIONED BY THE U.S. ARMY!
Lt Colonel Lakin United States Army, a Patriotic active duty dedicated soldier, is facing a court martial for fulfilling his Patriotic Duty and sworn oath of allegiance to the United States of America and to support and defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic. The U.S. Constitution is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, MY LAND! God Bless and protect Patriot Lt Colonel Lakin from our enemies within!!
The "KANGAROO COURT" of U.S. Constitutional Patriot and Freedom Fighter, Lt Colonel Lakin, has exposed the Joint Chiefs of Staff and all U.S top military (officers) brass for what they really are ... Traitors and violators of the oath they themselves (military officers) swore to! The Joint Chiefs of Staff and all U.S top military brass "OATH VIOLATORS" must be prosecuted by court martial and found guilty by the same kind of "KANGAROO COURT" that U.S. Constitutional Patriot and Freedom Fighter Lt Colonel Lakin is being subjected to!
*******************************************************************************

Officer Oath

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

As you can see, the officer does not swear to obey the orders of the President. They only have an obligation to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (for example, a presidential USURPER).

Our forefathers were so brilliant to foresee a situation like we find ourselves in now. The officer oath is a safeguard to protect the Constitution against a corrupt elected government. Officers only have an obligation to defend the Constitution. Military officers have a lot of legal clout when it comes to Constitutional matters. The officer oath does not mention following the UCMJ laws as does the enlisted oath.

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

The Muslims including the evil Muslim communist parasite, USURPER, barack hussein obama are on a mission!! These evil Muslims are in our state and federal government and are facing NO, I repeat, NO opposition from our LEFTY communist controlled federal government who are positioning themselves for favor within the NWO!
?
?
?
For more than 21 months, the best legal teams in the United States have tried over and over and over to enforce the unaltered U.S. Constitution and have failed. The U.S. Constitution no longer works!! If it did this evil Muslim communist parasite, USURPER, barack hussein obama, his evil wife Michelle obama wouldn't be living in "OUR" house today and for sure, would've NEVER been sanctioned by our entire elected state and U.S. Congress, SCOTUS, state and federal judges!!
?
There's no recognizable patriotic political group or "LEGAL SYSTEM" as we "used to know it", in Washington D.C , to go to for help! There are no "legal tools" left, the tool box "HAS BEEN EMPTIED BY" the evil Muslim communist parasite, USURPER, barack hussein obama, his evil wife Michelle obama, the 110th & 111th U.S. Congress, SCOTUS, all federal judges, the so called homeland security, the secret service, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the communist party known as the NWO!! Don't look for help from the news media, including Fox News, they've all been bought by the communist party!!
?
Even though I've been retired from the United States Marine Corps for 26 years and will soon be 77 years old, I am and always will be accountable and bound by the "U.S. Armed Forces Oath Of Enlistment" that I solemnly took over 58 years ago to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic and ... [to] bear true faith and allegiance to the same.?
BE ADVISED ...
I refuse to support, defend and or obey any and all orders of this evil Muslim communist USURPER, barack hussein obama, a traitor and a fraud, who is now occupying the oval office and living in our (my) house, the White house!! The evil Muslim communist USURPER, barack hussein obama is the enemy of Christianity/Judaism, the U.S. Constitution, the United States of America and freedom loving American citizens!!!
TO ALL MILITARY SERVICE MEMBERS AND MILITARY VETERANS --- HONOR YOUR OATH!!!
The time is rapidly approaching for the U.S. Military personnel, U.S. Military Veterans, Police Dept's, Fire Dept's etc to "DRAW A LINE IN THE SAND"! To decide if they will honor the "sworn oath" they were administered "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic and ... [to] bear true faith and allegiance to the same.? ....... Are you prepared to ?support and defend the UNALTERED Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic?!?" Which side of that "LINE IN THE SAND" will you be on?!?!
For myself the answer is simple, it's a no brainer! The last I heard, the country I (we) live in, is the United States of America, the greatest CHRISTAIN AND JUDAISM country in the world and is governed by the U.S. Constitution!!
AMID THE GUNS BELOW ...
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
- Lt.-Col. John McCrae (1872 - 1918)


THIS IS MY STATEMENT, I APPROVE OF THIS STATEMENT AND I'M STICKIN TO IT, SO HELP ME GOD!!
There are always ...
Too many Democratic congressmen,
Too many Republican congressmen,
And never enough U.S. Congressmen.
~Author Unknown ~
A United States Veteran is someone who,
At one point in his or her life,
Wrote a blank check made payable to,
"The People of the United States of America",
For an amount "...Up to and including my life."
~Author Unknown ~

FREEDOM IS NOT FREE!
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
GOD BLESS ISRAEL!
GOD BLESS ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, NEW MEXICO & TEXAS!
Bob Pinkstaff
Gunnery Sergeant
United States Marine Corps Retired
AMERICAN CITIZEN BY BIRTH, UNITED STATES MARINE BY CHOICE!

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:41
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 14 de septiembre de 2010

Bill McCollum Confident Suit Against ObamaCare Won't Be Dismissed

?

With oral arguments concluded in Pensacola where a federal judge weighs whether to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Attorney General Bill McCollum against new federal health-care laws backed by President Barack Obama, McCollum feels good that his case, which is being backed by 19 other states and the National Federation of Independent Businesses, will be heard.

?The federal health care act exceeds the powers granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution and tramples on our Founding Fathers? notion of federalism,? said McCollum after the arguments were heard.? ?It is an egregious violation of individual liberty and limited government.?

?If the federal government is allowed to implement the individual mandate citizens to have health insurance or pay a penalty, there is essentially no limit to what government can force citizens to purchase,? continued McCollum who lost to Rick Scott in the Republican gubernatorial primary last month. ?Furthermore, the federal health care act requires states to give up their free choice and sovereignty.? The act commandeers state resources and manipulates state budgets to facilitate a massive expansion of the Medicaid entitlement program.? It forces the states to take on a financial burden they do not want and cannot afford.?

?The federal government seeks to leave the states with no real choice--states must either implement the vastly expanded Medicaid program costing Florida over a $ 1 billion a year, or unrealistically opt out of Medicaid leaving our nation?s poor without health care coverage,? concluded McCollum. ?Obamacare is public policy at its worst in violation of our U.S. Constitution.? I am confident the court will agree with the argument the states posed in court today and will deny the federal government?s motion to dismiss.?


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:10
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

20 States Vs. Federal Government Regarding Health Care Bill

http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/20-states-vs-federal-government-regarding-health-care-bill-001828

Twenty state attorneys general are taking on the federal government in Pensacola, Florida today. This will decide whether Obama's health care reform law will remain as law or get shot down. According to Fox News the Obama Administration will try to persuade a federal judge to throw this lawsuit out.?

The fight will primarily be over sections of the law that will require individuals to have health insurance or face tax penalties and require states to pay additional costs for the Medicaid health insurance program for the indigent that are not covered by the federal government.
...Attorneys for the states and the Justice Department will each have 45 minutes to present their case to U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, who is expected to release a written decision later. The lawsuit is likely to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, probably before the 2012 presidential election.

Florida's Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum appeared on Greta Van Susteren's "On the Record" Monday night to discuss the court challenge. AG McCollum filed the lawsuit just minutes after Obama signed the health care reform bill last back in March. The?National Federation of Independent Business, an influential small business lobby, also joined him in the suit.



Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:52
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Judges told they should resolve eligibility dispute


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:36
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 13 de septiembre de 2010
??
??

Senator Bond: Quit playing Ostrich!

Print This Post

?SHOW ME? THE PROOF OF OBAMA?S HAWAII BIRTH, MR. SENATOR!

Missouri is tied with Tennessee in bordering eight other states and is nicknamed the "Show Me" state

Dear Editor:? Here is my letter to Missouri Senator Kit Bond, with thanks to Neil Turner and David LaRocque. There is no point in writing Senator Claire McCaskill, as I know from experience.

Sept. 12, 2010

Senator Christopher Bond
274 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Bond:

Senator Bond, it is my understanding that a letter has been sent to you via certified mail from Mr. Lucas Smith asserting that Mr. Smith has personal knowledge indicating that Barack Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya; and further that Mr. Smith provided a certified copy of the Kenyan birth certificate for Mr. Obama (which Mr. Smith has in his possession).

The learned constitutional scholarship and meticulous research of Attorneys Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio have demonstrated clearly that the ?natural born citizen? requirement for the office of president set forth in Article II of the United States Constitution , as defined by Emerich de Vattel in ?The Law of Nations,? means ?born in the country of parents who are citizens.?

Thus the presidential eligibility clause in Article II of the U.S. Constitution means that there are TWO independent conditions which must be met to satisfy the NBC requirement to serve as president (or vice-president in accordance with the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution), and for which, by implication, the people have a right of verification and substantiation:

  1. the person elected to the office of president must have been born in the United States, and
  2. the person elected to the office of president must have been born of parents who are BOTH citizens of the United States at his or her birth.

The Kenyan birth certificate may or may not be authentic, but it seems unlikely that Mr. Smith would send this document by hand-addressed certified mail to 535 members of Congress unless he believed it to be authentic. He has also signed a sworn affidavit explaining how he personally obtained the BC from the Coast Province Hospital in Mombasa, British Protectorate of Kenya. Moreover, the Kenyan BC has far greater face validity than the internet image of a purported secondary birth document from Hawaii that has been falsely claimed to be and wrongly accepted as a genuine birth certificate.

Unlike the purported secondary document from Hawaii, which Hawaii has never verified as authentic, the Kenyan Certificate of Birth is a primary document that bears a certificate number, states a hospital of birth, is signed by the doctor, signed by the supervisor of obstetrics, signed by or for the chief administrator who released the document on Feb. 19, 2009, has the imprint of baby Obama?s foot, and bears an official seal.

It does not take an expert in document authentication to see that the Kenyan birth certificate ranks much higher in face validity than the possibly forged document produced by Obama?s own campaign office in 2008.

If there is any question that our Commander-in-Chief is a foreigner, Congress should immediately investigate the facts and hold open, fair hearings to definitively ascertain the truth.

If the Kenyan birth certificate is valid, then Obama is clearly and unequivocally ineligible to serve in the office of president, and he must be removed immediately. On the other hand, if it can be proven that Obama was actually born in Hawaii as he claims, then the parental citizenship issue must be resolved, most likely requiring a clarifying decision by the U.S Supreme Court in spite of the clear language of the Constitution. This is why it is so important to get the matter of the legally-admissible documentation of Obama?s birth location resolved promptly, so as to move expeditiously to the Supreme Court if that becomes necessary.

It is unacceptable to continue playing ostrich by allowing the questionable eligibility of our Commander-in-Chief to go unresolved. You are not seeking re-election, so what have you got to lose by standing up for the Constitution in your final days of service to this nation?

Sincerely,

Harry Hunter

? 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 @ 9:19
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27604

America at the crossroads

The Midterm Elections and the Communist Manifesto

By Joan Swirsky??Monday, September 13, 2010

imageWhen it comes to celebrating the anticipated shellacking that Democrats will take in the midterms?possibly even capturing both the House and the Senate?I?m not as sanguine, indeed giddy, as are the pundits, pollsters, and media gurus who clearly trust that today?s politics are the same as they were in pre-2009, pre-totalitarian America.

Back then, we had simple under-the-table deals, payoffs, graft, and widespread voter fraud, all undertaken with a wink and a nod by politicians and the public alike.


But compared to Obama?s presidential campaign in which a good portion of more than three-quarters of a billion dollars of donations is still unaccounted for but suspected of being illegal or even coming from jihad sources and other suspect foreign sources , according to Pamela Geller of AtlasShrugs.com; where voter fraud through ACORN reached unprecedented depths of corruption and indictment in 14 states, and where the media and the opposition party were mysteriously rendered mute, the ?dirty tricks? of the past seem small potatoes by comparison.

While the media, the Congress, and even the courts have spent the past almost-two-years dancing around the word ?socialist? to describe the hard-left economic, social and foreign policies enacted by the Obama regime, to me those policies have the distinctively noxious stench of Communism, the deadly political movement that has murdered and subjugated far more people throughout the world than all the wars since the beginning of time?a modest number is a hundred million!

MARX AND HIS ACOLYTES

Karl Marx, in his 1848 opus The Communist Manifesto, laid out 10 planks necessary to destroy a free-enterprise system and replace it with a system of pervasive, overarching government power and control. ?From each according to their ability, to each according to their need,? Marx preached, positive that the pure Communism he envisioned would result in a just society where big bad capitalists?you know, the people who create jobs, establish foundations, support charities, et al?could no longer exploit the victimized masses.

Marx and his acolytes?both then and now?touted a society in which God was dead?the state was god! Where all property was held in common, and all economic activity was controlled by the state, a state that Marx fancied knew better than the average Joe or Jane how to corral all the children into the sandbox.

That?s right?children, which is how the Left contemptuously views the public, which is why in Communist regimes there are always the so-called grown-up oligarchs who, among other things, take serial vacations, play host to their circle of elitist cronies, and live in tasteless, usually nouveau-riche luxury, while the policies they?ve put in place cause unspeakable suffering to multimillions who naively believed their sales pitches of ?power to the people? or ?hope and change.?

According to the hugely-popular film, The Obama Deception, ?Obama is continuing the process of transforming America into something that resembles Nazi Germany, with forced National Service, domestic civilian spies, warrantless wiretaps, destruction of the Second Amendment, FEMA camps, and Martial Law. And let?s not omit:

  • Obama turning NASA into a group therapy forum for Muslims because as NASA administrator Charles Bolden said, Obama ordered him to pursue three new objectives, among them to ?help Islamic nations `feel good? about their scientific accomplishments.? Obama?s looming threat to grant amnesty to multimillions of illegal aliens.
  • Obama?s egregious filing of a report to the cesspool on New York?s First Avenue?to which he has a fanatical fealty?known as the United Nations, accusing Arizona of human rights violations!
  • Obama?s manic mad dash not only to shred the U.S. Constitution and subvert the rule of law, but to snuff the life out of American capitalism.

Author and journalist, Alan Caruba, writes: ?Between the time that George Washington took the first oath of office as president and when Barack Obama did?1789-2009, the United States had borrowed nine trillion dollars. Since Obama took office, it has borrowed or imposed nearly three trillion more debt. Tell me he is not deliberately seeking to bankrupt the nation.?

Caruba adds: ?Despite the 9.6% figure the government cites, the actual levels of unemployment are far closer to 20%....The nation has reached the point where well-respected economists are now openly using the `Depression? word.?

In fact, just the other day, Bank of America?s Jeffery Rosenberg predicted that the expiration of Bush Tax Cuts Will Kill 1.3% of America?s Entire Economic Output.

EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAIN

As we?ve seen in the past couple of years, the Leftists who hate America will go to any lengths to see her weakened, compromised, undermined, and ultimately destroyed. For the best description of their ruthless tactics, see Oleg Atbashian?s new book, Shakedown Socialism.

Ask the people still alive who lived under Hitler, Stalin, Tito, and Mao, or today under Fidel, Hugo, Evo, etc., how cruel and brutal, anti-life and anti-freedom those regimes were and are. Then listen to the Leftists and Liberals and Progressives of the Obama ilk today who still prefer Socialism and Marxism and Communism to Democracy and Americanism! Listen while they gloat about paying for the needs of the masses by eliminating the young through wholesale abortions and the elderly or disabled through, yes, death panels. And notice their perpetual sky-is-falling outlook. I?ve often thought that leftists are undiagnosed depressives, projecting their personal doomsday perspectives on an essentially sunny?or at least optimistic?world.

The Communist Manifesto dictates, among other things:

  • The abolition of private property (eminent domain, anyone?)
  • A heavy progressive or graduated income tax (actually massive taxation).
  • Abolition of all rights of inheritance (death tax, anyone?)
  • Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank (Federal Reserve, anyone?)
  • Centralization of the means of communications (net neutrality, anyone?)
  • Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, (General Motors, banks, healthcare, anyone?)
  • Free education for all children in public schools. (And free healthcare, housing, even cell phones, anyone?)

And now, among other egregious power grabs, Obama wants to federalize America?s waterways, including oceans, rivers, bays, estuaries, and the Great Lakes!

In 1963, according to according to Jeff Rense, an American version of the Communist Manifesto was entered into the Congressional Record. It listed 45 goals, among them:

  • Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
  • Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind.
  • Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
  • Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
  • Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers? associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
  • Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, and policy-making positions. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
  • Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with ?social? religion. Discredit the Bible. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of ?separation of church and state.?
  • Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the ?common man.?
  • Infiltrate and gain control of unions.
  • Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
  • Discredit the family as an institution.

Sound familiar? While the leftists among us?including the 70 Democrat members of the current Congress who belong to the Socialist Party of America?have been effecting these changes for decades, the Obama regime has sped the process significantly, purposefully blitzing our system with policies and laws dictated by the Cloward-Piven Strategy, which according to David Horowitz ?seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.?

The goal is to fulfill Marx?s dream of crushing capitalism and turning America?s magnificent Republic into either a Soviet-style totalitarian state or a third-world banana republic.

Here, enterprising blogger Doug Ross catalogues some of the dire damage already inflicted on America by Obama & Co.

WE?VE NEVER BEEN HERE BEFORE

Creeping Socialism has been part of the American experience for decades, its biggest purveyors being Democrats FDR, LBJ, and Jimmy Carter. Bill Clinton would be in this pantheon, but Speaker-of-the-House Newt Gingrich?s ?Contract with America? in 1994 gave the popular president a Republican Congress and moved him, reluctantly, to the center?although his wife, like the head of the regime she serves, was enthralled by and wrote her senior thesis at Wellesley about the arch community organizer, Marxist Saul Alinsky.

What we?ve witnessed since the inauguration of Obama in 2008 is not a creeping Socialism, but, it seems to me, galloping Communism! It is not only Obama?s and his tsars? and his wife?s and his cabinet?s clear preference for American-hating Communist, Marxist, Muslim and fascist dictators throughout the world, or his willful failure to condemn the Muslim jihadists among us (for instance, the Fort Hood murderer of 13 servicemen), but also the equally willful attempted destruction of our economy and the cold and calculated undermining of our military through his suicidal Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan.

And let us not forget what I have personally coined Obama?s own American Security Suicide Manifesto (ASSM) of announcing to our sworn and lethal enemies the exact dates when our troops would withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. The mind boggles!

Robert ?Buzz? Patterson, whose experience in presidential administrations is second to none, has written an explosive new book, ?Conduct Unbecoming: How Barack Obama is Destroying the Military and Endangering Our Security.? Patterson says:

?As I outlined in [my first book]``Dereliction of Duty,`? Patterson writes, ?I lay the blame for the attacks of September 11, 2001 fully at the feet of Bill Clinton, and I felt an obligation to tell that story. Now, I see history repeating itself in the presidency of Barack Obama. Only this time the misconduct and the dereliction of duty of Obama and his administration could lead to far worse devastation?it?s worse, much worse?I believe Obama?s foreign policy record so far and his agenda for the future are extremely deleterious to our national security, and need to be reversed in the elections of November 2010 and 2012.?

Patterson continues: ?You can?t win a war if you?re unwilling or unable to identify the enemy. We have a president that, during the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, wanted to kick the `#####` of British Petroleum but doesn?t want to kick the ##### of an ideological enemy sworn to defeat us, which murders innocents and suppresses human rights around the globe. Obama has a thin skin. He has shown a tendency to lash out angrily at his opponents?Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Tea Partiers, BP, Republicans, `fat cats` on Wall Street, and the state of Arizona, to name a few. But when it comes to identifying America?s real enemies?the ones fighting and killing Americans every day?he just can?t muster an interest in the fight.?

In a devastating review of the book, writer John Howard calls Patterson ?a modern Paul Revere.?

?On rare occasions,? he says, ?a book will appear that can alter the tide of public policy?that must prompt only one conclusion: our current international circumstances are no accident.They are the product of a philosophy so at odds with American tradition, so at variance with American values, so contrary to the very idea of American exceptionalism, that it virtually repudiates American history?.It is the dark world view of the radical left?It is the worldview into which President Obama was born??

Howard says that Obama?s mother was ?a committed Marxist whose penchant for the ethnic self-loathing [was] so current in the 1960s?? and ?Obama?s supposedly middle American white grandparents were actually ardent leftists who imbued him with leftist theory even as they introduced him to a succession of black radical theorists and poets in what seems to me a particularly patronizing effort to immerse him in what appeared to them as `Black culture?.He was inoculated with the politics of black grievance at a very early age.?

In Chicago, Howard says, ?Obama chose as his friends and sponsors such as Weathermen Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers, Marxist terrorists and would be murderers ?...and gravitated ?to the church of Black Liberation theologian Jeremiah Wright whose sermons combined Marxist philosophy with a distorted Christianity into an incendiary mix of grievance, hatred, certitude, demagoguery and entitlement?[and] he [took] as his ideological Sherpa radical strategist Saul Alinsky, whose work he internalized and taught, and who called for a soft revolution of cooption by lie?[and] he [assisted] in making grants to a variety of radical organizations populated by Islamist anti-Semites and leaders of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party.?

Patterson, he says, ?demonstrates how Obama?s ideological architecture compels a view of the United States as fundamentally and structurally flawed?maybe even malevolent?perhaps not even the equal of other nations?but, in any event, in no moral position to lead the world.?

AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS

In Deuterotomy (30:19), God says: I have set before you life and death?choose life.

On November 2, Americans will be called on to choose the life?indeed, save the life?of America.

The reason I stated at the beginning of this article that ?I?m not as sanguine as are the pundits, pollsters, and media gurus? about the shellacking Democrats would take in November is because there is no political movement on earth that has fought and lusted for and gained power?particularly through a putative coup d?√?tat?that has ever given up that immense power and influence and bully pulpit without a fight to the death.

I?ve been e-mailing my friends for several months that I ?dread? the midterms because of the drastic and deadly things I know the Left is capable of. I take very seriously the ?dress rehearsal? that took place a few days ago when two men from Detroit boarded a plane with terrifyingly suspicious box cutters and cell phones taped to other objects and $7-thousand in cash?but were freed by the ?authorities? in Amsterdam!

I urge anyone reading this article to go to any one of the hundreds of search engines to research the depraved actions Communist regimes have taken to retain power. This is what America is facing on November 2nd!

On the other hand, if Obama and his fellow leftists lose the House and Senate in November, I don?t think he, personally, will care all that much. He certainly won?t care if he?s a one-term ?president??it?s a job he clearly loathes and isn?t very good at. And he certainly won?t care how many Democrat politicians?including the lapdogs who have done his nefarious bidding?go down to defeat. We may have never seen his college transcripts, but we know he has a figurative doctorate in throwing mentors, colleagues and America?s allies under the bus.

Why the insouciance on his part? Because he has already done what the handlers who ferried in this Trojan Horse into our body politic dictated he do: ravage the American economy, co-opt the media, and weaken our military.

And, with a lame duck Congress, he and the other losers will set in motion further destruction, both domestic and foreign, which will leave those who win the midterms the years-long task of undoing?in fact completely repealing?virtually everything that has come out of this poisonous regime.

The Fox newscaster Glenn Beck, who attracted a half-million people or more to his recent Washington, D.C rally, said: ?There is a coup going on ... it has been done through the guise of an election?

As for the November 2nd midterms, Beck told Christopher Ruddy, the CEO of www.Newsmax.com: ?I fear a Reichstag moment,? in which he referred to the 1933 burning of Germany?s parliament building in Berlin that the Nazis blamed on Communists and that Hitler used as an excuse to suspend constitutional liberties and consolidate power.

Beck and millions like him?including me?are right to be nervous about the upcoming elections. Don?t believe for a millisecond that these anti-freedom, anti-American predators will go away quietly. They won?t. They detest and revile and loathe and resent America and there is nothing?including suitcase nukes exploded in mid-Manhattan, weapons of mass destruction disseminated in New York?s subway system, or terror acts in towns and cities across America?which fanatical leftists won?t do to intimidate America in the same way they?ve destroyed England and France.

God save America!


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:13
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Obama/USA v LTC Lakin: JAG Officer; Judge?s Ruling Against Discovery for Lakin Could Derail Case Based on Legal Precedent.

Via the Greeley Gazette; - Retired JAG Officer Says Judge?s Ruling Against Discovery for Lakin Could Derail Case Based on Legal Precedent - By Jack Minor

A retired JAG officer with over 23 years of experience, says the military judge who ruled against discovery for a Greeley Army officer may have derailed the government?s case based on precedent from another high profile case involving a military officer.

Lt. Col John Eidsmoe, a retired Air Force officer who works for former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore at the Foundation for Moral Law, said Lakin is ?raising legitimate constitutional questions? regarding President Obama?s eligibility to be commander-in-chief.

Eidsmoe said the issue has been around for several years and was first raised by Phillip Berg, a liberal Democrat who was a Hillary Clinton supporter.

?If he is a legitimate citizen of the United States, he could easily clear that up just by releasing the information to prove it,? Eidsmoe said ?When the national interest is at stake, he has a duty to put personal feelings aside and show us he?s legitimate, if he is.?

Last week at a hearing on the motion for documents relating to the President?s eligibility under the Constitution, the judge ruled Lakin did not have any rights to discovery. Jenson said in the morning the judge listened very intently and she ?found our arguments very appealing.? After lunch she issued a motion ruling against Lakin on all counts. In a meeting with the press afterwards, Jenson said he ?was astonished that she would leave them with no defense whatsoever.? He went on to say that they were going to be given ?no discovery at all? and they would be barred from ?introducing any witnesses on the legality of the order.?

Jensen said that they will immediately appeal the ruling to the Army Court of Criminal appeals as this ruling completely prevents them from providing a defense.
In issuing the decision, Lind said Lakin would not be permitted to call witnesses because it has the ?potential for embarrassment? of the President. Margaret Hemenway, spokeswoman for Col. Lakin, said the judge appeared to imply Lakin could be a racist by asking if this would be happening if Bush were the commander-in-chief.

In the decision the government stated that even if Obama is not eligible it would not matter and all actions taken by the president would still be valid. They also state that Lakin is ?duty bound to follow the lawful orders of his superiors even if the eligibility of the President under the constitution is later found deficient.? The issue of the president?s birthplace is outweighed by ?the danger of confusing the issues? according to prosecutors.

Eidsmoe said these statements could possibly cause problems for the government?s case based on precedent set in another recent high profile case involving Lt. Col. Michael Murphy.

Murphy was a high ranking official who served as general counsel to the White House Military office under President George W. Bush. In 2006 the Air Force discovered he had been disbarred for over 20 years in Texas and Louisiana, however, Murphy had told the Air Force he was never subject to any disciplinary issues. The military charged him with nine counts of conduct unbecoming an officer and one count of failure to obey a general regulation. At the arraignment his lawyers requested records from his time with the WHMO arguing the records were needed in order to provide a defense. The WHMO refused to release the documents requested and the judge agreed, ruling that the information was not harming the lawyer?s ability to mount a defense to the charges which did not directly relate to his time at WHMO.

The Air Force Times reported that, ?The information would not relate to the facts of the case but could have been useful in presenting what is known as the "good airman? defense, a doctrine in military law that allows the defense to present information about the defendant?s character and job performance.? The judge also ruled that a lack of access to the records would affect the defense?s ability to demonstrate Murphy?s good conduct and performance during the sentencing phase of the trial, calling the ability to present mitigating evidence about conduct ?a substantial right of a military accused.? The judge also ruled that even if found Murphy he could not be punished and the Air Force of Criminal Courts agreed.

Eidsmoe said the circumstances in the Murphy case are very similar to Lakin?s case with the refusal to allow documents and witnesses related to the President?s eligibility.

Two days prior to the ruling, ...continue reading here; http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=5329

Previous reports on LTC Terry Lakin can be found here.? Visit the Birther Vault for the evidence and the long list of people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].

United States v LTC Terry Lakin - Ruling on Motions(Discovery) ? Col. Denise R. Lind, Chief Judge, 1st Judicial Circuit. at Scribd, below.
United States v LTC Terry Lakin - Ruling on Motions(Discovery) ? September 2, 2010

Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney's Affidavit Supporting Lt. Col. Terry Lakin - 8/19/2010

Courts Martial Defense of LTC Terrance Lakin - Researched and Reviewed By The United States Bar Association...

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:00
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 10 de septiembre de 2010

KUHNER: President's socialist takeover must be stopped

Mugshot?
President Barack Obama arrives in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Friday, April 9, 2010, to speak about the retirement of Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens and the West Virginia mine tragedy. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.

He is slowly - piece by painful piece - erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there - yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism. Like Venezuela's leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above - one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are Balkanizing the country. It's time for him to go.

He has abused his office and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. His health care overhaul was rammed through Congress. It was - and remains - opposed by a majority of the people. It could only be passed through bribery and political intimidation. The Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, the $5 billion Medicaid set-aside for Florida Sen. Bill Nelson - taxpayer money was used as a virtual slush fund to buy swing votes. Moreover, the law is blatantly unconstitutional: The federal government does not have the right to coerce every citizen to purchase a good or service. This is not in the Constitution, and it represents an unprecedented expansion of power.

Yet Obamacare's most pernicious aspect is its federal funding of abortion. Pro-lifers are now compelled to have their tax dollars used to subsidize insurance plans that allow for the murder of unborn children. This is more than state-sanctioned infanticide. It violates the conscience rights of religious citizens. Traditionalists - evangelicals, Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Orthodox Jews - have been made complicit in an abomination that goes against their deepest religious values. As the law is implemented (as in Pennsylvania) the consequences of the abortion provisions will become increasingly apparent. The result will be a cultural civil war. Pro-lifers will become deeply alienated from society; among many, a secession of the heart is taking place.

Mr. Obama is waging a frontal assault on property rights. The BP oil spill is a case in point. BP clearly is responsible for the spill and its massive economic and environmental damage to the Gulf. There is a legal process for claims to be adjudicated, but Mr. Obama has behaved more like Mr. Chavez or Russia's Vladimir Putin: He has bullied BP into setting up a $20 billion compensation fund administered by an Obama appointee. In other words, the assets of a private company are to be raided to serve a political agenda. Billions will be dispensed arbitrarily in compensation to oil-spill victims - much of it to Democratic constituents. This is cronyism and creeping authoritarianism.

Mr. Obama's multicultural socialism seeks to eradicate traditional America. He has created a command-and-control health care system. He has essentially nationalized the big banks, the financial sector, the automakers and the student loan industry. He next wants to pass "cap-and-trade," which would bring industry and manufacturing under the heel of big government. The state is intervening in every aspect of American life - beyond its constitutionally delegated bounds. Under Mr. Obama, the Constitution has become a meaningless scrap of paper.

To provide the shock troops for his socialist takeover, Mr. Obama calls for "comprehensive immigration reform" - granting amnesty to 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens. This would forge a permanent Democratic electoral majority. It would sound the death knell for our national sovereignty. Amnesty rewards lawlessness and criminal behavior; it signifies the surrender of our porous southern border to a massive illegal invasion. It means the death of American nationhood. We will no longer be a country, but the colony of a global socialist empire.

Rather than defending our homeland, Mr. Obama's Justice Department has sued Arizona for its immigration law. He is siding with criminals against his fellow Americans. His actions desecrate his constitutional oath to protect U.S. citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. He is thus encouraging more illegal immigration as Washington refuses to protect our borders. Mr. Obama's decision on this case is treasonous.

As president, he is supposed to respect the rule of law. Instead, his administration has dropped charges of voter intimidation against members of the New Black Panther Party. This was done even though their menacing behavior was caught on tape: men in military garb brandishing clubs and threatening whites at a polling site. A Justice Department lawyer intimately involved in the case, J. Christian Adams, resigned in protest. Mr. Adams says that under Mr. Obama, there is a new policy: Cases involving black defendants and white victims - no matter how much they cry for justice - are not to be prosecuted. This is more than institutionalized racism. It is an abrogation of civil rights laws. The Justice Department's behavior is illegal. It poses a direct threat to the integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our electoral process.

Corruption in the administration is rampant. Washington no longer has a government; rather, it has a gangster regime. The Chicago way has become the Washington way. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is a political hit man. He is an amoral, ruthless operator. It was Mr. Emanuel who reached out to Rep. Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Democrat, offering a high-ranking job in the hopes of persuading Mr. Sestak to pull out of the primary against Sen. Arlen Specter. It was Mr. Emanuel who offered another government position to Andrew Romanoff to do the same in the Colorado Democratic Senate primary. And it was Mr. Emanuel - as the trial of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has revealed - who acted as the go-between to try to have Valerie Jarrett parachuted into Mr. Obama's former Senate seat. The only question was: What did Mr. Blagojevich want in exchange?

This is not simply sleazy Chicago machine politics. It is the systematic breaking of the law - bribery, attempt to interfere (and manipulate) elections using taxpayer-funded jobs, influence peddling and abuse of power.

The common misperception on the right is that Mr. Obama is another Jimmy Carter: an incompetent liberal whose presidency is being reduced to rubble under the onslaught of repeated failures. The very opposite, however, is true. He is the most consequential president in our lifetime, transforming America into something our Founding Fathers would find not only unrecognizable, but repugnant. Like all radical revolutionaries, he is consumed by the pursuit of power - attaining it, wielding it and maximizing it. Mr. Obama's fledgling thug state must be stopped.

If Republicans win back Congress in November, they should - and likely will - launch formal investigations into this criminal, scandal-ridden administration. Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican and ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has promised as much. Mr. Obama has betrayed the American people. Impeachment is the only answer. This usurper must fall.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the host of "The Kuhner Show" on WTNT 570-AM (www.talk570.com) from 5 to 7 p.m.

? Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:14
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
?
?

FIRST PAPER TO CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT

Incredible indictment of Obama by one of the most liberal newspapers in the country.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ent-142967590/

KUHNER: President's socialist takeover must be stopped

President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.

He is slowly - piece by painful piece - erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there - yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism.

Like Venezuela's leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above - one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are Balkanizing the country. It's time for him to go.

He has abused his office and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. His health care overhaul was rammed through Congress. It was - and remains - opposed by a majority of the people. It could only be passed through bribery and political intimidation.

The Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, the $5 billion Medicaid set-aside for Florida Sen. Bill Nelson - taxpayer money was used as a virtual slush fund to buy swing votes. Moreover, the law is blatantly unconstitutional: the federal government does not have the right to coerce every citizen to purchase a good or service. This is not in the Constitution, and it represents an unprecedented expansion of power. Yet Obamacare's most pernicious aspect is its federal funding of abortion.

Pro-lifers are now compelled to have their tax dollars used to subsidize insurance plans that allow for the murder of unborn children. This is more than state-sanctioned infanticide. It violates the conscience rights of religious citizens. Traditionalists - evangelicals, Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Orthodox Jews - have been made complicit in an abomination that goes against their deepest religious values. As the law is implemented (as in Pennsylvania) the consequences of the abortion provisions will become increasingly apparent. The result will be a cultural civil war. Pro-lifers will become deeply alienated from society; among many, a secession of the heart is taking place.

Mr. Obama is waging a frontal assault on property rights. The BP oil spill is a case in point. BP clearly is responsible for the spill and its massive economic and environmental damage to the Gulf. There is a legal process for claims to be adjudicated, but Mr. Obama has behaved more like Mr. Chavez or Russia's Vladimir Putin: He has bullied BP into setting up a $20 billion compensation fund administered by an Obama appointee.

In other words, the assets of a private company are to be raided to serve a political agenda. Billions will be dispensed arbitrarily in compensation to oil-spill victims - much of it to Democratic constituents. This is cronyism and creeping authoritarianism.

Mr. Obama's multicultural socialism seeks to eradicate traditional America. He has created a command-and-control health care system. He has essentially nationalized the big banks, the financial sector, the automakers and the student loan industry. He next wants to pass "cap-and-trade," which would bring industry and manufacturing under the heel of big government. The state is intervening in every aspect of American life - beyond its constitutionally delegated bounds. Under Mr. Obama, the Constitution has become a meaningless scrap of paper.

To provide the shock troops for his socialist takeover, Mr. Obama calls for "comprehensive immigration reform" - granting amnesty to 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens. This would forge a permanent Democratic electoral majority. It would sound the death knell for our national sovereignty. Amnesty rewards lawlessness and criminal behavior; it signifies the surrender of our porous southern border to a massive illegal invasion. It means the death of American nationhood. We will no longer be a country, but the colony of a global socialist empire.

Rather than defending our homeland, Mr. Obama's Justice Department has sued Arizona for its immigration law. He is siding with criminals against his fellow Americans. His actions desecrate his constitutional oath to protect U.S. citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. He is thus encouraging more illegal immigration as Washington refuses to protect our borders. Mr. Obama's decision on this case is treasonous.

As president, he is supposed to respect the rule of law. Instead, his administration has dropped charges of voter intimidation against members of the New Black Panther Party. This was done even though their menacing behavior was caught on tape: men in military garb brandishing clubs and threatening whites at a polling site. A Justice Department lawyer intimately involved in the case, J. Christian Adams, resigned in protest. Mr. Adams says that under Mr. Obama, there is a new policy: Cases involving black defendants and white victims - no matter how much they cry for justice - are not to be prosecuted. This is more than institutionalized racism. It is an abrogation of civil rights laws. The Justice Department's behavior is illegal. It poses a direct threa t to the integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our electoral process.

Corruption in the administration is rampant. Washington no longer has a government; rather, it has a gangster regime. The Chicago way has become the Washington way. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is a political hit man. He is an amoral, ruthless operator. It was Mr. Emanuel who reached out to Rep. Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Democrat, offering a high-ranking job in the hopes of persuading Mr. Sestak to pull out of the primary against Sen. Arlen Specter. It was Mr. Emanuel who offered another government position to Andrew Romanoff to do the same in the Colorado Democratic Senate primary.

And it was Mr. Emanuel - as the trial of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has revealed - who acted as the go-between to try to have Valerie Jarrett parachuted into Mr. Obama's former Senate seat. The only question was: What did Mr. Blagojevich want in exchange?

This is not simply sleazy Chicago machine politics. It is the systematic breaking of the law - bribery, attempt to interfere (and manipulate) elections using taxpayer-funded jobs, influence peddling and abuse of power.

The common misperception on the right is that Mr. Obama is another Jimmy Carter: an incompetent liberal whose presidency is being reduced to rubble under the onslaught of repeated failures. The very opposite, however, is true. He is the most consequential president in our lifetime, transforming America into something our Founding Fathers would find not only unrecognizable, but repugnant. Like all radical revolutionaries, he is consumed by the pursuit of power - attaining it, wielding it and maximizing it. Mr. Obama's fledgling thug state must be stopped.

If Republicans win back Congress in November, they should - and likely will - launch formal investigations into this criminal, scandal-ridden administration. Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican and ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has promised as much. Mr. Obama has betrayed the American people.

Impeachment is the only answer.

This usurper must fall.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the host of "The Kuhner Show" on WTNT 570-AM (
www.talk570.com) from 5 to 7 p.m.

? Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC.

I SAY HELL YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:07
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
?
?
PATRIOTS, obama, holder & THE 111TH CONGRESS BETRAY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ARIZONA - THEY SIDE WITH MEXICO!!! This video and message may've been around earlier, makes no difference. Now that the "Arizona War" has taken center stage and is taking a beating from our fearless leaders in Washington D.C. and the evil muslim communist USURPER, barack hussein obama, this video and message must be heard over and over, even daily, by the American citizens and the entire world until this message sinks in! We have an evil muslim communist USURPER, barack hussein obama sitting in the oval office giving our great country away and ... our 111th congress just sits by and lets it happen! You sure as heck don't need to be a "rocket scientist" to see that the evil muslim communist USURPER, barack hussein obama and the 111th congress are and have been in bed together from the beginning! The United States of America and its' citizens are rapidly becoming members of this evil communist state called the New World Order (NWO) and we just sit by and watch it happen! WAKE UP AMERICA, WAKE UP ... THE RED COMMUNISTS ARE HERE!!! AMID THE GUNS BELOW ...
In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below. We are the dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved, and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders fields. Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields. - Lt.-Col. John McCrae (1872 - 1918) REMEMBER THIS ... You don't vote a communist government out, got that? I repeat, you don't vote a communist government out! The buzz words are "You don't vote a communist government out!!!" In fact, with a communist government in place, you don't get to vote!!!

BE ADVISED, I will fight to the death to help ensure that the U.S. Constitution remains the law of the land of the United States of America! I will fight to the death to help ensure that the freedoms and way of life that so many of us have fought and died for are maintained! This is my promise to Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior and, those great American heroes who gave their all so that we could enjoy the good life, the freedoms and way of life that we American citizens had before this EVIL Muslim communist USURPER, barack hussein obama and his evil wife Michelle obama, crawled out of their snake holes! This is my promise to the EVIL Muslim COMMUNIST PARASITE, USURPER, ILLEGAL INVADER, barack hussein obama, his EVIL WIFE Michelle obama and all of his, barack hussein obama's EVIL HENCHMEN, WASHINGTON D.C. MAFIA AND TRAITOROUS FOLLOWERS!!

THIS IS MY STATEMENT, I APPROVE OF THIS STATEMENT AND I'M STICKIN TO IT, SO HELP ME GOD!!

There are always ... Too many Democratic congressmen, Too many Republican congressmen, And never enough U.S. Congressmen. ~Author Unknown ~

A United States Veteran is someone who,
At one point in his or her life,
Wrote a blank check made payable to,
"The People of the United States of America",
For an amount "...Up to and including my life."
~Author Unknown ~

FREEDOM IS NOT FREE!
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
GOD BLESS ISRAEL!
GOD BLESS ARIZONA! Bob Pinkstaff
Gunnery Sergeant
United States Marine Corps Retired
AMERICAN CITIZEN BY BIRTH, UNITED STATES MARINE BY CHOICE!

-------Original Message------- From: Constitutional Emergency Date: 9/5/2010 2:49:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: OBAMA, HOLDER BETRAY ARIZONA - Side With Mexico

Constitutional Emergency

A message to all members of Constitutional Emergency

Patriots,

Here is a video that gets to the very crux of the US Mexico border issue.

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=tsH8xvjTAlo

In short Obama/Holder side with Mexico over Arizona; and to prove it, sue Arizona who is taking action to protect Arizona citizens and uphold Federal law.......

Obama has to go........

Harry Riley


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:15
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 08 de septiembre de 2010

Lt. Col. Lakin?s Defense More Completely Constructed

Print This Post

IS THERE ANY AUTHORITY TO CONVENE THIS COURT MARTIAL?

by Walter Fitzpatrick, III and Timothy Harrington

?

Citizens' Tsunami was founded by Timothy Harrington as a patriots' organization

(Sept. 8, 2010) ? Major General Carla G. Hawley-Boland and Colonel Denise R. Lind are behind a ruling in the Lakin attainder Court-martial handed down last Thursday (2 September).

Boiled down to its essential aspect Hawley-Boland and? Lind are prepared to act on their own authority to incarcerate Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin, if for no other reason, so as not to embarrass the thug, punk criminal occupying the White House.

This represents a counter-argument to the Hawley-Boland/Lind writing.

~~~~~~~~~~

Infiltrator Soetoro-Obama?s Treason against the United States Constitution manifests a clear and present danger.

Soetoro-Obama?s armed opposition to the Constitution works at installing a competing, rival and totalitarian regime. Soetoro-Obama?s decapitation of a civilian commander in chief represents a constitutional emergency.

SOBama?s war on the Constitution, his open rebellion against the United States?his Treason threatens our American way of life.

Soetoro-Obama was in residence in the White House only forty-nine days when SOBama issued ?palpably? illegal orders deploying 23 U.S. Army military policemen? into the small Alabama town of Samson.

SObama?s Alabama adventure issuing illegal orders actively ?pervaded the activities of civilian law enforcement officials? and ?subjected [American Citizens] to the exercise of military power that was regulatory, proscriptive and compulsory in nature.?

Under SOBama?s orders Army troops forcibly restricted ?the freedom of movement of civilian persons.?

SOBama hourly commits Treasonous acts against the United States enjoying extraordinary success in the destruction of our American way of life.

Last September SOBama the infiltrator assumed the title and duties of the principal officer of a principal ?organ? of the United Nations (click here).

In discussions with Marine Sergeant Timothy Joseph Harrington, Tim pointed out that SOBama?s accepting a foreign government position under the United Nations flag perfectly demonstrates an act of TREASON.

A legitimate president of the United States can not during term of office collaterally hold any other government position under the constitution of a foreign sovereign state?

SObama can not be at the same time president of the United Nations Security Council and president as commander in chief of the United States of America.

SOBama?s September 2009 swearing in as president of the U.N. Security Council set an international precedent. SObama proclaimed the United States chief executive and commander in chief can be a citizen of any county. In this act of Treason SObama reduced America (and its armed forces) to state status under the U.N. secretary general and U.N. constitution (its charter).

THE GRAVITY OF OUR SITUATION CANNOT BE MADE MORE CLEAR!

SOBama and his treasonous partners are subjecting Americans and the United States Constitution to death by a thousand cuts.

SOBama and his treasonous partners are all about the wholesale extermination of United States Sovereignty.

There are military governors in SOBams?s wild bunch?COMMAND RACKETEERS?who like Army Major-General Carla G. Hawley-Bowland and Colonel Denise Lind who are no more obedient to the United States Constitution than the Traitor-Infiltrator SOBama.

Lieutenant Colonel Lakin?s Defense More Completely Constructed

You must comprehend, as it stands, we citizens of the United States must know SOBama is a Treasonous foreign-born Domestic Enemy.

No one can credibly claim ignorance.

Our silence as an American people?manifested in our impotence to oust SOBama as a treasonous infiltrator?is our agreement before the international community that the United States Constitution is formally abandoned.

In was in the environment of SOBama?s war against the Constitution described above that U.S. Army Doctor Terrence Lakin stood up and spoke out.

Last week Convening Authority Major-General Carla G. Hawley-Bowland and military hearing officer Denise R. Lind acted together in aiding and abetting SOBama in his treasonous war on America.

In ruling upon Colonel Lakin?s defense Lind and Bowland betrayed Doctor Lakin, they betrayed themselves, and they betrayed the Constitution (read their ruling here).

We shall here more completely construct Colonel Lakin?s defense (his defense of America) while exploiting an opportunity to eviscerate the Bowland-Lind?s ruling.

Doctor Lakin challenged SOBama at a point in time when SOBama was a confirmed and self-confessed Traitor.

The magnitude of SoBama?s Treason had become legendary.

Colonel Lakin enjoys the protection of criminal complaints of filed by other commissioned officers of the United States armed forces signed under oath? naming SOBama a Traitor. Military officers holding standing acted against SOBama naming the infiltrator a Traitor before Colonel Lakin acted.

SObama?s silent admission taken together with SOBama?s written confession in Treason protects Colonel Lakin in further naming SOBama an illegitimate commander in chief.

Said differently: SOBama?s near total silence regarding questions going to his legitimate command of the Unites States Armed forces invited, maybe even emboldened Colonel Lakin to act.

It was in any event Colonel Lakin?s duty!

SOBama?s intransigence has certainly emboldened others to do their duty.

It remains a basic military duty, designed in part for the benefit of subordinates, to challenge the authority of superior officers when that authority is in question.

The ?superior officer? must be one authorized to give the order; else indeed his command would not be a lawful one. (Winthrop?s Military Law and Precedents, p. 577)

It is of no consequence that Colonel Lakin advances a different theory in charging SOBama criminally than those criminal charges naming SOBama advanced by other commissioned officers.

Timely and uncounted challenges to the constitutional validity of the SOBama?s standing as commander in chief were in place fully a year before Colonel Lakin?s.

Most challenges go unanswered. But one criminal charge of Treason is conceded (unlawful deployment of Army troops into Samson, Alabama).

Many criminal complaints naming SOBams, no matter their status, pre-date Colonel Lakin?s actions.

De facto commander in chief?

Lind?s and Bowland?s assertion that SOBama is a de facto commander in chief is? unsustainable and deadly (click here).

For the soldier, sailor or Marine there can be no question, no doubt whatsoever regarding the legitimacy of the commander in chief.

All the duties of his life (the soldier?s) are according to the theory of military obedience, absorbed in that one duty of obeying the command of the officer set over him?? (Winthrop and others p. 571).

Lind and Bowland summon only work to excite the full fury and focus of military subordinates trotting out the government position that SOBama may be in fact an illegitimate commander in chief.

Lind and Bowland then opine it is ?impossible? for Lakin?s court-martial assembly to ?undertake independent resolution of whether [SOBama]?is qualified under the Constitution? to command American forces.

In fact, resolving SOBama?s Treason remains Bowland?s and Lind?s first duty.

An ?order? is an Executive mandate. (Winthrop, p. 576)

??All military authority and discipline are derived from one source?the Sovereign, so in our army every superior, in giving a lawful command, acts for and represents the President as the Commander-in-chief and Executive power of the Nation, and the source from which [the senior officers?] appointment and authority proceed. Hence the dignity and significance of a formal military order and hence the gravity of the obligation which it imposes upon the inferior to whom it is addressed.? (Winthrop on page 572)

An illegal order emanating from the president can confer no authority. A command not lawful may be disobeyed, no matter from what source it proceeds. (Winthrop, p.? 575)

And with that ?there is nothing better settled, as well by the civil and military laws, that neither officers nor soldiers are bound to obey any illegal order of their superior officers, but on the contrary it is their bounden duty to disobey them??no illegal act can be justified, no matter how high the source from which it emanates, by an order from a superior authority. The soldier is still a citizen, and as such is always amenable to the civil authority. (Winthrop with others, p. 575)

Bowland and Lind admit even they don?t know whether SOBama is legitimate! But they?re going to Court-martial Colonel Lakin anyway.

Huh? How can this be?

Courts-martial are creatures of orders! (Winthrop, pg. 49)

Bowland and Lind don?t know for themselves whether SOBama?s orders are legal in a situation where both officers are duty-bound to KNOW from where their authority flows.

Bowland and Lind treasonously evade their duty by describing the dilemma on the table as a ?political? or ?policy? question when?in reality?the question regarding the source and nature of orders is supremely military in concept and concern!

No other obligation must be put in competition with obedience to orders; neither parental authority, nor religious scruples, nor personal safety, nor pecuniary advantages from other services. All the duties of his life (the soldier?s) are according to the theory of military obedience, absorbed in that one duty of obeying the command of the officer set over him?? (Winthrop and others p. 571).

Detachable Links

Bowland and Lind?s opinion regarding the chain of command is irreconcilable with that of Colonel Winthrop?s.

Colonel Winthrop clearly and repeatedly asserts the authority of military officers to issue orders and the concomitant duty of military service members to obey such lawful orders depends directly upon whether the president as commander in chief is qualified under the Constitution to command.

Lind and Bowland sail a reverse course by claiming officers subordinate to the commander in chief enjoy an? ?independent authority? to issue ?lawful? orders.

Lind and Bowland manifest their belief in an ?independent authority? to issue ?lawful? orders by proceeding independently in the Court-martial of Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin based solely upon their own authority (click here).

One must wonder whether Army policeman,Lieutenant Colonel Scott Weill, believed he was acting on his own authority as he led his men into Samson, Alabama back in March 2009.

Lind and Bowland repeatedly claim that they themselves, or officers like Scott Weill are allowed to issue orders on their own authority ?whether SOBama is a natural born citizen or is qualified under the Constitution? to command U.S. forces.

As unsettling as their view regarding the American military?s chain of command Lind and Bowland continue to incite even greater fear. Lind and Bowman tell us we?re not even allowed to explore the question about SOBama?s outlawry in the face of ?an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political policy decision already made.?

Lind and Bowman explain that the ?potential for embarrassment? to the infiltrator SOBama triumphs over very real concerns and questions regarding the outrageously illicit criminal conduct of Barack Obama and SOBama?s criminal assistants.

Recall that in the late 1930′s and into the early 1940′s officers of the German army embraced ?an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political policy already made.?

Boiled down to its essential aspect Major General Carla G. Hawley Boland and Colonel Lind are prepared to act on their own authority to incarcerate Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin, if for no other reason, so as not to embarrass the thug, punk criminal occupying the White House

We as an American people must not let Colonel Lakin be led to a military prison.

We, just as much as Doctor Lakin, are duty bound to resolve the question regarding Barack Hussein Obama?s TREASON now before us.

Here endth the lesson!

? 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 @ 12:54
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 07 de septiembre de 2010
?WND Exclusive
BORN IN THE USA?

The reckoning:

This single report

could sink Obama's

presidency

Free, landmark summary

explains eligibility issue

clearly, suggests what you

should do


Posted: September 07, 2010
8:13 pm Eastern

??2010?WorldNetDaily

There have been billboards, posters, questions at White House press briefings, a long list of "jokes" about it by the mainstream media and a ton of lawsuits and other challenges ? including several that remain pending.

But, come on, is there really the possibility that Barack Obama doesn't meet the requirements of the U.S. Constitution to occupy the hallowed Oval Office?

That question and many others surrounding the constitutional issue of presidential eligibility are being addressed in a new, free special report by WND.

<

"The citizens of the United States have a right to know if their president is constitutionally eligible to hold the office," says the report, now available from WND.

"Obama's hospital of birth, birth documents, passport and Social Security number are all in question, and his legal defense never addresses the merits of the eligibility challenges. Instead, Obama relies on procedural objections and compliant judges to get the cases thrown out of court," says the report.

"President Obama could quickly and easily resolve the issue by releasing his personal historical documents to authenticate his claims," it concludes.

So why hasn't he?

The dispute over Obama's eligibility arose even before the 2008 election. Several legal challenges questioned just exactly who is supposed to make sure that a political party's candidate ? no matter how charismatic ? actually qualifies.

WND has reported on the multitude of cases and continues to report on pending disputes.

The report suggests the issue will have to be resolved in a public fashion sooner or later.

"Despite a virtual blackout by the mainstream media, Obama's eligibility troubles have spread across America, and public opinion has gradually turned against the president. ? More than a dozen U.S. House Republicans co-sponsored a bill ? [to] require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility by providing a copy of their birth certificates," the report says.

Similar moves are developing at the state level. And a recent poll showed only 4 in 10 Americans believed Obama's own explanation of his birth and growing up years.

On the legal front is the dramatic case of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who challenged Obama's eligibility as an Army officer and could face prison time for his decision. The goal of his case, like others, is to reach the level of discovery, so that Obama's documentation becomes public.

Another still-pending case by attorney Mario Apuzzo alleges Congress failed its constitutional duties to make sure the president is qualified, and yet more cases in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had asked that the California Electoral College votes for Obama thrown out.

The report includes:

  • An explanation of how the issue developed around Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, 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 review of the possible scenarios regarding Obama's birth, including his father's status as a British subject at the time of his birth, and British law calling for Obama to be governed by that nation's provisions at the time.

  • A discussion of "natural born citizen."

  • An explanation of Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" posted on the Internet and how it falls short of providing proof.

  • What those Honolulu Star-Bulletin and Honolulu Advertiser "announcements" about Obama's birth in 1961 really mean.

  • Why has no doctor or hospital come forward to speak of Obama's birth?

  • Should state officials who claim to have "seen" Obama's "original birth certificate" be believed?

  • What about those African newspapers that contemporaneously to his campaign called Obama "Kenyan-born?"

  • Were they "slips of the tongue" when Michelle Obama called Kenya the land of her husband?

Obama's "official account of his identity and background is riddled with inaccuracy and unanswered questions," the report says. "Even Obama's Social Security number may very well be fraudulent. He has literally spent a fortune in legal efforts to avoid producing the documents that would verify his eligibility."

Lending credibility to the concerns being raised is the intense war fought by attorneys trying to keep information about Obama secret. Besides his original birth certificate, still concealed are 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, client list from his time in private practice, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, his baptism records and his adoption records.

The report notes Obama "has gone to great efforts to sell the public on his own version of his life, but his story is has been inconsistent. For example, according to Illinois state filings, when Obama registered as an attorney in 1991, he stated he did not have any former names. In fact, he had been known for several years as Barry Soetoro."

Just the facts that are not in dispute would create issues, the report notes:

"Assuming Obama's parents were Barack Obama Sr., a British subject of Kenyan origin, and Stanley Ann Dunham, an eighteen-year-old American woman, neither of his parents were qualified to transmit U.S. citizenship to him. Barack Obama Sr.'s foreign allegiance disqualified Dunham's mother from conferring U.S. citizenship under the law prevailing at the time. The law required any U.S. citizen having a child with a non-citizen to have been physically present in the United States for at least five years after the age of sixteen to automatically transmit American citizenship. Because neither parent could confer American citizenship to their son, Obama can only be a U.S. citizen if he were actually born in the United States."

It documents how at the time of the Constitution's writing, "natural born citizen" was understood to mean a person whose parents were both American citizens.

So has Obama proven he was born in the U.S?

Get the full, free report now!


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 21:11
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 06 de septiembre de 2010
?

between the lines Joseph Farah

New standard of 'birther' justice

Posted: September 06, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

??2010?

From the very beginning, legal challenges to Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility have met a standard of adjudication unfamiliar to most Americans.

Mere "citizens" were told again and again they didn't have "standing" to test the eligibility of the man in the Oval Office.

Then came forward a man who actually ran against Obama in 2008. He didn't have standing, either.

Then came a parade of active-duty military men. Surely they would have standing to challenge a man with the power to send them on life-and-death missions in foreign wars. No dice.

And finally came Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, a distinguished U.S. Army surgeon, due for promotion, with a stellar military career. When he simply asked for proof that Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve ? something now 58 percent of the American people do not believe ? he was court-martialed.

He is now being denied the right to defend himself in that case because, as the female military judge suggests, requiring the evidence he seeks might prove "embarrassing" to the president.

"Embarrassing?"

Are good men and women denied justice because someone might be "embarrassed" by the truth of the evidence?

What might that ruling suggest about Obama's actual ability to prove his eligibility? It almost sounds like Army Col. Denise R. Lind, the acting judge in this case, might know Lakin is correct in his suspicions. Surely Obama would not be "embarrassed" if he had the documentation he could provide to prove he is eligible, right?

So, in the interests of protecting Obama from "embarrassment," the Army is ready to railroad Lt. Col. Lakin, deny him a fair hearing and look the other way on the little matter of constitutional integrity.

I don't know about you, but I'm getting a little sick of this charade.

If Obama were capable of "embarrassment" in this matter, all he would need to do would be to answer the now overwhelming call of the American people for transparency, candor, honesty and forthrightness. The decent thing to do for a man who seeks only to avoid "embarrassment" is to prove he is what he claims. If he can't, he should step aside as president.

Obama is embarrassing the entire nation with this stonewalling.

His efforts at cover-up are a disgrace to the office of the presidency and to the Constitution he swore to uphold.

Sadly, I feared all along that these court cases were not going to result in the kind of justice and rule of law they sought. I said all along that I could not foresee any judge ? military or civilian ? holding a president, legal or illegal, accountable to the standards of equal justice under the law. I just never believed any judge was likely to risk his or her career on principle and the standards of the law.

That assumption was sadly confirmed by the inept and corrupt decision by Ms. Lind.

"Embarrassment?" She ought to know something about that subject after that rationalization for throwing Lt. Col. Lakin to the wolves. That has to be one of the most embarrassing legal rulings I have ever heard. In another time and another place, when men and women of honor predominated in our military and judicial ranks, such a decision might be worthy of disbarment or impeachment or worse.

Meanwhile, my heart and prayers go out to Lt. Col. Lakin and his family for enduring the agony they must be experiencing because they are fighting for truth and justice and principle.

We must continue to support this very good man as he prepares for what is shaping up as a kangaroo court hearing next month.


?




?


Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. He is the author or co-author of 13 books, including his latest, "The Tea Party Manifesto: A Vision for an American Rebirth," and his classic, "Taking America Back: A Radical Plan to Revive Freedom, Morality and Justice," now in its third edition and 14 printings. Farah is the former editor of the legendary Sacramento Union and other major-market daily newspapers.


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

Alan Keyes: Why Lt Col Lakin is not mistaken?

Socrates famously said that an unexamined life is not worth living. However that may be, there?s new proof everyday that a critically unexamined so-called news report is not worth reading.

A case in point: A slyly derogatory article at foxnews.com purporting to discuss the prospects of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin?s effort to obtain, by means of a military trial, evidence that bears on the question of Barack Obama?s eligibility for the office of President of the United States.

The article sports a headline that applies to Lt. Col Lakin the inaccurate epithet ?birther? invented by Obama faction propagandists to distract from the profound question of Constitutional authority that is really at stake. It goes on to suggest that Lt. Col. Lakin made some kind of legal procedural error (?has chosen the wrong venue?) by declining to obey doubtfully lawful orders issued in the name of the President of the United States. To substantiate this assertion the story quotes from ?Phillip D. Cave, a Washington attorney and director of the National Institute of Military justice.? ?Cave said the validity of Lakin?s orders, under military law, does not depend on the president but on the chain of command. He will be convicted and is in jeopardy of dismissal.?

Cave speaks as if it is acceptable, under the Constitution of the United States, to distinguish the authority of the ?chain of command? from that of the President of the United States. If this distinction is accurate, then there must be a Constitutional source other than the President for the authority flowing through the alternative military chain of command. But the U.S. military is an instrument of the U.S. government?s executive power. The Constitution vests the whole of that power in the President of the United States. To avoid all possibility of misunderstanding, it explicitly states that the President is the Commander in Chief of the all the Armed Forces of the United States. To be Constitutional, therefore, any and all authority flowing through the chain of command must originate in the President, and any and all orders issued to officers in that chain of Command must ultimately depend upon and exercise the President?s Constitutional power.

The words which commission all U.S. military officers reflect this fact.

The President of the United States of America
To all who shall see these presents, greeting:
Know Ye, that reposing special trust and confidence in the patriotism, valor, fidelity and abilities of ??????, I do appoint ["him" or "her"] a ["Second Lieutenant" or "Ensign'] in the [name of service] to rank as such from the ?. day of ??.. ?? This Officer will therefore carefully and diligently discharge the duties of the office to which appointed by doing and performing all manner of things thereunto belonging.
And I do strictly charge and require those Officers and other personnel of lesser rank to render such obedience as is due an officer of this grade and position. And this Officer is to observe and follow such orders and directives, from time to time, as may be given by me, or the future President of the United States of America, or other Superior Officers acting in accordance with the laws of the United States of America.
This commission is to continue in force during the pleasure of the President of the United States of America for the time being, under the provisions of those Public Laws relating to Officers of the Armed Forces of the United States of America and the component thereof in which this appointment is made.
Done at the City of Washington, this ?. day of ??.. in the year of our Lord ?????. and of the Independence of the United States of America the ???.
By the President:

Whatever his claims to expertise in military law, when Mr. Cave relies on the concept of a military chain of command independent of the President he is entirely at odds with the provisions of the Constitution. In particular, he contradicts the Constitution?s subordination of all military authority to civilian control, embodied in and exercised through the President. Any military tribunal that adopted Mr. Cave?s view of the chain of command would assert the existence within the military of a source of authority not subordinate to the President, and not part of the executive power of the U.S. government, which the Constitution vests exclusively in the person of the President. Such an assertion would be, on its face, unlawful, unconstitutional and extremely dangerous to the stability of the United
States government.

Unlike the military in most other parts of the world, the U.S. military has a uniform and honorable tradition of unquestionable submission to the authority of the U.S. Constitution and its provision for the civilian control of the military. Military officers swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, and pursuant to that oath they ?observe and follow such orders and directives, from time to time, as may be given by me, or the future President of the United States of America, or other Superior Officers acting in accordance with the laws of the United States of America.?

Herein lies the nub of Lt. Col Lakin?s dilemma, and that of every other commissioned officer now serving in the U.S. military. If a Superior Officer issues a command relying on the authority of an individual claiming to be President of the United States, but not in fact Constitutionally eligible for the office, is obedience to that questionably lawful order consistent with the sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, and the laws of the United States made pursuant thereto?

There is no question that doubt exists as to the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama for the Office of President. Had there been any authoritative pronouncement on the subject from an impartial and constitutionally empowered element of the U.S. government (the Supreme Court or the Congress) the officers of the military would be obliged to defer to that authoritative and constitutionally authorized judgment. But the Congress has refused to address the subject, and the Supreme Court of the United States has evaded the issue. Their dereliction leaves the doubt constitutionally unresolved, so that every military officer, and indeed every citizen of the United States, can have no certainty as to the Constitutionality of any action performed by Barack Obama when he claims to wield the executive power of the U.S. government. Indeed, if Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be President, the Constitution plainly states that the executive power passes to the Vice-President.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution established a unitary executive precisely in order to avoid the potentially self-destructive spectacle of the U.S. government as a double-headed monstrosity whose doubtful assertions of authority on one side or the other could force elements of the Armed Forces of the United States to base their discipline and obedience on personal loyalties and dependencies, rather than on their duty to the people of the United States, whose more permanent will the U.S. Constitution embodies.

Unless the people of the United States are willing to allow their self-government to be usurped by a regime dependent on the choice of military Praetorian guards (like that of the ancient Roman Empire), the present situation is intolerable. The Fox online news article leaves hanging the defamatory suggestion that Lt. Col. Lakin?s action is personal ?grandstanding.? This is a callous and deeply disrespectful lie. With the frank and single minded integrity a free people should expect from its military officers he simply seeks a constitutionally authoritative resolution of an issue that leaves doubt where doubt may be fatal to the integrity of his oath bound conscience, as well as the democratic, civilian form of republican government established by the U.S. Constitution.

Lt. Col. Lakin is not the one who has mistaken his actions. Indeed, he shows the intelligence, courage and common sense thus far sorely lacking among the civilian authorities for whose Constitutional position he shows greater respect than they themselves have so far demonstrated. I have no doubt that he hopes, as we should all pray, that his case will advance until it puts before these so far shamefully derelict authorities a conscientiously inescapable opportunity to stop evading their duty, and to heed, as Lt. Col. Lakin has, the clearly stated requirements of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:56
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Constitution, Law, Eligibility of Barack H. Obama

Wanted: One Honest and Fearless Judge

?By Jerry McConnell??Sunday, September 5, 2010

But first; does one actually exist in our country?? From all appearances it would not seem that a judge who would rule fairly and constitutionally on the question of eligibility of Barack H. Obama to rule as President and Commander in Chief of our armed services can be found.


As reported online in the American Grand Jury article ?Md. Judge Denies Request for Obama?s School Records? (that could include a copy of Obama?s birth certificate) September 02, 2010 it becomes obvious there are none.

Our collection of judges may have many, if not all, who could be in a position of being able to rule fairly and Constitutionally on such a question as Obama?s eligibility but finding just one who is not in fear of making such a ruling or is not in the pockets of those who favor leaving the question unanswered, as the presidential usurper does, is doubtful.? Just ask attorneys Phillip Berg or Orly Taitz who have seen judges turn on them for trying.

I am of the opinion that most of our judges who swear to uphold the Constitution before they can become a judge, rapidly determine not to uphold it once they have their plum of acceptance because if they practiced law in accordance with that all-important document they could not legislate from their position on the bench as they all do once the ego factor consumes any common sense they may have once had.

Now we have another self-important judge, Army Col. Denise R. Lind, ruling against a decorated veteran of our military forces, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin; an 18 year career of bravery and honor and unconditional service to our country, and an obviously intimidated and cowardly court official in fear of ruling against a sitting president, deciding that it was ?not relevant? for the military to be considering such claims.

Basically, what that means is that if you are in the military you no longer have protection under the Constitution; that very document that you swore to uphold on entry into military service.? This spineless dispenser of judicial equality feels that the chain of command in the military that led up to the Pentagon should have been sufficient for Lt. Col. Lakin.? Apparently overlooked by this judge was that Obama, as Commander in Chief, is the overall authority for all the military services.?

To say that the authority ends at the Pentagon is grossly incorrect.? That is like saying that the chain of command for family discipline leads up to the oldest son, instead of the father.? Obama makes a big point of being the Commander in Chief and though never having had to render a salute in all of his life before, now relishes in returning the salute from the military people as he debarks from Air Force One.

And if Judge Lind is correct, what is the purpose in having people entering the military service swear to uphold the Constitution?? Why swear to uphold something that does not apply to you?

Either this woman has been strong-armed and cowed into following Obama?s way of doing things or she is just not fit to serve as a sitting justice in any court; or perhaps both.

But ever since the arrival of the White House usurper-in-chief, judges who were more than likely among the best have crumbled like a house of cards. The one that most grievously wounds this old Marine is Judge David Carter who was the recipient of the Bronze Star commendation for bravery while a Marine in combat in Vietnam.?

Today, in my mind and many other Marines, active duty and past, are happy to label him not only a traitor to his country, but egregiously worse, an EX-Marine; meaning they no longer consider him to be their brother.

Now we have another military judge, Denise Lind mentioned above who will also be persona non-grata with any military personnel who have not succumbed to the wiles and lies of the Obama-nation.

I ask America, can there be just ONE decent, honest, constitutionally loyal, and fearless judge?? Former Judge Roy Moore of Alabama would be in that class, but alas, the liberal USA haters got rid of him some time ago, ignoring his Constitutional rights.

Beware America; our Constitution is under serious attack.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:49
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 05 de septiembre de 2010
?WND Exclusive
BORN IN THE USA?

Battle-scarred

judge says Lakin

decision ignores

Constitution

'Highest law in this country

is not Supreme Court,

not commander in chief'


Posted: September 04, 2010
12:00 am Eastern

By Thom Redmond
??2010?WorldNetDaily

?

MONTGOMERY, AL - NOVEMBER 18:  The Ten Commandments memorial rests in the lobby of the rotunda of the State Judicial Building November 18, 2002 in Montgomery, Alabama. U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ruled November 18, 2002 that the monument violates the constitution's ban on government promotion of religion and must be removed. Thompson gave Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore 30 days to remove the 5,300-pound granite monument.  (Photo by Gary Tramontina/Getty Images)

?

FORT MEADE, Md. ? The military judge who curiously noted without explanation that uncovering evidence about President Obama's birth records could prove "embarrassing" and denied an officer the right to obtain potentially exculpatory evidence in a court-martial simply has forgotten the Constitution, the supreme rule of the United States.

So says Judge Roy Moore, who battled the politically correct climate as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court a decade ago and ultimately was removed from office by a state panel that refused to review the constitutionality of a federal court order.

His comments came today in an interview with WND about Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who yesterday was denied permission by Army Col. Denise R. Lind to obtain evidence that could document Obama is not eligible to occupy the Oval Office.

Lakin refused to follow his latest deployment orders to go to Afghanistan, because he was unable through Army channels to document Obama's eligibility, and the president himself has declined opportunities to do so.

Judge Moore, who now operates through the Foundation for Moral Law, has personal experience with challenging the powers that be to follow the Constitution. His dispute centered on a Ten Commandments display he put in a state building to recognize the God who inspired the Founders of America.

A federal judge opined that the monument shouldn't be there and ordered its removal. Moore refused and ultimately was removed from office by a state commission that he says "blindly" followed the order without evaluating its legitimacy.

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

With her decision, Lind mirrored a number of federal judges who have ruled on civil lawsuits over Obama's eligibility. They have without exception denied the plaintiffs' access to any requested documentation regarding the president's eligibility.

Lind ruled that it was "not relevant" for the military to be considering such claims, that the laws allegedly violated by Lakin were legitimate on their face and that the chain of command led up to the Pentagon, and that should have been sufficient for Lakin.

Moore said the ruling is a symptom of a judiciary across the nation that now believes in following "blindly."

"The highest law in this country is not the order of the Supreme Court of the U.S., not the order of the commander in chief, or any subordinate officer," he said.

Instead, it is the Constitution, which in this particular case demands that the president be a "natural born citizen," a requirement not imposed on other officers.

There have been dozens of lawsuits and challenges over the fact that Obama's eligibility never has been documented. The "Certification of Live Birth" his campaign posted online is a document that Hawaii has made available to those not born in the state.

"Lt. Col. Lakin has every right to question the lawfulness of the orders of the commander in chief. He's not only the commander in chief, he dictates the whole war effort, as shown by the recent firing of [Gen. Stanley McChrystal]," Moore said.

It doesn't matter, he said, that orders come from a colonel, or a general or even the Pentagon.

"The same thing applies in the military as in the judicial system," he explained. "The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it's not the order of a higher officer, not the order of a judge."

Lind found that since Congress allocates money for the war effort and the Pentagon was created, an order tracing back to the military hierarchy should have been sufficient for Lakin.


Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin

"That's wrong," Moore said. "They're not the commander in chief.

"No order in the military can be issued without the authority that backs the order. The president didn't give the order, but he is the authority that backs the order," he said.

With the current protocol to simply follow orders, Moore warned, the U.S. will develop more incidents like that involving Lt. William Calley in Vietnam. The atrocities of My Lai were carried out under the guise of "following orders," Moore noted.

Lakin "not only has a right to follow his personal convictions under the Constitution, he has a duty," Moore said. "And if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen in violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful."

Moore said he's seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a "natural born citizen" and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.

"This is the strangest thing indeed. The president has never produced [evidence] in the face of substantial evidence he was not born in our country. People are accepting it blindly based on their feelings, not on the law," he said.

"They can't fool all of the people all of the time, and that's what they're trying to do," he said.

Lind's ruling means Obama will not have to testify at Lakin's court-martial, scheduled in October, nor will those who have custody of his birth records in Hawaii.

Lakin has been charged by the Army with missing a movement, disobeying a lawful order and dereliction of duty.

The charges have been filed because Lakin refused to deploy to Afghanistan in April, because he believes the president of the United States cannot be the commander in chief and has failed to prove his citizenship.

Paul Jensen, Lakin?s civilian attorney, argued lawful military orders come from the commander in chief, and those military orders are illegal if the authority behind them is fraudulent. He wanted the court to grant access to the president's birth and educational records.

Jensen filed a "motion to compel," which asked the court to subpoena officials at the Department of Health in Hawaii to produce a formal birth certificate. The motion also requested access to the president's school records in Hawaii, Occidental College and Harvard University.

Jensen cited UCMJ article 46, which states: "The trial counsel, and the court martial shall have equal opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence in accordance with such regulations as the president may proscribe."

In addressing the court, Jensen said, "If the president is ineligible, you need to know that, Lt. Col. Lakin needs to know that, and the army needs to know that."

He also argued that obtaining birth and education records was routine and would do the court no harm. He said it was possible to even admit the evidence during this phase of the trial and later determine whether it could be used during the actual court-martial.

Instead, Lind said:

  • That all parties are, entitled to discovery or evidence under USMJ article 46. That President Obama is the commander in chief but that Congress also has significant and equal role in military matters under title 10 of the USC (Uniform Service Code.)

  • That Congress has the authority to raise an army, fund it and over the years created a proper chain of command including the secretary of the army.

  • That the issue of eligibility is a constitutional issue and a political question, not matter for a military court to decide.

  • That a court-martial has no jurisdiction in any potential impeachment, and it could be embarrassing, although Lind did not specify whether she meant embarrassing for the president or for the court.

Lind also refused to accept Lakin?s claim that his refusal to obey orders was a matter of conscience.

Another pre-trial hearing is scheduled for Sept 21.

Lind's decision came just days after a retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant general who commanded forces armed with nuclear weapons said the disclosure of Obama's documentation is not just critical to Lakin's defense, but to the preservation of the nation itself.

The vehement statements came in an affidavit from retired Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, a Fox News military analyst, that was disclosed by an organization generating support for 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 unless the president's eligibility is documented.

McInerney, 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, since officers are obligated both to follow orders and to disobey illegal orders.

"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 explained "good order and discipline requires not blind obedience to all orders but instead requires officers to judge ? sometimes under great adversity ? whether an order is illegal.

"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.

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.

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 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.

?

?


If you would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today's WND Poll.

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



Publicado por Corazon7 @ 0:10
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
S?bado, 04 de septiembre de 2010

?

ON LT. COL. LAKIN'S DEFENSE

?


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 23:40
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Is Lakin?s court-martial an American ?Dreyfus affair??

http://loyaltoliberty.com/WordPress/

September 4, 2010 ? 3 comments

This entry is part 7 of 7 in the series Obama's constitutional eligibility

I doubt that most people would be shocked to learn that sometimes the influence of power can interfere with and even derail the course of justice in our legal system.? Behind the scenes, a phone call from a powerful politician, or a corporate mogul often affects the actions or judgments of people whose personal ambitions they are in a position to help or hinder.? Usually though, people giving heed to such considerations have enough sense to cloak what they do with words or actions that give their corruption at least the appearance of probity.? Maybe its the tribute that vice renders to virtue.? Maybe its nothing more than self-serving prudence (the mask of honesty that facilitates corruption.)

However, when court officers conclude that such hypocrisy is no longer worth the effort, things are pretty far gone.? The video featured with this post? focuses on the recent decision by Col. Denise R. Lind, the military judge charged with presiding over the court martial of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin.? People who still care about American justice will recognize the facts as confirmation that America has passed ?far gone? and is approaching the point of no return.

Judging by Col. Lind?s demeanor, the court marital is apparently slated to be the inaugural ?show trial? of Obama style Stalinism in the United States.? Without even a show of rational argumentation ( as WND?s story reporting Judge Roy Moore?s insightful comments makes clear) she has denied Lt. Col Lakin ?the right to obtain potentially exculpatory evidence? for use in the Court Martial proceedings brought against him on the charge of refusing to obey lawful orders from the military chain of command until the issue of Barack Obama?s eligibility for the Office of President has been investigated and resolved by the decision of a properly constitutional? authority.

The Judge?s derelict disregard for constitutional right adds this military tribunal to the long list of civilian courts that have made themselves vehicles for the anti-American elite?s purposeful derogation of the authority of the U.S. Constitution.? In the course of her dereliction, however, Lind spoke of the documentary

evidence Obama has thus far abused government power to suppress.? She proclaimed that ?opening up such evidence could be an ?embarrassment? to the president.?

It?s marvelous that a supposedly competent legal officer of the United States military could cram so much prejudicial nonsense into so few words.? She refers to Obama as president.? But because, among other things, of her own action, his status as president is, as the lawyers might say, a fact not in evidence.? If he is in fact not constitutionally eligible for the office, then he is not president.? If he is not in fact constitutionally eligible, then no lawful authority emanates from him to the military chain of command.? Therefore,? and Lt.Col Lakin is not guilty of the charge against.? Judge Lind?s language is therefore prima facie evidence of prejudice, and she should either recuse herself or be removed from the case.

She suggests that the evidence might be embarrassing to Obama.? Since when is the embarrassment that may attend the discovery that a public official has sworn or acted dishonestly a lawful reason to suppress evidence tending to establish his official malfeasance?? Since when does the mere possibility of such official embarrassment justify suppressing the constitutional rights of a person accused of a serious crime and liable, upon conviction, to onerous punishment?

Judge Lind?s words appear at the very least, prejudicial. However, they may also raise the possibility of serious malfeasance on her part.? How has she reached the conclusion that the evidence in question may be embarrassing to Obama?? Has she privily received communications to that effect?? If so, why did she not publicly indicate the source or sources of these communications, so that Lt. Col. Lakin could claim his constitutional right to confront, in a proper hearing, the witnesses against him?

An American military officer is of course subject to military justice, but it must nonetheless be American justice, not some covertly influenced and intimidated repression of constitutional right dictated by the very people seeking to defend their claim to the constitutional authority in question.

Lt. Col. Lakin is an honorable officer. He acts from motives that honor both his profession and the Constitution he has sworn to defend.? I deeply believe that there is no more certain evidence of evil than the willingness to destroy decent, honorable people in order to cover up the embarrassing lies or malfeasance others may perpetrated to obtain power.

With her allusion to sparing Obama embarrassment Col. Denise Lind has fairly openly admitted her surrender to the influence of such evil.? So has every judge, every elected official, every money-manipulated media hack? who has co-operated in what is fast becoming a 21st century American version of France?s infamous Dreyfus Affair.

I honestly don?t expect Barack Obama to care what happens to an honorable American soldier.? I expect him to be as careless of our soldiers? consciences as he is of their lives.? Whether through fear or their own corrupt ambition, America?s self-serving elites have proven to be just like him.? They are willing to ridicule, dismiss or vilify decent patriots like Terry Lakin whose only ?crime? is to ask that the Constitutionally inscribed words of the people be respected.

But what of the people themselves??? Last weekend, at the behest of one such elitist scoffer (Glenn Beck), hundreds of thousands gathered in Washington, D.C.? They gathered with hopeful sincerity to proclaim their reverence for God.? But what if they follow Beck?s lead?? What if they, and others like them, are willing to let an innocent, honorable physician, a healer of the guardians of liberty, be nailed to a cross of military injustice?? What if they too sit, like the convener of their congregation,? in the seats of the scornful shouting ?Let him be crucified??

Then, to spare Obama embarrassment, the nation will be embarrassed by the spectacle of that evil sacrifice; and the people will be embarrassed by the destruction of the Constitutional authority that has for so long offered refuge from the onerous impositions of tyranny.? Then, all too soon, the people will feel the embarrassment 0f minds burdened with chains forged by the sacrifice of truth, justice and honor.? Then they will be cowed, bowing down again as people had through all the ages before this nation, conceived in liberty, carved out a place for equal justice among the nations of the earth.? Then they will have no choice but to be silent, and in that silence mourn the loss of all their liberty.

[I invite anyone willing to break the silence to read and sign the Declaration of Support for Lt. Col. Lakin.? Share the link with your friends, and ask that they do the same.? Also visit Safeguard our Constitution and learn how you can show your support in other ways.]




Series Navigation?Why Lt. Col. Lakin is not mistaken?

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 23:18
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar


By Tom TancredoSource: The Washington Times, editorial by Tom Tancredo

Excerpts from the editorial:

I?ve always thought it significant that the Founders included domestic enemies in that oath of office. They thought liberty was as much at risk from threats within our borders as from outside, and French political thinker and historian Alexis de Tocqueville agreed with that warning.

In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the greatest threat to our nation was clear - and foreign. While Islamic terrorism still represents the greatest external threat to America and American lives, the avowed program of the Obama regime has changed the picture in a fundamental way.

For the first time in American history, we have a man in the White House who consciously and brazenly disregards his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. That?s why I say the greatest threat to our Constitution, our safety and our liberties, is internal. Our president is an enemy of our Constitution, and, as such, he is a danger to our safety, our security and our personal freedoms.

Barack Obama is one of the most powerful presidents this nation has seen in generations. He is powerful because he is supported by large majorities in Congress, but, more importantly, because he does not feel constrained by the rule of law.

Mr. Obama?s paramount goal, as he so memorably put it during his campaign in 2008, is to ?fundamentally transform America.? He has not proposed improving America - he is intent on changing its most essential character.

Yes, Mr. Obama is a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda. We know that Osama bin Laden and followers want to kill us, but at least they are an outside force against whom we can offer our best defense. But when a dedicated enemy of the Constitution is working from the inside, we face a far more dangerous threat. Mr. Obama can accomplish with the stroke of his pen what bin Laden cannot accomplish with bombs and insurgents.

Mr. Obama?s most egregious and brazen betrayal of our Constitution was his statement to Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, that the administration will not enforce security on our southern border because that would remove Republicans? desire to negotiate a ?comprehensive? immigration bill. That is, to put it plainly, a decision that by any reasonable standard constitutes an impeachable offense against the Constitution. For partisan political advantage, he is willfully disregarding his obligation under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution to protect states from foreign invasion.


Mr. Tancredo goes on to make the argument that Obama is impeachable because of his refusal to protect the United States from foreign invasion. You can read the whole story here..


Comment by American Grand Jury:

Impeachment is a classic view from those that still don?t grasp the crux of the issue. Obama is not a legitimate president. He is not a ?natural born? citizen and was never qualified to even run on the ballot. Obama was legally challenged on this ?long? before he was elected. The Courts have done nothing but stall, sweep it under the rug and generally rule against the Constitution.

Obama needs to be removed by rule of law, not impeached. However, if our uninformed American public can?t get their minds around any other concept than impeachment I guess it will have to suffice. Impeachment will bring up the eligibility issue in a Congressional trial setting. The biggest downside is the word ?Congressional.? These criminals are not about to bury one of their own ? however, the herd that will arrive after the election could make things very uncomfortable for ZERO. Time will tell.

The good news: The Washington Times is rated one of the top newspapers in the world. They are credible, even with many conservatives. This is still an editorial but such a story will resonate in all in Washington. Obama has to be pissed! That my friends, is worth is weight in gold.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 22:46
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Who?s an ?Embarrassment,? Judge Lind?

Print This Post

IS AN ?EMBARRASSING? DETAIL OF OBAMA?S LIFE MORE IMPORTANT THAN SENTENCING AN INNOCENT MAN WITH 18 YEARS OF SERVICE TO HARD LABOR?

by jtx

?

Is Lt. Col. Terry Lakin the victim of a kangaroo military court by order of Obama? What does Judge Lind know about Obama's records that is "embarrassing?" Does the entire military command know that he is a liar?

(Sept. 4, 2010) ? Certainly not LTC Lakin, whose defense you are totally denying by your pretense that ?laws don?t matter? and ruling in your opinion that, in effect, a man who has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies may issue binding orders as though he were legally the Commander-in-Chief. The further ruling implicit in your order is that Obama is eligible and you make such a determination by judicial fiat and with no evidence to support that opinion.

In other words, you rule that everyone must assume that he is eligible and THEN we?ll go from there, regardless of the requirement in the United States Constitution that the man SHALL be a ?natural born Citizen? since you believe that it might ?embarrass? him to insist that he follow the laws of the very Constitution that not only he, but you yourself, took an oath to protect and defend from all enemies ?foreign and domestic.? Perhaps, Colonel, it was so long ago that you no longer remember that your oath was:

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

How is it you know so clearly, Colonel Lind, that you can override the black-letter law of the United States Constitution with your ruling from the bench??? Are you so arrogant that you believe yourself to be superior to both the Constitution and the Supreme Court and can merely abrogate part of the Constitution with your pathetic decision??? Do you believe that you can do this when it is only a Constitutional Amendment that may legally do so??? Believe me, dear lady, that is above your pay grade?way above it.!!!

Your assumption that only Congress may take an action related to Presidential eligibility is also patent nonsense, and in fact, your court is being asked to make no such ?removal? nor even an eligibility determination, but to issue the necessary orders to collect the information (factual evidence) that would allow a court of competent and proper jurisdiction to make such a determination if necessary. It would be properly heard in the United States Supreme Court and it would be that court which would make the eligibility determination, not yours. If the factual evidence gathered from your discovery rulings appear that they might, indeed, solve the eligibility conundrum, then the case would quickly be handled by the Supreme Court, which in our system of laws, is the final arbiter of Constitutional meaning and interpretation. It would be that court which would direct via a court order that Congress must remove the man since your ruling to that effect, even if you made it, would have no merit. And it would not necessarily be by impeachment as you suppose, so you are also incorrect on that promulgation as well.

The part your court would properly play would be in the discovery of evidentiary material, not in its interpretation and ruling thereon, since ? clearly ? no military court is vested with the ability to interpret the Constitution and make any binding ruling on its meaning, especially so in this matter. You perhaps are not aware of it, Judge Lind, but there are many, many millions of Americans who now realize that Obama is a usurper and that he cannot show himself to be eligible. There is far more evidence and information showing him to be ineligible than showing the contrary. In fact, the preponderance of those believing him ineligible consider him to be clearly a domestic enemy of America as his actions more and more clearly demonstrate. The clear belief is that the man is intentionally trying to destroy as much of our laws, economy, institutions, and culture as possible and do so as quickly as possible. You may not agree and that is your right, but is it also your right to make the unilateral determination that Obama is legally eligible under our laws (with absolutely no evidence), which is exactly what your decision has implicitly suffused into not only the defendant before you but the entire military machine of America?

THAT?S the EMBARRASSMENT, Judge Lind ? and whether the President is ?embarrassed? or not matters not a whit in view of the fact that your thoughtless ruling will quite likely automatically cause a multi-year prison term at hard labor for LTC Lakin?or perhaps you don?t think that?s an embarrassment??? It also by implication says that you ?know? the man is eligible while neither seeing nor soliciting a shred of evidentiary material. You?ve made an ill-considered and shameful ruling completely unworthy of someone in your position.

If you would issue the requisite orders to obtain the discovery material sought (and that IS within your purview) and that evidence clearly shows the eligibility requirements are met, then fine; the case is finished. If not, then it MUST be your duty to refer it and the evidence gathered to the Supreme Court for proper Constitutional determination and action. Your court would play no further part in the matter. As it is, you overstep the bounds that by all reason should guide your court.

? 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 @ 22:25
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 03 de septiembre de 2010

Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records

?

Friday, September 3, 2010

Courts Martial Defense of LTC Terrance Lakin - Researched and Reviewed By The United States Bar Association - 9/3/2010

?


Courts Martial Defense of LTC Terrence Lakin
Issued September 3, 2010

World Net Daily (WND), which has been following the Lakin trial step-by-step from the beginning, is reporting ? ?FT. MEADE, Md. ? A career officer in the U.S. Army [Col. Denise R. Lind] acting as a judge in the prosecution of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin today ruled that the military is no place for Barak Obama's presidential eligibility to be evaluated.?

According to the WND report, presiding authority Col. Denise R. Lind used the following arguments to deny LTC Lakin proper access to a defense, summarized in the following three paragraphs taken from the 40 minute long reading of her decision -

  • Army Col. Denise R. Lind today ruled in a hearing regarding the evidence to be allowed in the scheduled October court-martial of Lakin that he will be denied access to any of Obama's records as well as any testimony from those who may have access to the records.
  • With her decision, Lind mirrored a number of federal judges who have ruled on civil lawsuits over Obama's eligibility. They have without exception denied the plaintiffs' access to any requested documentation regarding the president's eligibility.
  • Lind ruled that it was "not relevant" for the military to be considering such claims, that the laws allegedly violated by Lakin were legitimate on their face and that the chain of command led up to the Pentagon, and that should have been sufficient for Lakin.

We find foundational flaws in Col. Lind?s decision, which Lakin?s defense team must seize upon in order to alter the current course of this trial.

  • Lind?s authority is derived from the same place as LTC Lakin?s and all other members of the United States Military - from the supreme command of the office of Commander-in-Chief, the President of the United States.
  • ?Lind is attempting to use her authority under her Commander-in-Chief to break the military chain of command, isolating the Commander-in-Chief of the US Military specifically, exempting the President from his position of authority in the chain of command, without which, Lind herself has no authority to convene the Courts Martial.
  • Lind then reaches outside of the US Military Justice system to the Civil Court, relying upon civil court precedent to deny Lakin any access to discovery and thereby, a proper defense guaranteed him by the US Constitution and UCMJ, Uniform Code of Military Justice. Civil Court precedent has no legal standing in a UCMJ criminal proceeding. In fact, the UCMJ is based upon the Articles of War (aka War Articles) and is a ?penal system? unlike the US Justice System - as explained by Col. William Winthrop in Military Law and Precedents. As a result, precedents set in courts outside of the UCMJ are without legal standing in any UCMJ proceeding.
  • Not even in the UCMJ can the United States government deny the accused his/her right to a trial, complete with discovery of related evidence. Yet Lind attempts to do so, under the authority derived from her Commander-in-Chief. If the chain of command is broken, then Lind herself has no authority.
  • Lind?s statement that the legality of the Commander-in-Chief is ?not relevant? in matters of military command is false on its face. As stated in a sworn affidavit filed by LTG Thomas G. McInerney executed on August 20, 2010 ? ?In refusing to obey orders because of his doubts as to their legality, LTC Lakin has acted exactly as proper training dictates. ? By thus stepping up to 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.?
  • Lind attempts to break the chain of command at The Pentagon level, which she claims has no issue with the current Commander-in-Chief and that this should be good enough for Lakin. Yet she cannot break this chain of command without eliminating her own authority, and Lakin?s oath requires that he decide for himself whether or not his orders are legal, as affirmed in LTG McInerney?s sworn affidavit.

At issue is not whether or not LTC Lakin refused orders, but rather whether or not he ?unlawfully? refused orders. If his orders were not ?lawful,? including but not limited to, emanating from a ?lawful? chain of command which begins with a lawful Commander-in-Chief, then Lakin must be found NOT GUILTY of ?unlawfully? refusing orders.

At the heart of the matter is whether or not his orders to deploy were ?lawful.?

LTC Lakin has questioned whether or not his deployment orders were ?lawful? on the basis that he believes that the Commander-in-Chief from which those orders are issued, may not be ?lawful,? therefore making any orders from the top of military command ?unlawful.?

To determine whether or not Lakin is correct in his decision to refuse orders, it is paramount to discover with certainty whether or not his orders were issued by a ?lawful? command.

As we know, Article II ? Section I requires that only a ?natural born citizen? of the United States can hold the office of President, Commander-in-Chief.

In this regard, a fatal misstep in the Lakin defense has opened the door for the illegitimate statements now being made by Col. Denise R. Lind.

LTC Lakin failed to directly assert that Barack Hussein Obama is NOT legal in his command on the basis that we know with certainty that he is not a ?natural born citizen,? ? and that LTC Lakin is ?lawfully? refusing to follow orders on this basis.

Instead, LTC Lakin only asked the ?birth place? question and tied that question to whether or not Mr. Obama could and would present an official ?birth certificate? proving once and for all that he was indeed born in Hawaii, making the wrong assumption that if he could and would provide proof of said birth via an official birth certificate, which has never been released to date.

The fatal error revolves around the reality that Obama?s birth place is of no consequence in the matter of his status as a ?natural born citizen? eligible for high Command of the US Military under Article II ? Section I of the Constitution.

Although there is no shortage of opinions on the subject of what the term ?natural born citizen? means, there is no honest debate on the matter either.

Every Supreme Court Justice knows exactly what the term ?natural born citizen? means, where it came from, why it exists in Article II requirements for the office of President and that Barack Hussein Obama is NOT a ?natural born citizen,? indeed ineligible for the office he currently holds.

They know that LTC Lakin is right to ?lawfully? refuse orders from an illegal Command.

We know this on the basis of the following critical facts ?

  • The term ?natural born citizen? is derived from the Law of Nations. An international treaty establishing a set of rules used to establish a ?nation,? the issue of nation and citizen sovereignty, and internationally recognized definitions of universal terms, including the term ?natural born citizen.?
  • The Law of Nations is specifically mentioned in the US Constitution as an enumerated power of Congress under Article I ? Section VIII ? Item X - ?To define and punish offenses against the Law of Nations;? (Note that in the original Constitution, Law of Nations is capitalized, referring specifically to THE Law of Nations.)
  • From Emerich de Vattel?s 1758 book on The Law of Nations, Chapter 19 ? 212. - Of the citizens and natives ? Vattel establishes ? ?in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.?
  • In a letter from Founder John Jay to then President of the Constitutional Convention George Washington, Jay stated - ?Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.?
  • It was later learned that President George Washington had actually taken out Vattel?s book on the Law of Nations from the local library in order to study proper implementation of law in our newly formed nation, and never returned that book.

On the basis of known history and facts behind the Constitutional term ?natural born citizen? which is based upon ?natural law? explained in the Law of Nations as stated referred to in the US Constitution, the proper assertion is not at all related to the actual ?birth place? of Barack Hussein Obama, II. The ongoing search for a Hawaiian birth certificate has no bearing on the subject of ?natural born citizen? status for Barack Hussein Obama, II.

The only relative question is ?

Was Barack Hussein Obama?s birth father a legal citizen of the United States of America at the time of his birth, no matter where in the world he may have been born?

Without a birth father who was a legal citizen of the United States at the time of his birth, Barack Hussein Obama, II cannot be a ?natural born citizen? of the United States of America, he is not without divided national loyalties, and cannot serve as President of the United States or Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military as a result, creating a national security and a full blown Constitutional crisis.

According to the two autobiographical books by Barack Hussein Obama, II ? his birth father is Barack Hussein Obama, a British subject at the time and a legal citizen of Kenya. According to public family history, Barack Hussein Obama was at no time in his life a legal citizen of the United States.

On this basis alone, LTC Lakin is right (and lawful) in refusing to accept orders from an illegal command. The US Constitution and the Law of Nations, upon which our sovereign nation was formed, are very clear on the matter.

As a result, the need for LTC Lakin to gain access to the Hawaiian birth records for Barack Hussein Obama, II is eliminated.

LTC Lakin need only assert the following ?

  • On the basis of Article II ? Section I of the US Constitution, supported by Article I ? Section VIII ? Item X concerning the Law of Nations and the term ?natural born citizen,? - I hereby refuse any and all illegal orders issued by the illegal Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military, President Barack Hussein Obama, on the basis that he does not meet Constitutional requirements for the office he currently holds and must further hereby demand that he be removed from office and immediately relieved of Command of the United States Military. I further assert that due to the illegal status of existing Military high Command that this Court Martial has no authority under which to proceed.

Under this assertion, there is no need for access to the birth records of Barack Hussein Obama, II, unless Mr. Obama chooses to respond by stating that Barack Hussein Obama is not his real birth father, in which case Mr. Obama is admitting to fraud during his pursuit of the Oval Office.

In the event that the UCMJ chooses to challenge the historically accurate definition of the term ?natural born citizen? described herein, the US Supreme Court is the only court in the land with proper authority to rule on the true meaning of the term ?natural born citizen? ? as stated by the Constitutional protections that LTC Lakin has sworn a lifetime to protect and defend.

With this assertion is place, LTC Lakin does not have to prove that his assertions are true and accurate. As Commander-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama must prove that Lakin?s assertion is false in order to proceed with the government prosecution of LTC Lakin on the grounds that he has ?unlawfully? refused orders.
In short, Mr. Obama must prove that his orders are in fact ?lawful.? If Obama is either unable or unwilling to do so, then LTC Lakin is in fact NOT GUILTY of ?unlawfully? refusing orders.

This particular case is not about one soldier refusing deployment orders. It is about a nation allowing a precedent to stand which makes it possible for any individual with any foreign allegiance to hold the highest office in this land, with no obligation whatsoever to demonstrate or prove national loyalties before holding the office of President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief.

This case is about whether or not the US Constitution stands as the official Law of this land.

NOTE: Past challenges on the term ?natural born citizen? have been improperly argued upon cases revolving around the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment relates to ?immigration? and ?naturalization? laws, not ?natural law? used to establish ?natural born citizenship? status of an individual. Therefore, any and all cases pertaining to Fourteenth Amendment arguments are moot on the matter of ?natural born citizen? claims.

Researched and Prepared By:

J.B. Williams and Timothy Harrington
The United States Patriots Union, LLC
Sheridan, Wyoming

Researched and Reviewed By
The United States Bar Association

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 21:52
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 02 de septiembre de 2010

?

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Commander David LaRocque: Did you know that Colonel Lakin is being housed in the psychiatric ward at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center pending his court-martial?

?

Friends,

Do you still think Barack Hussein Obama is not a Communist? Think again.

Listen to this interview with Dr. John Drew, a conservative professor of political science who was a Communist in his youth and founder of the Marxist Student Association at Occidental College:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/audio/kuhner-show-aug-28-part-2

Go to the 20 min point in the interview by Jeff Kuhner - Dr. Drew describes Obama's strong commitment to Communist revolution in America, beginning with his youthful indoctrination in Hawaii by the well-known member of the Communist Party of America (CPUSA) Frank Marshall Davis, and continuing through his college years, as personally witnessed by Dr. Drew based on his close personal contact with Obama at Occidental College.

Dr Drew has no doubt that Obama has always been a Communist and remains a Communist today. According to Dr. Drew, Obama is totally committed to carrying out a revolution in America which will destroy the American system of rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in order to bring about a "redistribution of wealth" and the forcible imposition of "social justice" as envisioned by Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and Mao Tse-tung.

If this is true, what are the implications for our country? What are our responsibilities as American citizens with this knowledge? Did all those brave Americans who fought for our country at Yorktown, Gettysburg, Belleau Wood, Ardennes, Tarawa, Guadalcanal, Anzio, Chosin Reservoir, Khe Sanh, Fallujah, and in Afghanistan expect that their countrymen would ever allow a traitor and an imposter to occupy the White House?

This is what LTGEN Thomas McInerney (USAF ret), former Commander of the 11th Air Force/Alaskan Air Command, had to say in an affidavit he submitted to the judge on August 31, 2010 in connection with the court-martial of decorated 18-year veteran physician LTC Terry Lakin (Medical Corps, U.S. Army) for refusing to accept deployment orders until the legitimacy of the authority of the Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama has been verified:

"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...

In refusing to obey orders because of his doubts as to their legality, LTC Lakin has acted 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...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...

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...

Our military MUST have confidence their Commander in Chief lawfully holds this office and absent which confidence grievous consequences may ensue."

Did you know that Colonel Lakin is being housed in the psychiatric ward at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center pending his court-martial, and that he is being subjected to threats and severe psychological abuse for simply doing what is required of him by his oath of office as a U.S. military officer? This is what they did to dissenters in the Soviet Gulag!

Friends - this is a constitutional crisis of immense proportions, and it is not going away. It must be resolved. Every American citizen is being affected by the presence of an illegal person in the White House. The longer this situation is allowed to continue, the worse will be the consequences for our nation when it is finally resolved.

A Communist in the White House, and Communists at the highest levels of the Executive Branch and in the Congress, represents nothing less than a bloodless coup d'?tat of the United States government.

What are you doing, as an American citizen, to demand a resolution of this unprecedented usurpation of the presidency of your country, about which we were warned by the Founders?

And what about the members of the criminal conspiracy (particularly Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi who submitted false presidential candidate certifications to the states) who participated in a massive election fraud in the 2008 presidential election in order to facilitate this usurpation?

If you are unconcerned and you are doing nothing, then you must be considered complicit in the greatest tragedy in the history of the greatest nation the world has ever seen.

David F LaRocque
CDR USNR (ret)
Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney's Affidavit Supporting Lt. Col. Terry Lakin - 8/19/2010

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 18:15
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
??

WND Exclusive
BORN IN THE USA?

Judge to Lakin:

Find another

defense

Rules that officer

challenging Obama's

eligibility can't see evidence


Posted: September 02, 2010
4:16 pm Eastern

By Thom Redmond
??2010?WorldNetDaily

?


Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin

FT. MEADE, MD. - A career officer in the U.S. Army acting as a judge in the court-martial process for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin today ruled that the military is no place for Barak Obama's eligibility to be president to be evaluated.

Army Col. Denise R. Lind today ruled in a hearing regarding the evidence that will be allowed in the scheduled October court-martial for Lakin that he will be denied access to any of Obama's records as well as any testimony from those who may have access to those records.

With her decision, Lind plunged into lockstep with a number of federal judges who have ruled on civil lawsuits over Obama's eligibility. They have without exception denied the plaintiffs' any access to any requested documentation regarding the president's eligibility.

Lind ruled that it was "not relevant" for the military to be considering such claims, that the laws allegedly violated by Lakin were legitimate on their face and that the chain of command led up to the Pentagon and that should have been sufficient for Lakin.

Paul Rolf Jensen, Lakin's civilian attorney, said the case would continue. But he said the courts now have denied his client the opportunity to present his defense.

Jensen had argued that under U.S.C. Rule 46, a defendant being put on court martial has the right to call any and all witnesses and obtain any evidence in his or her defense.

Lind, who took 40 minutes to read her decision to the courtroom, disagreed.

She said opening up such evidence could be an "embarrassment" to the president and anyway, it should be Congress that would call for impeachment of a sitting president.

?The decision came just days after a retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant general who commanded forces armed with nuclear weapons said the disclosure of Obama's documentation is not just critical to Lakin's defense, but to the preservation of the nation itself.

?

The vehement statements came in an affidavit from retired Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, a Fox News military analyst, that was disclosed by an organization generating support for 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 unless the president's eligibility is documented.

McInerney, 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, 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 explained "good order and discipline 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.

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

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 commanded forces equipped with 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."

Lakin, the foundation said, has been compelled to act because he 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 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 @ 17:58
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

?

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Major General Jerry Curry: Obama's Eligibility Issue Moving Toward Critical Mass, House and Senate Needs to Stand Up!

?


Via 68truthseeker; Maj. Gen. Jerry Curry: Obama's Eligibility Issue Moving Toward Critical Mass

Maj.Gen. Jerry R. Curry (Ret.) discusses an affidavit from retired Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, a Fox News military analyst, that was disclosed today by an organization generating support for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin who has refused orders to deploy overseas until Pres. Obama discloses a long form birth certificate to prove his eligibility to serve as Commander In Chief. Source.



Previous reports on Major General Curry can be viewed here. Previous reports on Lt. Col. Lakin can be viewed here.
Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney's Affidavit Supporting Lt. Col. Terry Lakin - 8/19/2010
Official Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth vs Obama's Certification of Live Birth


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:19
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 01 de septiembre de 2010

?

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Should LTC Lakin expect justice from DoD or has the Pentagon fallen prey to pervasive political correctness?

Should LTC Lakin expect justice from DoD or has the Pentagon fallen prey to pervasive political correctness? - By Margaret Hemenway

The Pentagon is no more immune to political correctness than other institutions of government. But this is not a new phenomenon- the Pentagon responds to public perceptions and political pressure like any other governmental entity. Decorated Army officer, Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin invited his own court-martial, set for October 13-15, by asking President Obama to prove he is legally serving as Commander in Chief. He sought only to ensure that his military orders, including deployment to Afghanistan, were lawful.

But Army prosecutors have already argued that LTC Lakin, defending himself against criminal charges, has no right to evidence he needs at trial- i.e. evidence related to Obama?s original 1961 birth record. They claim the issue is political, in Army legal jargon, ?nonjudiciable.? Why then do officers take an oath to support and defend the Constitution? And what about the chain of command- is there a break somewhere between servicemembers in uniform and their elected civilian leadership? Why did Obama address the subject of civilian control when General McChrystal was forced to resign? How can Army brass say, with a straight face, that the Commander in Chief?s legality (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with soldiers deploying to Afghanistan?

There have been other courts-martial in recent history which reflected poorly on the DoD and its civilian leadership. During World War II, the Japanese sinking of the U.S.S. Indianapolis constituted the greatest naval disaster during the war. The Navy had denied destroyer escort to the ship; the government had denied the Ultra intelligence to the commander that an enemy submarine was in the ship?s path-- and the enormous loss of life from the Japanese torpedo was largely attributable not to the enemy attack, but to the Navy?s failure to track ships coming into port; therefore the missing warship went un-noticed?a pilot who spotted the oil slick was the only reason that survivors were rescued after 4 grueling days at sea.

What did the Pentagon do in response to this catastrophe?- it court-martialed the USS Indianapolis' decorated commander, Captain Charles McVay?who had been trusted to deliver atomic bomb components to Tinian Island. The Captain was court-martialed for exercising the discretion the Navy gave him as a commander to zig-zag his ship (a submarine evasion maneuver)- he was accused of hazharding his ship by failing to zigzag. To add insult to injury, the Navy flew to the states the Japanese submarine commander to testify against Captain McVay. In 2002, the Congress belatedly exonerated this war hero- who had committed suicide later in his life, wearing his naval uniform with a memento from his crew.

In April, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, addressing an Air Force Academy audience at Colorado Springs about leadership and character, referenced two officers who faced courts-martial- Billy Mitchell, and Hap Arnold, both advocates for air power, but despite their visionary views, were subject to ridicule and contempt. SecDef Gates mentioned that Mitchell and Arnold "pressed ahead in the face of incredibly fierce institutional resistance" and noted that, "One of the reasons they were successful at championing their ideas is that they were always willing to speak truth to power."

Many in uniform regularly demonstrate courage in combat--as one Marine fighter pilot described it, the kind of bravery that comes with the DNA- but moral courage is a different variety- it?s deciding to put yourself at risk when not confronting imminent danger or defending oneself?it is making a proactive, conscious decision to put yourself in harm?s way. This is the type of decision LTC Lakin made- one which could mean a sentence of four or more years at hard labor at Fort Leavenworth prison- and separation from family and loved ones- a duration of time longer than any American soldier would expect to serve overseas, even during wartime.

Today, LTC Lakin follows in that great tradition of which SecDef Gates spoke- of speaking truth to power. Military officers are all required to take an oath?not to the President and Commander in Chief- but to the U.S. Constitution. It is loyalty to the rule of law that is required of the officer- and officers are trained to learn the difference between a lawful v. an illegal order. LTC Lakin?s conscience dictated that he go public with his request to see President Obama?s original birth certificate after attempts to seek answers from within his chains of command and also through his Congressional delegation, failed to unearth the truth. He realized that no one wanted to confront the disturbing reality- that there is no evidence that the President/CINC, with responsibility over all the U.S. Armed Forces and the codes to the fearsome U.S. nuclear arsenal, is legally serving. Obama's lawyers, at his directive, continue to conceal all records which would shed light on his citizenship and "natural born" status.

The media continues to downplay or ignore developments in the President's Constitutional eligibility dispute-- including acknowledgement by Hawaii elections official Tim Adams (his position as chief elections clerk during the 2008 election was confirmed by a State of Hawaii official) that Obama may not have been born in the Aloha State, as major print media and liberal pundits have insisted?and as claimed by Hawaii?s State Health Director. Mr. Adams publicly declared that everyone in his office knew Obama had no ?long form? birth certificate- the type that candidate McCain produced- and which contains a doctor?s signature and hospital name. Yet a CNN poll in mid-July revealed that 6 out of 10 Americans aren't certain where the President was born, a credit to the relentless probing and blogging by the "eligibility" movement-- and networking through the internet. Similarly, the establishment media largely ignored a Missouri Senate candidate and veteran- Hector Maldonado- who was required to present his citizenship paperwork to the Secretary of State (or be withdrawn from the ballot). Maldonado learned that Obama, when he filed to run for another federal office (the Presidency) in Missouri, apparently was not required to meet the same standard of proof.

The birth certificate controversy clearly weighs on Obama's mind- he continually raises it- at the national prayer breakfast earlier this year where he entwined it with the subject of his faith (perhaps hoping Americans may not remember that he can be any religion but must be "natural born" per the Constitution to be President) and again during an interview on August 29th with NBC's Brian Williams, where he quipped (in a non sequitur since the question was largely about his faith): ?I can?t spend all of my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead."

Will LTC Lakin's court-martial become a watershed moment? So far, the Congress, with a few notable exceptions, has shrunk from confronting this explosive issue. There would be a lot of blame to go around and a lot of scalps at risk- for letting a candidate accede to the's nation's highest office without proper vetting. But respected, high-ranking military officers are stepping up in defense of LTC Lakin- MG Paul Vallely, MG Jerry Curry and Lt GEN McInerney. These men recognize that facing court-martial for demanding proof that orders are lawful was an act of bravery and consistent with LTC Lakin?s oath to support and defend the Constitution. Soldiers trained and armed with weapons were given the enormous responsibility of being guardians not just of the nation, but of the Constitution. The Navy was reprimanded by Congress far too late to save the honor and reputation of Captain McVay; other heroes like Billy Mitchell never won the credit they deserved during their service years- but today, the Army needs to be warned against perpetrating a similar injustice against LTC Lakin. It would nice for a change to recognize heroic achievements when they happen- not years or decades later. With this court-martial, the Constitution and the rule of law hang in the balance.

Mrs. Hemenway is a retired federal employee who served extensively in the U.S. House and Senate and the Pentagon.

This information is provided by PURE PURSUIT INFORMATION CENTER, as a service to members of the Military and Air Defense Community with the purpose of offering relevant and timely information on (open source) defense, aviation, emergency, law enforcement and terrorism issues.

Previous reports on LTC Terry Lakin can be found here.? Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].

Kenyan Ministers Orengo & Khalwale: Obama "born in Kenya"-"not native American"-"should repatriate"

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