Domingo, 31 de octubre de 2010
LATEST COMMIE NEWS
Updated: Sunday, October 31, 2010 at 11:38 AM
COMMUNIST OBAMA'S POLITICAL PRISONERS
Upholding their oath to protect America from enemies, both foreign and domestic, these veterans challenged Obama's eligibility based on a large body of credible evidence that suggests Obama is ineligible to serve as President. What happened next is precisely what occurs in a Communist country.
Communist Obama is Ineligible - LTC Terry Lakin Communist Obama is Ineligible - LTC Walter Fitzpatrick
LTC TERRY LAKIN (US Army)

Ordered not to speak to press. Not allowed to see evidence needed to defend himself, because it could be an embarrassment to the President. Physically threatened by the lead prosecutor. Called bigot, racist, lunatic on CNN. Army rewrote his performance review.
LTC WALTER FITZPATRICK (USN Ret.)

While attempting citizen's arrest, stumbles into a corrupt judicial cabal, resulting in a GOP Election Commissioner being brutally murdered in a Chicago mob style slaying (set ablaze in a car trunk). Fitzpatrick is arrested with unsigned warrant, jailed, beaten, tasered.
MAJOR GENERAL VALLELY MAJOR GENERAL VALLELY DEFENDS LAKIN
GENERAL McINERNEY YOU MUST LISTEN TO GENERAL McINERNEY
FREE THESE HEROES! GIVE THEM YOUR SUPPORT. DEMAND THE NEW US CONGRESS IMMEDIATELY SHOW AMERICA PROOF OF OBAMA'S ELIGIBILITY! IMPEACH OBAMA IF INELIGIBLE AND RENDER EVERY LAW HE HAS SIGNED NULL AND VOID! LEARN MORE!

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:04
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

U.S. Congressional Candidate Kesha Rogers: Remove Obama by invoking the 25th Amendment

?
?
?
?
?
?

?AS LONG AS OBAMA?S IN OFFICE, WE SEE A COMPLETE AND TOTAL BREAKDOWN?

by Sharon Rondeau

?

Kesha Rogers (D) is running for U.S. Congress in the 22nd District of Texas against incumbent Pete Olson (R)

(Oct. 31, 2010) ? The Post & Email recently interviewed Kesha Rogers, Democrat candidate for U.S. Congress from Texas?s 22nd District, who released a statement on her website calling for the immediate removal of Barack Hussein? Obama from office via Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Kesha has since posted a new video? entitled ?Invoke the 25th Amendment Before the Election? in which she reiterates her position, stating that ?There is no chance of saving the nation unless this happens.?? She has asked that Congress meet this weekend, before the election, to vote to remove Obama.

Ms. Rogers is affiliated with Lyndon LaRouche, who on October 26 reportedly issued a warning that ?Either we get Barack Obama out of office now, or the United States and the rest of the world will soon plunge into a state of ungovernability.?

Here she shares why she stands by her statement about Obama?s removal as well as her views on other constitutional issues which the country is currently facing.

MRS. RONDEAU: Recently you stated on your website that you felt that the 25th Amendment should be invoked and that Obama should be removed from office.? What precipitated your making that bold statement?

MS. ROGERS: First of all, every single day, we see complete and total mental breakdown of this president, and every single day we see that the president is not competent to deal with the crisis at hand and has no solutions.? When I first started my campaign, I said, ?This president must go; we must call for his immediate impeachment.?? As time has gone by, we?ve seen that he has a failed personality which can be identified as a narcissistic, ?Nero?-type personality.? Lyndon LaRouche, whom I work for, agrees with this assessment.

If you look at what has happened throughout this administration, especially with the breakdown and the fleeing of several of his top officials, advisers and top military officials, you have to say that there is nothing but a complete and utter, devastating breakdown and that the president is not competent to complete his term in office.? This is what our Constitution actually provides for:? in the 25th Amendment, Section 4, it says that if you have a president who is mentally or physically incompetent to carry out his duties, then the Congress, the Vice President and others can actually submit a letter of request for removing the president from office.

I believe that that is exactly the place we?re at right now because what you have to look at, in the midst of having an insane president who is continuing to back up the interests of his British puppetmasters, you also have the fact that the entire financial system is disintegrating.? It is bankrupt, and we have provided clear solutions to this crisis.? The only solution that is going to solve this economic collapse is getting Obama out now with the 25th Amendment, going with the Glass-Steagall banking reorganization and putting forth a real economic solution to the crisis.

MRS. RONDEAU: I read that on your website.? Do you feel that it took a lot of courage on your part to come out and make this statement about a member of your own political party?

MS. ROGERS: Absolutely; it takes guts and it takes courage.? It also takes true patriotism because we have to realize that the fight we?re waging is not about party; rather, it?s about defending the nation, acting as a true patriot to the nation, and not being aligned with ?party? but rather, with principles.? Right now, you have both parties which are refusing to tell the truth: that the whole system is bankrupt; that you have a president who is a failed personality and is providing no solutions but rather, running the country deeper and deeper in the gutter.? So it takes a lot of guts and courage, and it takes the courage that most members of Congress on both sides do not have.

MRS. RONDEAU: The nation has been watching this situation unfold for almost two years now, and it?s astounding to many that nothing has been done by any member of either party.? Why do you think no one is calling for an investigation into Obama?s competency?

MS. ROGERS: I think the real thing we have to look at is the question of tragedy, and that?s what we?re dealing with right now.? It requires an understanding of the fact that a tragic society actually encompasses tragic leadership.? That?s what we?ve seen.? We?ve seen the breakdown and degeneracy in our culture, and you have a leadership that represents the same type of gutless quality of failing to fight and defend the truth and real principle.? This is the way I try to address people in terms of their role as citizens in this Republic:? when you go to see a play written by Shakespeare or Aeschylus ? any of these great dramatists ? you don?t go and see it because you want entertainment.? You go and see it because it?s supposed to give you a reflection of the type of society you?re living in and what you?re going to do about it.

This is the problem we have with our leadership:? it is cowardly, like Hamlet. It?s gutless.? People don?t have that sense of history?look at the Congress right now.? The reason why they?re not doing what other patriotic leaders did such as President John F. Kennedy, Lincoln or Roosevelt, who understood the real fight that we were up against, which has been a British empire and their destruction, all the way back to the American Revolution and George Washington, is that they fail to draw on history.? So you have this go-along-to-get-along, let?s-play-the-political-game, let?s-make-a-deal-under-the-table mentality.? Unfortunately, this is the mentality that the population has accepted.? They won?t go against it.

My campaign has not only provided the solutions economically and politically but has also said, ?We have to have a complete and utter transformation of the culture; we have to get the population to stop thinking of itself as underlings and to actually demand real leadership.? That?s what a republic is; it?s not sitting around, waiting to see what?s going to happen after you go to press the button at the voting booth.? It?s demanding that real solutions are put forward, and the real solution has to be that our president is incompetent and is a puppet of the British empire, and he has to go.? We have to invoke the 25th Amendment to do so, and anyone who isn?t calling for that is not fit to run for office.

MRS. RONDEAU: I?m sure you?ve heard about the controversy about whether or not Obama is even eligible to serve per the eligibility requirements set forth in the U.S. Constitution.? What do you think about the eligibility question, and how can it be answered?

MS. ROGERS: I can tell you that my thoughts are that he?s not an American citizen because he?s a traitor to the nation, not because of his paperwork and whether or not it says he has a birth certificate.? I would say that he?s more in line with being a citizen of the British empire than an American citizen, because being an American citizen means that he?s actually going to stand up and fight for the Constitution and defend it.? I won?t go as far as saying whether or not Obama should be impeached because we can find some birth certificate in Hawaii or not, or whether or not he should be in Kenya, but I think there are many more principles and psychological examples as to why he should be out and is not fit to deem himself as a true patriot and citizen of this nation.

MRS. RONDEAU: Why do you use the term ?British empire??

MS. ROGERS: We?re talking about the monetary interests that actually take financial institutions over governments and nation-states, and that?s what I mean by ?British empire.?? When you think about the British empire, you think about today, the Inter-Alpha Group of financiers of banks that controls close to 70% of the world?s financial earnings.? The Inter-Alpha group was started by Jacob Rothschild back in the 1970s.? The British empire, as we know historically, has been the empire that we fought against in the American Revolution.? I believe that empire still exists.? It exists as a fat financial conglomerate today which controls nations, and that?s what we?re fighting against:? how you get? nations to be sovereign and productive and not held under the thumb of financial interests.

MRS. RONDEAU: Does that tie into what some people call the ?New World Order?? Is that part of the conglomerate?

MS. ROGERS: I?ve heard the term.? I would say that it?s an expression of it; when people speak about ?New World Order? or ?one-world government,? it would be an expression of it, but I would say it goes a step further.? You have to look at it historically; this was the same banking and financial interest of unscrupulous money-changers, if you will, which President Franklin Roosevelt went after.? This is the same financial interest and oligarchical interest that President Lincoln opposed and went after.? Throughout the course of history, it?s been an interest that has been against sovereign-nation states and in favor of financial corporate cartels.

MRS. RONDEAU: What are your thoughts on the health care legislation that was passed?

MS. ROGERS: Simple.? It?s fascist.? The health care legislation, first and foremost, should be repealed. It is a health care policy modeled on a cost-effective basis and what was termed during the Nazi 1939 Hitler regime as ?unworthy of life.?? The health care policy essentially says that we?re going to put a price tag on human life.? In 1946, you had Nazi doctors and others tried at Nuremberg for this very same policy that Obama is pushing.? The problem is that no one, neither Republican nor Democrat, has the guts to say that.? They will say, ?I oppose it,? or ?I?m for it,? but they don?t have the guts to say that it?s a fascist policy and it?s a policy that is a cost-effective, put-a-price-tag-on-human-life policy where you would have independent boards making the decision of whether or not people should receive certain care based on whether or not their life is worth saving.

The solution that I put forth is that in the HMO system, in the profits of all the insurance companies and so forth, we can go back to what?s called a Hill-Burton standard where you actually have so many doctors, so many hospitals, and so many nurses.? You actually have the infrastructure and every hospital system focusing on the need to value life before profit, and that?s what this HMO system doesn?t do.? That?s why it has to be stopped immediately.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you feel that government should have a hand in health care, or is there some other way it should be reformed?

MS. ROGERS: With the Hill-Burton system, you would have government health care policy which would be single-payer.? Yes, government has to take responsibility for the lives of the population, and it has to come before, above and beyond putting the financial interests or the profits of financiers first, such as bailing out Wall Street.? So we would not bail our Wall Street and say that we?re going to put a price tag on human life.

MRS. RONDEAU: On your website, you had mentioned a ?classical education? including the arts, sciences, and literature.? Do you feel that the education our children are receiving in this country today is substandard?

MS. ROGERS: It?s absolutely not what it should be.? Our education system doesn?t actually pivot around or thrive on the conception of the creative powers of the human mind.? You have an education system that, since the introduction of the counter-culture in the 1960s, the assassination of President Kennedy, the drug, sex, and rock-and-roll counter-culture, hasn?t been focused on real creative output.? Most of our education is standardized testing; it?s not actually taking our children through a rediscovery of a scientific or classical artistic process.? That?s what?s missing, because you have to have classical art and science and real physical geometry as the basis of your education system. We have to return to that.? We?ve gone into this trajectory of a real physical economic breakdown where true education is not the basis of our school systems.

MRS. RONDEAU: What do you think our children are being taught today, if not a good basic education?

MS. ROGERS: They?re being taught how to pass a test.? The teachers are being taught how not to teach the students and guide them through a discovery, but how to go through a test mechanism and how to get schools credit based on how many people they can get through a test.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think the teachers? unions have had anything to do with the downhill slide in education?

MS. ROGERS: I don?t think that they?ve had the power that they need.? I would say that the teachers are our greatest tools for developing the minds of our students.? The problem is that they are just not given the opportunity to do so.? You look at this Obama education policy:? it?s says, ?Race to the Top.?? It?s more like schools which don?t comply with what he puts forward for education are going to have teachers who will be laid off; you?re going to have schools denied funding and principals who are actually fired.? We?ve seen a lot of this.? So teachers? unions don?t have the power, and they don?t have the backing of our government, because we have a president who is out to destroy the country with these policies, and he?s not looking out for the interests of our teachers and various other social services workers.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think that a competent president could empower teachers more?

MS. ROGERS: Well, absolutely, and our school systems would be able to do that, also, by demanding an education for our students where teachers are given the tools they need to actually teach and not be put under the thumb or the pressure of having to be more concerned about whether or not they?re going to get certain funding.? We can change that, and a real president and a real Congress would recognize it.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think more money needs to be spent on education, less, or about the same as what is spent now?? Should it be more localized?

MS. ROGERS: More money on education.? I think that our education system should be an infrastructure project that should be a part of what our government funds in terms of how you look at the real production in society.? How do you look at wealth in society?? People determine wealth in our economy by gross domestic product and all of these various financial instruments, but the first thing in determining wealth in society should be the creative progress of your society by your education system.? So we should have education for all; we should have programs whereby the government actually funds education before it bails out Wall Street.

We should have education for all college students so that they can go to trade school or four-year university, and that should be the basis of how we determine real economic growth.? It would be the same thing as how you would fund your space program. You wouldn?t fund your space program by privatizing it; you would fund it by government credit; invest in it, fully funding the space program such that you would place the emphasis on its being a revolution in science.? That?s what I represent, not taking the space program as we?ve seen with Obama and abolishing it, setting down our manned space program and allowing for private interests to come in and say that they?re going to treat our space program as some kind of billionaire?s playground.

MRS. RONDEAU: Given everything that you?ve said, is there any conflict in your mind between what you?d like to see Congress and a competent president do and what is in the U.S. Constitution?? Is there anything that authorizes? funding for a space program and education?

MS. ROGERS: Let?s refer most importantly to a very profound portion of our Constitution that people sometimes forget about, which is the Preamble written by our first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton.? It says that ?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 [sic], create for the general welfare, 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.?

The Preamble to our Constitution actually expresses what we?re able to do, that our first priority is looking out for the interests and promoting the general welfare of every citizen of our country.? So the question is, ?What does that mean??? It?s natural law, not man-made law.? There are certain principles that may not be as vividly described or inscribed in the Constitution with, as you said, the space program, but we know that that has been a grand awakening and revolutionary change in the direction of our nation and the world.? But it was based on the principles of our Constitution that Article I, Section 8 says that the Congress has the right to print and coin currency and invest in long-term infrastructure projects.? This is what our Preamble provides for:? that we?re going to look after the interests of every citizen, of the science and physical economic progress of our nation, as Alexander Hamilton understood.? So I don?t see any conflict at all.? The problem is that people look at economics being based on a monetary solution vs. a scientific and physical economic solution, which is that you need physical scientific production, agriculture, industries, factories and so forth.? It doesn?t say that in the Constitution, but FDR knew. Lincoln knew with the Transcontinental Railway system that that?s the way you actually measure real growth and a productive economy.

MRS. RONDEAU: What, if anything, could be done about all of the jobs that have been outsourced overseas?? How can we make America productive again?

MS. ROGERS: The first step would be to get Obama out!? Secondly, we have to reinstate Glass-Steagall banking law, which was put in place by Roosevelt in 1933 and repealed in 1999, led by Phil Gramm.? It was a firewall of protection separating your commercial bank and people?s savings from speculation and investment banks.? Once we do that, then we have the ability to go in and create the credit to bail out our states that are faced with utter bankruptcy and collapse, physical economic collapse; and we would do that by creating credit for long-term infrastructure projects in these states.? Job creation programs are what I?ve called for, starting with programs such as the North American Water & Power Lines.? It?s called NAWAPA.? This was a program put forth in the 1960s by the Parsons Company out of California at the same time that President Kennedy was charting the course for going to the moon.? The program can create 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 jobs immediately with irrigation systems, canals, dams, energy-intense projects such as nuclear desalination plants, nuclear power, and so forth, and you can rebuild the physical economic structure of the nation.? We can put millions of people back to work in projects ten times greater than that which was represented under Franklin Roosevelt and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

MRS. RONDEAU: What part, if any, do you think the private sector would play in putting people back to work?

MS. ROGERS: First of all, we?re faced with hyper-inflationary collapse.? So the private sector would play an important role in actually employing people, but they do not have the constitutional authority to create the jobs and actually print the currency and the credit which is necessary to get the startup projects going.? So these projects would have to be started up by a federal government plan which would collaborate with the private sector, and you would have certain regulations so that the private sector would adhere to what would be necessary to get these projects off the ground.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you feel that a complete economic collapse is inevitable?

MS. ROGERS: It is, in the direction that we?re going, because right now we?re looking at something on the scale of what was faced in 1923 in Germany during the Weimar hyper-inflationary collapse.? If you think about what?s happening right now, trillions of dollars in bailouts to derivatives, phony assets and a banking system which is actually bankrupt, the problem is that you have a Congress that has capitulated and refused to put Glass-Steagall back on the table.? If there is not a change in direction, then the collapse is inevitable, and it will happen in a way that the Lombard & Bardi banking system of Italy during the 13th and 14th centuries which led to the Dark Ages.? That?s the history, because you have to see what happened during the collapse of these banking systems.

What happened during the collapse of the 1929 Great Depression?? It was a collapse of physical economic production, a collapse of the culture, and eventually, there was a collapse of society overall.? That?s what we?re seeing on a grand scale.? We?re seeing the highest rate of homeless and starving children ever.? Even here in the United States, we?re seeing a president who, for the first time in history, doesn?t have a cost-of-living adjustment for those on social security and says that there?s no inflation. We?re seeing the shutdown of our industries and our infrastructure, and when every state in the Union is bankrupt, we?re not waiting for an economic collapse.? I would say that the economic collapse is well under way.

MRS. RONDEAU: If you are elected to Congress, what is the first thing you will do?

MS. ROGERS: The first thing I will do is if the president is not out already, I will call for the invoking of the 25th Amendment to get him out.? Following that, I would call for the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall and to investigate this criminal activity that we?ve seen going on in our banking system and probably put something forward similar to what was done under the Roosevelt administration called the Pecora Commission to investigate the financial interests that have taken our nation into this extreme condition of economic breakdown.? Then I would call for the immediate instituting of the credit take-off projects for fully funding our manned space project, NASA, and then for economic recovery projects to put millions of people back to work in productive jobs.? That has to be packaged, because there?s a lot to be done, but those are the highest priorities.

MRS. RONDEAU: Regarding the Obama eligibility question, if he were found not to have been ineligible to run for president because he didn?t meet Article II, Section 1, clause 5 requirements, what do you think should be done?

MS. ROGERS: Well, he absolutely has to go; he should be impeached if that were the case because it violates the Constitution.

MRS. RONDEAU: Would you consider that to be a crime?

MS. ROGERS: As in ?high crimes and misdemeanors??

MRS. RONDEAU: Yes.? For example, if it were proven that he perpetrated fraud because he knew he didn?t qualify because he was born in a foreign county and had a foreign national for a father, would that qualify as a crime?

MS. ROGERS: That would absolutely be constituted as a crime if that could be proven in a court of law.? I?m not an attorney, so I don?t answer things in terms of legalities, but I can say, as someone who is running for Congress, to be honest and true to our Constitution as I am, that that would be a crime, and he would have to be tried for that.

MRS. RONDEAU: Many of our readers wonder how many in the current Democrat and Republican parties, and even Independents in Congress, knew of Obama?s eligibility question before the election.? They wonder why, if Obama is not eligible to serve, he was put forward as a candidate, and what should happen to the people who knew?

MS. ROGERS: That?s a good question.? The question would be, ?Did they know?? and ?Did they actually have the courage and the guts to say anything about it??? I?m not quite sure.? If they did, though, that means that they were violating their constitutional oaths of office.

MRS. RONDEAU: Who is your opponent?

MS. ROGERS: I?m running against the incumbent, Pete Olson.

MRS. RONDEAU: How do you think he?s faring in the campaign?? Do you think people want to re-elect him, or do they want a change?

MS. ROGERS: Looking at the anti-incumbent sentiment, he has a lot to go up against.? I?ve never run for office before; this is my first time running for office, but I can say now that he?s the Republican incumbent who has not and will not call for the president?s impeachment.? He has capitulated to the president at every step. I?m in the NASA Johnson Space Center district, and going back to the counseling of the Constellation space program, underfunding of our space program, he has capitulated on everything Obama has done.? So I don?t think he?s faring too well in the population.? I do think that the problem is that Republicans are doing the same thing that Pelosi did in the Bush administration back in 2006 by saying that ?Impeachment is off the table? because the Democrats were going to ride in on the anti-Bush/Cheney sentiment, and the Republicans are doing the same thing today.? They?re saying, ?Impeachment is off the table? and we?re going to ride in on the anti-Obama, anti-Democrat sentiment.? So that?s the problem.

MRS. RONDEAU: They both seem to play the same games to the peril of the country.? What can be done about this Republican vs. Democrat paradigm?

MS. ROGERS: First and foremost, we have to go back to the system of what it is to be a true American patriot, because it?s not Democrat vs. Republican. This is not a football team with ?red team? vs. ?blue team.?? It?s about American citizens, American patriots vs. traitors.? In today?s society, either you?re a traitor to the country, a traitor to the principles of our nation, or you are a true patriot, and that?s why when we look at what the country is facing, people have to come to terms with the need for a bipartisan movement of Democrats and Republicans who are actually putting forth solutions to deal with the economic collapse.? And I?m not playing the political party game.? I represent? the tradition of Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy in the Democratic Party, which you don?t have anymore.? Right now, you have Wall Street factions running both parties.? Roosevelt?s idea was that universal principles come above and beyond party.? That?s what we should be looking at.

MRS. RONDEAU: The Founding Fathers did not like political parties.

MS. ROGERS: No, they didn?t have parties.

MRS. RONDEAU: George Washington had warned about the country dissolving into ?factions? and Americans being pitted against each other.? Does it seem that that is what has happened to us?

MS. ROGERS: Absolutely.? You look at people like Lincoln and Roosevelt, one a Republican and the other a Democrat, but they both actually had the interest of the Founding Fathers in mind, and our current parties don?t.? They have the interest of the financiers and Wall Street.

?

?

? 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 @ 15:07
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
S?bado, 23 de octubre de 2010

?

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Attorney Taitz files Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court for Captain Rhodes/Taitz v. Colonel MacDonald/Obama, et al..

?


This Petition is regarding the sanctions ordered by federal judge Clay D. Land in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. The sanctions were then upheld by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1. Does the ruling of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Rhodes v. MacDonald violate the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution?

2. Does the ruling of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Rhodes v. MacDonald conflict with the Supreme Court?s ruling in Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 13 (1954).

3. Is a Federal Judge allowed to persecute a Civil Rights attorney and sanction her for merely bringing Civil rights violation cases to his court?

4. Are members of US military reduced to the level of slaves or serfs, if they are refused a hearing on the merits of their grievances in both military and federal courts and their attorneys are harassed and intimidated and verbally assaulted and insulted by a presiding Federal Judge?

5. Can a federal judge arbitrarily decide, what civil Rights violations case he wants to hear and which case he will not hear, and arbitrarily sanction a civil rights defender attorney for bringing to court a case that he doesn?t feel like hearing on the merits, as it is not beneficial for his career?

6. Should a federal judge forward a case to the jury for determination on issues of fact and law, when a case involves a president of the United States, his legitimacy and eligibility, which by default, affects the career of such judge?

7. Is the whole nation de facto reduced to the level of slaves or serfs, when one without valid vital records, without Social Security number of his own and without a valid long form birth certificate is able to get in the position of the President; and Congress is refusing to hear this issue, claiming that it is for the courts to decide and the courts are refusing to hear this issue, claiming that it is for the Congress to decide?

8. Should there be a decision from the Supreme court, clarifying legitimacy of US president or an order to the lower court to hear the issue on the merits?

9. What Constitutes ?natural born citizen? according to Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution?

The full Petition embedded below. Previous reports on attorney Orly Taitz can be found here. Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Obama & the Hawaii Department of Health and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].
Captain Rhodes/Taitz v. Colonel MacDonald/Obama et al - United States Supreme Court - Petition for Writ of ...
Kerchner v Obama Petition for Writ of Cert Docketed with Supreme Court-18Oct10 issue Wash Times Wkly


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:22
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

?

Friday, October 22, 2010

Eligibility Attorney Gary Kreep Interview: Obama's Eligibility; Certification of Live Birth & Birth Announcements Vs. The Research

?


Video Below: Obama eligibility attorney Gary Kreep sits down with Floyd Brown of Floyd Reports and the Impeach Obama Campaign to discuss Obama's COLB, the birth announcements and the Hawaii Department of Health. Mr. Kreep also discussed his current case against Obama on the Patriot's Heart Network which can be heard here. Great to see Mr. Kreep is back in the fight after his life-threatening medical issue.

Via 68Truthseeker; - Obama's Eligibility : COLB & Birth Announcements Vs. The Research -

Floyd Brown interviews Obama Eligibility Attorney Gary Kreep. What you will not hear in the Lazy Mainstream Media. Video Source. Image Source.

Previous reports on Gary Kreep can be found here. Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Obama and the Hawaii Department of Health and all of the 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!
2000/2004/2008 Democratic Party of Hawaii Certifications of Nomination for Presidential Candidates -
2008 DNC Presidential nomination certificate with constitutionally eligible provision - Hawaii
2008 DNC Presidential nomination certificate without constitutionally eligible provision - Georgia
Obama Ineligible - I tried and lied but it won't go away! Wash Times Natl Wkly 2010-10-04 pg 5

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:24
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 21 de octubre de 2010

Obama Eligibility Attorney to hold rally in DC this Saturday

?

ATTORNEY PHILIP J. BERG:? THIS IS THE BIGGEST HOAX IN AMERICAN HISTORY

by Sharon Rondeau

?

Philip J. Berg is a former assistant attorney general from Pennsylvania

(Oct. 21, 2010) ? Philadelphia attorney Philip J. Berg will be holding a ?Birth Certificate/Eligibility/Obamacare? rally on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC this Saturday, October 23, 2010 from noon to 4:00 p.m. with the purpose of heightening public awareness of Obama?s questionable eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States.

On August 21, 2008, Attorney Berg filed a lawsuit against Barack Hussein Obama and Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democrat National Committee, claiming that Obama did not meet the definition of ?natural born Citizen? as outlined in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.? According to his website, Berg was ?the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Obama?s lack of ?qualifications? to serve as President of the United States.?

The Post & Email was able to speak with Mr. Berg this morning by telephone regarding the rally and what he hopes to accomplish from it.

MRS. RONDEAU: Thank you for speaking with me on short notice, Attorney Berg.? When did you first conceive of the idea of a ?birth certificate rally? in Washington?

ATTY. BERG: Earlier this year.? The reason for a rally is to hopefully have enough people there to push the issue forward, as the courts have denied us the right to get to the truth of the matter.? The courts in our country have no guts, just as the national media has no guts.? So we have to proceed around them.

MRS. RONDEAU: How many people do you expect will attend?

ATTY. BERG: I have no idea; it could be anywhere from ten people to 1,000,000.

MRS. RONDEAU: So there wasn?t anything such as a registration which would give you an idea of how many people planned to be there?

ATTY. BERG: No.

MRS. RONDEAU: I know you obtained a permit for the U.S. Capitol, West Front.? Do you know if Obama will be in Washington that day?? Does he know about your plans?

ATTY. BERG: I?m sure they know about everything.? I?m sure they monitor us as well as other groups.? I understand he?s going to be on the National Mall that day because there?s a national science fair or something like that going on that day.

MRS. RONDEAU: Did you have any problem obtaining a permit?

ATTY. BERG: None whatsoever.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you happen to know if media will be there?

ATTY. BERG: I know the foreign media is going to be there because they have contacted me.? The national media?? Probably not.? But I?m hoping the secondary media will be, and one of the foreign media is coming to broadcast it to about 20 countries.? If we don?t get it from the front door, we?ll get it from the back door.

MRS. RONDEAU: What does that say when foreign journalists are coming here, or sending their people who are already in the United States, but our own media will not be there to cover it?

ATTY. BERG: I think it?s a disgrace.? I was interviewed about a year ago by The New York Times, and I raised the issue that I wish I could sue the national media, including The New York Times (they even printed that part), because I think it?s a disgrace what they haven?t done.? If the national media did 10% to Obama what they did to Sarah Palin, Obama never would have been nominated, let alone elected.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think the national media was involved in a? conspiracy to keep Obama?s history from the American people?? Did they know he wasn?t eligible?

ATTY. BERG: I think so.? I think it?s pressure from the top.? The national media in our country is really owned by about three or four corporations which are controlled by individuals, and I believe that these individuals have put pressure on them.? There was an investigation done that there is actually an office in the White House which is keeping pressure on the national media not to cover the story.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think Fox News is included in that?

ATTY. BERG: I think they?re included to a degree.? Glenn Beck is a prime example.? He makes no sense.? Ninety percent of his effort is against Obama.? Everything?s bad about Obama.? However, he won?t touch the birth certificate issue, which makes no sense whatsoever.? So I think it?s pressure from on top; discuss anything about Obama, but not his birth certificate.? I think (Rupert) Murdoch is exerting the pressure.? It?s a disgrace.

MRS. RONDEAU: A lot of our readers are really angry with Glenn Beck for that reason.? If he is so ardent an admirer of the U.S. Constitution, one would wonder why he leaves out any discussion of Article II, Section 1, clause 5 when there?s this tremendous issue out in front of the American people?

ATTY. BERG: I was even honored by Beck, I guess you would say, because he had my picture up on his blackboard for three days one week.? I ?made? his blackboard, so I think I?m an ?instigator.?

MRS. RONDEAU: Did he refer to you as a ?birther,? or just an ?instigator??

ATTY. BERG: Oh, no, I?m a birther.? I don?t know if he said it.? I?m the father of this thing!

MRS. RONDEAU: Yours was the first case that was filed back in August 2008, correct?

ATTY. BERG: Yes.? August 21, 2008 was when I filed the first lawsuit, which was significant because it was before the Democratic National Convention, and we served Obama and Howard Dean.? At that point, I said that Howard Dean violated his duty and responsibility as head of the Democratic National Committee by not pulling Obama in and saying, ?The allegations here are that you?re not ?natural born; show me you are, or you?re not getting nominated no matter what you?ve planned here in Denver.?? It?s a disgrace, because Howard Dean should have called him in at that point, and obviously, it shows that Dean was in cahoots with Obama.

When all is said and done, I think that Obama, Michelle Obama, Howard Dean, senior officials of the Obama campaign and senior officials of the Obama administration who are all aware of this should be subjected to our criminal justice system in this country, tried, and those convicted should go to jail.? As far as I?m concerned, Obama should be tried, convicted, and go to jail until he?s deported.? People are saying, ?Oh, if the truth came out and Obama?s out of office, there would be riots in the street.?? I?m saying, ?When the truth comes out ? it?s not if ? When the truth comes out, and hopefully while Obama is still in office and we force him out of office, I?m going to hold a massive news conference with all the political and religious leaders in this country and say, ?Stop.? You?re going to go riot in the streets?? You?re going to injure and kill people?? You?re going to destroy property?? For what? For this phony, this fraud, this impostor who knew from the beginning what he was doing??? I think it?s the biggest hoax against the United States of America in our history in 234 years, and all those people should be held accountable.

MRS. RONDEAU: Will you hold a press conference during the rally?

ATTY. BERG: It depends on which press is there.? The foreign press has requested interview time, and I had said I will grant the press complete access.

I am urging people to attend, because as I said in my press release, I believe that we are the umbrella for everyone.? That?s significant because no matter what your issue is with Obama, whether it?s taxation, health care, social security, anti-war, you?re not going to move forward, but you can move forward under our issue.? My issue is the umbrella; my issue is that he?s not constitutionally eligible to be president; therefore, he can?t be impeached.? We can force him out of office, and once he?s out of office, everything he?s done becomes void.? Everything is voidable because he?s a phony.

MRS. RONDEAU: I think a lot of people have wondered about that:? if some things would be voided or if it would be everything.? Is it true that you have proof that Obama was born in Kenya or another foreign country?

ATTY. BERG: The best proof we have is a tape on our website of Sarah Obama, who is Obama?s step-grandmother, in which she states that she was in the hospital when he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961.? It?s pretty hard to refute that.? We?re trying to get one of the ministers there this weekend ? I?m not sure if he?s coming ? who was one of the translators of her remarks in Swahili.? These ministers have known her for several years before all of this broke.? That?s the best evidence.? The other thing is, what has Obama shown?? He has shown only that Certification of Live Birth which does not have the weight of the baby, length of the baby, the hospital name, the doctor?s name, and the doctor?s signature (Editor?s Note: Comment #1181).? That?s what?s on a long-form birth certificate.? In one of his two autobiographies, Obama states that he found his birth certificate.? So where is it?? He was interviewed by someone a month or so ago, and he said, ?I can?t walk around with my birth certificate plastered to my forehead.?? Well, we don?t want it plastered to his forehead; we want to see it.

MRS. RONDEAU: No one has asked that he walk around with it plastered to his forehead.

ATTY. BERG: And he has already spent over $1.6 million ? it?s probably over $2,000,000 now ? fighting my three lawsuits and the 50-100 other lawsuits out there.? You don?t spend that kind of money unless you?re hiding something.

The other thing is that Congressman Posey from Florida introduced legislation that as of 2012, anyone running for president must prove he or she is constitutionally eligible.? Several Republicans cosponsored the proposal, but not one Democrat.? Now why didn?t the Democrats join in?? Because the Democrats who have committed or are, in my opinion, on the verge of treason, have not signed on because they know that Obama is a fraud and a phony.

MRS. RONDEAU: It makes one wonder, if he is not removed from office before 2011 when the campaign will begin, how he thinks he?s going to get his name on the ballots of all 50 states.

ATTY. BERG: I think he?s committed fraud by doing that.? I believe that even more important than where he was born, and I keep trying to stress this to people, is the fact that he was adopted or acknowledged in Indonesia, because otherwise, he couldn?t have gone to school.? We have his school record there which says that his name is ?Barry Soetoro,? his nationality is ?Indonesian,? and his religion is ?Muslim.?? Now if he hasn?t legally changed his name since that time, you can use an alias, but not for fraudulent purposes.? And he?s doing it for fraudulent purposes.? So if he hasn?t legally changed his name in court, and there?s no evidence that he has, he committed fraud every time he signed his name in each of the 50 states to run for office, and he continues the fraud by using that name at this point.

MRS. RONDEAU: The Post & Email had run a story in which a person fluent in Indonesian had translated the school registration form completely, so we?re quite sure that that is what it says.? That begs the question of how could he have been eligible to run for President of the United States as a ?natural born Citizen??

ATTY. BERG: I had an argument with an immigration attorney in Washington, DC at the CPAC Convention back in February.? He wasn?t buying the Obama argument, and I said, ?OK, you don?t buy the Obama argument.? Let?s switch it;? let?s talk about the children from Haiti.?? He said, ?OK.?? I said, ?Well, the children from Haiti are cutting off their relationship with their families in Haiti and they?re being adopted here and taking on the nationality of the United States and the family name of the adoptive family.?? He said, ?Absolutely.?? Then I said, ?Well, why doesn?t that apply in the reverse to Obama??? ?It doesn?t.?? Well, it does.? In Obama?s other autobiography, he wrote of the fact that his parents divorced, his mother remarried; he mentioned ?My stepfather returned to Indonesia before my mother and me.?? So he acknowledges him as his stepfather; then he said, ?When I went to Indonesia, I immediately went to school.?

In the 1960s, Indonesia was at war, so the only ones who could go to school were those considered ?natural born.?? He wasn?t born there, but you were considered ?natural born? if you were adopted or acknowledged by your stepfather, which is on the school record.? So at that point, his name was ?Barry Soetoro.?

I have one lawsuit pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals in DC, which just ruled against me, so we?re appealing it to the U.S. Supreme Court.? Well, I think that case is the key to the whole thing, because I?m alleging there that he not only is not natural born, but he?s not naturalized, either.? Therefore, he?s an illegal alien and he not only cannot be president, but his term as a U.S. Senator from Illinois was fraudulent.? That, to me, is significant.? The interesting thing on that case, if you?ve followed it, is that under the ?Qui Tam? or ?False Claims Act,? ?standing? has already been granted by the U.S. Supreme Court to the person bringing that action.?? That person is called a ?relator,? and I am the relator in that case.? So the standing issue is there, and the court didn?t buy the fact of conflict of interest.? If there?s no conflict of interest in that case, there?s no such thing as conflict of interest for this reason:? Eric Holder is the attorney general.? When you file a False Claims Act case, the attorney general?s office makes a decision along with the U.S. attorney?s office and the Justice Department, both of which come under the attorney general?s office.

Eric Holder was a senior member of Obama?s campaign staff, and he was one of three individuals selected to sit on the committee to choose the vice president, and he was nominated and confirmed as attorney general, which is the highest law enforcement officer in the country and reports to the president.? So if that?s not a conflict of interest?I asked that I be allowed to pursue the case and a special prosecutor be appointed, and they ruled against us, and that?s where we?re going to be able to appeal to the Supreme Court.

MRS. RONDEAU: It doesn?t make sense that the court ruled against you when you?re citing many reasons why the case should be heard.? Is there something horribly wrong with every court in this country?? What has gone wrong with the judiciary that they will not hear these cases?

ATTY. BERG: There are not guts. No guts, and hopefully the Supreme Court will act on the last case.? But that?s why we?re proceeding as we are.? As the Constitution starts:? ?We the People.?? So I need as many of ?We the People? coming this weekend as possible.

?

?

?

? 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 @ 18:21
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Vote out ALL Democrats and start the process of instilling Constitutionalists back into OUR government

November 2010:? Will Humans Finally Begin Retaking Their Country from the Marxists?

?By Sher Zieve??Thursday, October 21, 2010

With all of the anti-American and anti-human legislation that they have recently passed (in order to control We-the-People and destroy OUR country), it?s increasingly difficult to ascertain why any viable polls?whatsoever?would show the population returning to a strong Marxist-Democrat vote.


But, that?s what the polls seem to reflect with the latest results (many former Republican leads shifting to Dems?) from most of the well-known pollsters.? In fairness, the vast majority of these polling organizations are leftist (aka Marxist) leaning.? But, does the majority really want a totalitarian government?? Really?? Are the polls heavily weighted for the polling companies favorites or are they bogus?entirely?? Are some within the electorate still not aware of the more recent events (the true ones) that led up the to current debacles facing the United States of America?
In my 7 October 2008 column ?
Democrats Destroy Economy?Blame Republicans,? I name names and lay out?step by step?the bad actors (some who are STILL in Congress) and predominant reasons we have been placed into the morass that surrounds us, today.? Hint:? It began with Fannie May, Freddie Mac and the forced-on-banks Clintonian American Home Ownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000.? By the way, Republican RINOs are not?at all?blameless.? They are at best liberals and at their worst Marxist-Democrat plants.? However, it was and is the Democrats in power who began, followed through and implemented the corrupt scheme to steal all of the taxpayers money for themselves and their buddies and, in the process, bankrupt America.? And their leader, Usurper and Dictator-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama, is now shoving vicious and devastating Marxist programs (one after another) down our patently unwilling throats.? This is being done by Obama & Co (which includes their Congressional Democrat minion) in the hopes that their opposition?We-the-People?will choke, die and can then be thrown out in the trash by our former slave masters.

Although it seems highly unlikely, if you are still uncertain about for whom to vote in your Senatorial and/or House races, please consider the following:

  1. Virtually ALL Democrats in both the US House of Representatives and Senate voted for the horrible life-destroying ObamaCare
  2. Virtually ALL Democrats in the House voted for the energy and life-destroying Cap & Trade (aka Cap & Tax)
  3. Even ?pretend? pro-life Democrats (there really is no such animal) voted for federal abortion funding contained within ObamaCare?s devastating pages.? That is, as long as the price (aka ?bribe? or ?kickback?) was right
  4. Do you really want to reelect the people who have willingly brought about our destruction so that they might enrich themselves, their families and friends?

The RINOs also need to be addressed and we must work hard to send them back to the Democrat Party of their true roots.? There may even be a new future better and more Constitutionally sound political party to replace the GOP.? But, today, we are fighting for our very survival.? We MUST take back Congress or we will not survive at all.? We must also work to rid ourselves of the head of the current fiascoes?the one who said (if we don?t support him and his policies): ?Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we?re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we?re scared.?? In the past, The Obama called us ?bitter clingers, and now, we?re just scared blobs of dense, slow and dull protoplasm.? In other words, he says it?s OUR fault not Obama?s that we can?t see the brilliance of his slavery plans for us.? We should be thanking him for his willingness in expending his time and effort to both dominate and destroy us!?

If we want to save and begin the restoration of the USA?s Republic, there is currently only one thing we can effectively do?vote out ALL Democrats and start the process of instilling Constitutionalists back into OUR government.? And, again, we MUST vote in extraordinary numbers never before seen in our nation.? Only in that way can we even begin to thwart the massive Marxist-Democrat election fraud that has already begun.?

?Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness??George Washington


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:42
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Conservatives Behind the Curve on Obama


By Cliff Kincaid ?|? October 20, 2010


Conservatives have awakened, but only partly.

Dinesh D?Souza says in his new book that Barack Obama is an anti-colonialist. Stanley Kurtz has a new book, Radical-in-Chief, which says Obama is a socialist. The new book Dupes by Paul Kengor tells the unvarnished truth. And that?s because he makes use of material we started releasing back in February of 2008 about Obama?s communist mentor, Communist Party USA member Frank Marshall Davis. New Zealand blogger Trevor Loudon broke that story and we confirmed it.

I hate to say, ?We told you so,? but Herb Romerstein and I held a briefing in May 0f 2008 in Washington, D.C. releasing two reports, ?Communism in Chicago and the Obama Connection,? and ?Communism in Hawaii and the Obama Connection.? Then, in August of 2008, I released the 600-page FBI file on Frank Marshall Davis. The response from the media included Dana Milbank of The Washington Post making fun of us and Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report refusing to run paid advertising on the Obama-Davis connection. The liberal and conservative media had their heads in the sand. They couldn?t come to grips with the unprecedented prospect of a possible agent of influence for the international Marxist movement occupying the Oval Office.

Herb Romerstein is a veteran congressional researcher and patriot who was ridiculed by Milbank as a ?relic? of the anti-communist period. The author of numerous books on Soviet espionage operations, Romerstein will be honored at a Washington, D.C. conference on October 21 that is open to the press and the public. Kengor, who dedicates his book to Romerstein, describing him as a human Cold War archive, will be speaking at the same event. One of the other topics will be why Marxists are now embracing ?revolutionary Islam? to bring down America.

Stanley Kurtz says, after his book is out and two years into the Obama presidency, ?I was nervous about the socialism charge myself.? The highlight of his new book is that he documents that Obama attended a series of socialist scholar conferences when he went to college. But Obama admitted to that in his book, Dreams from My Father (Page 122), published back in 1995. He wrote about going to ?socialist conferences.? The issue in Dreams is why Obama covered up his relationship with Frank Marshall Davis, referring to him only as ?Frank.? It is Frank who created the mindset in Obama to want to attend socialist conferences. This was the issue that could and should have been addressed by conservatives during the campaign. But too many of them were silent or nervous about what they might find. Some believed the propaganda that Obama was a moderate.

Paul Kengor says that conservatives were reluctant to face up to the truth about Obama because they didn?t want to be accused of ?McCarthyism? for raising the issue of his communist connections. The 600-page Kengor book includes the excerpts of the Davis FBI files that others have shied away from. Kengor, a professor at Grove City College, is not afraid to tackle the terrible truth. We need more like him in academia.

The difference between calling Obama an anti-colonialist, a socialist, or a Marxist mentored by a top operative of the CPUSA is that one category should immediately earn you an FBI investigation. Former FBI agent Max Noel says the Bureau used to investigate candidates for federal employment by analyzing Character, Associates, Reputation, and Loyalty to the United States. The first letters in those words make up the acronym CARL.

Obama could not have been elected president if he had been subjected to such an inquiry.

Leaving Davis aside?and he was on the FBI?s ?security index??Obama?s relationship with communist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn was enough to disqualify him for the presidency. These despicable people, who claim that they never killed anyone and never intended to, are notorious liars. Photos of the Weather Underground bomb factory they abandoned in San Francisco in 1971 reveal these Cuban-trained terrorists were working on anti-personnel weapons, including stabbing devices, and had C-4 plastic explosive.

The big news today is that some of the people who have been supporting Obama from the start in Chicago are now under investigation by the FBI, suspected of providing support to foreign terrorist organizations in Latin America and the Middle East. This is a trail that could lead all the way to the White House. Of course, the hiring and firing of communist and 9/11 ?truth? advocate Van Jones was another scandal that could have implicated Obama, but it was dropped when things became too close for comfort for the White House. Jones went along with the power play, left the administration, and now works out of the offices of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress. A scandal that could have been bigger than Watergate was neatly avoided by throwing Van Jones under the bus.

We need to support the FBI?s investigations of U.S.-based Marxist groups. We cannot permit these investigations to be prematurely terminated, in the same way that the Russian spies with contacts in the Obama administration were ushered out of the U.S. less than two weeks after their arrests. Plus, there needs to be pressure on the Justice Department to pursue the substantial evidence that Ayers and Dohrn were involved in the bombing murder of San Francisco police Sergeant Brian V. McDonnell in 1970. The Phoenix Task Force in San Francisco is currently investigating the cold case.

This is a time when we have to be absolutely precise about the nature of the ?socialists? or ?progressives? we are dealing with. The difference between being supported by the CPUSA and just being against colonialism or supporting socialism is that the CPUSA was a pawn of Moscow that committed espionage against the United States. This is the party that supported the Hitler-Stalin Pact. Davis denounced Richard Wright for ?treason? for leaving and exposing the party.

This is why Obama covered up Frank?s identity. He knew that acknowledging the truth could destroy his political career. And it could still do so if the truth is examined.

The CPUSA was part of a worldwide communist apparatus working to turn the U.S. into a ?Soviet America.? Communism had inspired Jim Jones of the Peoples Temple in leading 900 people in an act of ?revolutionary suicide? and the murder of U.S. Congressman Leo Ryan in Guyana in 1978. Jones, active in CPUSA activities since the 1950s, and his wife left their money to the CPUSA. His followers sang the Soviet National Anthem. He had plans to move his cult to the Soviet Union or Cuba.

Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were part of the international communist apparatus. They killed two million people in Cambodia. That followed the communist takeover of Vietnam, forcing a half-a-million people to flee in leaky boats and 800,000 to be sent to ?re-education? camps.

Larry Grathwohl, who was an FBI informant in the Weather Underground, said Ayers and Dohrn had similar plans. One hundred million Americans would have to be ?re-educated? and 25 million eliminated. Ayers and Dohrn would abandon their violent revolutionary activities in order to continue ?the struggle? in other ways, such as going on to ?re-educate? our young people in colleges as ?professors.? Today, they travel to places like Venezuela, to hobnob with agents of Hugo Chavez; the Middle East, to engage in anti-Israel activities; and Germany, to reminisce with former members of the Baader Meinhof Gang about when this East German-supported revolutionary terrorist group? killed U.S. Army personnel and bombed U.S. military bases in Europe.

Howard Zinn, the left?s favorite historian, was both a secret CPUSA member and a liar. That?s not surprising. That?s what communists do. They conceal their aims. They manipulate ?dupes.? And that?s why Obama?s connection to the CPUSA through Frank Marshall Davis is so much more significant than attending socialist conferences or spouting anti-colonialism. Davis is the root of Obama?s rage. He had access to the future President for eight years of his young life.

Obama decided not to say who Frank was. He could have named him, saying he was an old acquaintance picked as a mentor by his grandfather who had no effect on him. Instead, he acknowledged Frank?s influence but covered up his full name, hoping nobody would notice and follow through. And that fact is significant. So why did the first information about this relationship surface in an obscure speech given by a writer for a CPUSA publication? Why did Gerald Horne say that the writings of Frank Marshall Davis would be comparable in history to Obama?s Dreams from My Father? And why was Horne?s talk entitled, ?Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party??

To continue our list of questions and take the controversy up to the present day: Why was the CPUSA an official endorser of the October 2 ?One Nation Working Together? progressive rally in D.C., along with Obama?s political group, ?Organizing for America?? Why does the CPUSA continue to defend Obama, with party official Jarvis Tyner saying on tape that progressives had better ?stick? with Obama?s ?dream??

Contrary to what D?Souza says in his new book, the ?dream? comes not from Obama?s real father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., who abandoned the family, but from his surrogate father, Frank Marshall Davis.

Conservatives have awakened, but only partly. They have belatedly discovered that Obama has socialist and anti-colonial views. But that is not even half the story. The most important part of the story remains to be investigated by the FBI and, hopefully, by a new House Internal Security Committee. Re-establishment of this committee will demonstrate that the new Congress means business and that it won?t resort to politics as usual and compromise.

My recent visit to the Frank Marshall Davis archives at Washington University in St. Louis only adds to the mounting concern. The material was obviously sanitized before it was sent from Hawaii. But there are still some controversial photos among his personal effects of nude women, adding to what we already knew about Davis?that he was a pornographer and a pervert, in addition to being a communist. Davis had written the book, Sex Rebel, including descriptions of having sex with kids.

Another communist pervert, Harry Hay, founded the gay rights movement. We have obtained his FBI file as well, confirming his deep involvement in the CPUSA. Obama appointed Kevin Jennings as one of his top education officials, after Jennings had said that he was ?inspired? by Hay. Jennings? job is to force a gay curriculum into the public schools under the cover of countering ?bullying.? Obama?s agenda is not just economic but cultural. This is the ?new Marxism? in action. The gays have become part of the oppressed class.

All of this requires that the new Congress takes its responsibilities seriously, not only on fiscal issues, but on matters involving the national security and moral integrity of the United States. The liberals will raise a hue and cry, and some conservatives may balk, but it is mandatory and necessary to begin addressing what an old congressional committee used to call ?un-American activities? at the highest levels of the U.S. Government.


Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at [email protected]


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:36
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

At a Democratic fundraiser on Monday night, President Obama once again misquoted the Declaration of Independence?s most famous sentence and once again omitted its reference to our ?Creator.? According to the text of his remarks published on the official White House website, he said: ?[W]hat makes this place [America] special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, ?We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.??

The first time that something happens and is met with publicity and criticism, it could well be an accident or part of the learning curve ? like the first time one bows down to foreign royalty when other U.S. presidents haven?t; or the first time one issues a public apology abroad for past (real or imagined) American sins in a way that other presidents haven?t. But the second time, the assumption must be that it?s probably deliberate ? and that makes it all the more appalling. Other presidents didn?t deliberately misquote the Declaration, and they didn?t leave out (or rewrite) the words about our rights being endowed by our Creator.

Source: The Daily Caller
Article by: Jeffrey H. Anderson


Comment by American Grand Jury:

Obama subscribes one or maybe all of these possibilities: 1) He is a Muslim which of course means he hates our God. 2) He is a true Communist who doesn?t believe in God. 3) He is a creation of the Devil which of course tries to replace God.


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


BORN IN THE USA?

'Yes We Can' rally seeks

Obama's resignation

Eligibility attorney Berg calls

for uprising of voices


Posted: October 21, 2010
12:35 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
??2010?WorldNetDaily

?

Ticked off at Obamacare? Does your bank account still reflect the government takeovers of Wall Street or the automobile companies? Do you have fundamental moral objections to the president's promotions of abortion and homosexuality? Aghast that the president has bowed to foreign rulers, including the king of Saudi Arabia?

Whatever your concerns about the current White House policies for the United States, there's a rally going on for you Saturday at noon at the west front of the U.S. Capitol assembled by a lifelong Democrat who is suggesting one solution for all of these problems.

Obama's resignation.

"This is the most important rally in history as Obama is an imposter, a fraud, a phony and Obama has put forth the greatest 'hoax' in the history of our country, over 234 years," said Philip Berg, who runs the ObamaCrimes.com website and was the first to sue over allegations Obama is ineligible to occupy the Oval Office.

?"This is an invitation to all individuals, no matter what your political party is or what group, Democrats, Republicans, Independents and/or tea party individuals to join with me ? for a rally to demand Obama/Soetoro prove he is 'constitutionally eligible' to be president," he said.

"And if not, demand that Obama/Soetoro resign from office."

?

?

Berg has been discussing his hopes lately, including an appearance this week on the G. Gordon Liddy radio show.

"I am a lifelong Democrat. I ran for U.S. Senate and governor in Democratic primaries in Pennsylvania," Berg said. "That blows the theory that this is a right wing conspiracy.

"Obama/Soetoro is laughing at us; he knows he is an imposter, a fraud, a phony," he said. He said the rally ? and his organization ? are to serve as umbrellas for all of those Americans who are alarmed over the issues that have developed: health care, taxation, Society Security, the wars.

"The issue to remove Obama/Soetoro is that he is a 'usurper' ? and 'imposter' ? together 'We The People' can unite with a huge peaceful revolution rally and demand that Obama/Soetoro resign," he said.

Berg's initial emergency appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court when Obama first took office, like those of a number of other attorneys, were not accepted by the panel. He has one case pending, and it is being prepared for presentation to the high court now.

It alleges that, based on Obama's status as a student in Indonesia and the complete absence of documentation that he ever returned to the U.S. as a citizen, it is unlikely he is a "natural born citizen" as the Constitution requires of the president. Obama was registered in school as an Indonesian Muslim by his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro.

President Barack Obama delivers remarks after viewing science fair projects at first ever White House Science Fair, at the White House in Washington on October 18, 2010. Obama welcomed the winners of a broad range of high school science, technology and math competitions to the White House where he viewed their projects and talked to them about their work. UPI/Kevin Dietsch Photo via Newscom

Berg's case alleges further that without documentation that Obama preserved or regained his U.S. citizenship after be registered as an Indonesian as a student at school, he may not even be a "naturalized" citizen.

"Therefore, his term as a U.S. senator was a fraud. His salary and benefits should be returned to the U.S.," he told WND.

He says that if it weren't for the U.S. media, Obama would already have been exposed and removed from office.

"The media gave him a free ride," he said.

"I'm hoping we can bring to the attention to the national media and the Congress the seriousness of this. The positive result I would like to see is that if the national media would cover this and Congress would pay attention, we could force Obama out of office," Berg said.

He said those who come to the rally are being asked to bring a copy of their own birth certificates. He described the assembly as a "Yes, We Can" event to empower the people to once again make determinations about their nation's future.

The problems with the issues Obama has addressed and the campaigns he's launched are important, Berg said.

"However, the most important issue is Obama not being 'constitutionally eligible' to be president," he said.

Berg's is not the only one who has challenged Obama's residency in the White House. A case is developing involving Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who has questioned the legitimacy of the orders in the U.S. military under a president whose eligibility is under question.

Another case being handled by California attorneys Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation and Orly Taitz is on behalf of another presidential candidate and challenges Obama's inclusion on the ballot.

Yet another claims Congress failed to perform its constitutional obligations to investigate Obama.

There's even been a series of discussions about impeachment.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:00
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 19 de octubre de 2010

Obama's spectacle of treason is breath-taking

?You Can?t Handle the Truth,? United States Military!

?By Thor Asgardson??Monday, October 18, 2010

Conservative columnist Alan Caruba wrote a most excellent article, where he posed the question as to whether or not Obama is a moron. This article will answer that question.


Stupid is, as stupid does and the following is what the Obama?s have presented as their presidential legacy, for the national perusal:

This couple has transformed national service into a permanent White House vacation, including a free pass for Obama?s illegal alien aunt to get out of jail.

Barack H. Obama thinks he is president and Tiger Woods, rolled-into-one, in that by his actions, he shows he would rather play golf, than properly run a country as a good steward.

Michelle Obama conducts herself as if she were Marie Antoinette, gallivanting around the globe as a celebrity and playgirl, while her countrymen suffer the collapse of their country, while struggling to make ends meet, as they lose their homes and jobs.

It is now a well established fact that Obama is a supreme kowtow artist, who continually humiliates his high office and this nation in the world theater. For this fantastic spectacle alone, he should be unceremoniously yanked off the stage of world history, as he is clearly NO American president.

Obama is NOT the worst president, but rather an aberration in the pantheon of the American presidency. It might be said that this Manchukuo puppet emperor of the Council on Foreign Relations is the equivalent of Maximilian I of Mexico. Certainly he shares a common heritage with the Iranian usurper Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in that both ?leaders? do not hold the mandate of heaven, or their respective peoples.

Obama?s modus operandi is to block investigation of his origins, rather than provide an open record of his achievement in any capacity, past or present. Usurpation alone does not qualify as a crowning glory, despite the flawed logic which compels Obama to boast of a ?transparent administration.?

This ?mystery man? also functions as a supreme impediment to the protection and defense of America?s borders and if that were not enough shame for the nation to bear, he has also deemed it wise to comport himself as a quisling and tattle-tale, making a spectacle of himself, by running to Red China and the United Nations to complain about the country which honored him with vast realizations of power. Obama has damned the nation which elected a black president with spurious charges of ?racism.?

Obama?s Ministry of Truth?the Department of Justice?is a kangaroo court, headed by Attorney General, Eric H. Holder, who is also a shame to his honored position, insofar as he dispenses a double standard of ?justice? with his selective enforcement of the law, under color of authority.

What are the people to think of a law officer who pronounces judgment before examining the facts of a case, because he is too is lazy and narcissistic?

??Who?s to doom, when the judge himself is dragged to the bar???Herman Melville

This regime drafted a health care bill in excess of two thousand pages for the perusal of the people and their alleged ? public servants,? but could not be bothered to read the sixteen page Arizona immigration law bill, drafted by law professor Kris Kobach.

Due to Obama?s outrageous abuse of power, in directly thwarting the will of the American people to defend their borders, he must be regarded as an enemy combatant within the gates, who was publicly humiliated and dressed down by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, when she told him to ?do his job.?

Velma Hart completed the coup de grace of diminishment for Obama.

An intelligent man would not allow himself to be so blinded by his own narcissism to the point where he could imagine his own personal will trumps the collective will of the American people. In short, Resident Obama is the worst form of tyrant in that he serves the overlords of high finance, to the general detriment in the welfare of this nation, which finds itself under the onslaught of the Third World.

Ill rulers are always morons.

Obama is an agent of finance capital and not a servant of the American people. His ears are stopped with corporate wax. He does not hear the anguished cries of the American people, for his hearing is selective.

He is a grand poser, presenting himself as a servant of the people, when his true agenda is to bend the will of this great nation to his every whim, just because he is ?The President of the United States of America.? This monumental arrogance of the man, is the hallmark and prerogative of the narcissist. Obama imagines himself the anointed Mahdi of the Muslim world, as he redefines America?s religious heritage and territorial integrity with pompous speeches.

Obama is transparent in his contempt for the American people, as he lectures them to upbraid, while dismissing them as addicted to guns, bibles and conspicuous consumption.

Now the great wisdom of the Founding Fathers becomes plain for all to see, as this nation can now perceive the direct impact of exactly what transpires when the blood and soil constitutional requirement for American birth?to be president?is dispensed with.

Obama?s supreme wish-fulfillment of transforming himself into the God-man is easily seen for all to behold, insofar as his delusions of grandeur make him imagine he is king and not subject to the laws of commoners, who are required to present proper credentials and identification. This attitude mirrors the larger arrogance of a rogue and degenerate Congress, which has abdicated the power to coin money and declare war.

These irresponsible ?leaders? of the American people continue to point the finger of blame at their charges, labeling them ?misguided.? And who are the guides?

The United States government has given the reins of power to the international bankers and in so doing, has committed the highest treason against the nation and the Founding Fathers.

Obama has become the law and in so doing, has finally appeared as a ?transformational figure? of tyranny, who must be deposed from power, due to the voter registration fraud of ACORN and his obvious lack of credentials and protocol.

He has enabled the invasion of his own country, not only by the Third World power of Mexico, but also by his attempt to involve the United Nations in the sovereign affairs of this nation, as if it were already a vassal of the international bankers. Now the American people are witness to the grand spectacle of eleven countries of Central and South America ?suing? Arizona for attempting to secure this nation?s borders, as if they had the right to meddle in internal American affairs, which they apparently do, with the direct sanction of a criminal regime in Washington.

A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling issued Oct, 11 allows these Latin American countries ? Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Chile ? to submit friend-of-the-court briefs in the DOJ?s challenge to SB 1070, which Gov Jan Brewer of Arizona, signed into law in April and is considered one of the nation?s toughest immigration-enforcement measures.

?As do many citizens, I find it incredibly offensive that these foreign governments are using our court system to meddle in a domestic legal dispute and to oppose the rule of law,? the Republican governor said in a statement shortly after the state?s motion was filed the evening of Oct. 12.

Obama has reinstated the feudalist order, run by the oligarchs of the United Nations, to the supreme dissatisfaction of a deliberate and revolutionary people, who know that their ?president? is a fifth column in the national house.

In short, this alleged president, is a man without a paper trail and so the American people do not know who he really is; they just know what he is and that realization comes to the fore as the knowledge that he is a direct threat to the national security and preeminence of the United States of America among nations.

Obama has pronounced himself a ?Citizen of the World,? and thus he reveals through his warped weltanschauung, where his true allegiance lies. That allegiance belongs to the phony storefront of the international bankers; the United Nations. Obama pledges his allegiance to the U.N. in all matters, even those which pertain to domestic tranquility?meaning the Mexican crime wave, run rampant in Arizona.

The Great Imposer and Imposter is in truth a roper for the New World Order of the international bankers, who have occupied the government under a hostile corporate takeover, since the illegal establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913.

Obama waltzed into office proclaiming a new Camelot and presenting himself as the ?Black JFK? and heir to the mantle of Camelot, all rolled-into-one.

The black race to a large degree, imagined him to be its Black Moses, who would self-actualize the dreams, hopes and aspirations of an entire race, which had been historically disenfranchised. This black pharaoh not only failed to deliver his own race from bondage, but instead chose to drive all of the American people into further debt slavery to the international bankers of the Federal Reserve. He further appointed IRS agents to enter the healthcare realm.

?He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.?
Declaration of Independence

With these new offices came ?Czars,? to rule them, according to Marxist fashion dictates.

Obama?s sense of self-entitlement did not compel him to stand and deliver for the American people the promise of John F. Kennedy?s Camelot. He claimed the title, without doing the actual hard work.

Like Madonna?s rock video ?Vogue,? he struck a pose.

Obama claimed the mantle of the Kennedy mystique, but did not secure an executive order abolishing the Federal Reserve, which would have completed the great work of Our Fallen Captain, who lies at Arlington National Cemetery.

What is most remarkable at this juncture, is the fact that a military man with an impeccable service record, is putting his career on the line by facing courtmartial in a kangaroo court, for refusing to obey deployment orders from an obvious usurper.

Highly decorated Army surgeon, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin has become the sacrificial lamb for the sins of the Obama regime, insofar as he now stands alone to challenge Obama?s eligibility to serve in the capacity of president, where numerous prior lawsuits against the regime have failed, due to Obama?s total control over all facets of government checks and balances.

Obama has actually attained the status of a dictator, which former President George W. Bush would only muse over in jest of fancy.

The question for the ages is: ?Can the United States military ?handle the truth???

The only man who should be facing a military tribunal, is the one who now sits in the Oval Office. It is hoped that the United States military will coalesce around Lt. Col. Lakin?and the nation?to release the corporate stranglehold on our country, by deposing the usurper president from power by military coup.

The United States military must come forth as the spearhead of the Second American Revolution, to deliver the American people from bondage to usury at the hands of the Federal Reserve and to restore justice and rule of law to our republic. This great task requires a military occupation on Capitol Hill, to elicit regime change.

Only a criminal moron could so egregiously violate the public trust, the way Resident Obama has done. His spectacle of treason is breath-taking.

?A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.? ?Declaration of Independence


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:18
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 18 de octubre de 2010
An open letter to Gloria Estefan

By Victoria Jackson: October 14, 2010

Editor's note: The following open letter was first submitted to the Miami Herald, but the paper opted not to publish it.

Miami is my hometown. ?When I was born at Hialeah Hospital in 1959, you were 2 years old and moving here from Cuba, to escape Communism.
America and its freedom, free enterprise and capitalism gave you the opportunity to become a superstar, to be financially and vocationally successful.
America is now under siege by a Marxist, progressive, leftist, radical, socialist, communist dictator drunk with power. ?His name is Obama.
You invited him to your home on April 15, 2010, for a Democratic fundraiser.
  1. His parents were communists. His grandparents were communists. His childhood mentor Frank Davis was a communist.
  2. He had "Marxist professors."?He taught a class on Saul Alinsky whose book "Rules for Radicals" is dedicated to Lucifer.
  3. His college records are sealed.
  4. He claims to be a Christian yet ridicules Scripture, denies Jesus is the only way to salvation, supports partial-birth abortion and attended a church for 20?years pastored by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who did not teach Christianity but "Black Liberation Theology," which is Marxism disguised as religion.
  5. He is friends with radicals and communists like William Ayers and has appointed many of them to positions of power ? Sunstein, Jarrett, Van Jones, etc.?
  6. He told Joe the Plumber on the campaign trail that his philosophy was to "spread the wealth." This is a direct quote from "The Communist Manifesto" written by Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels.
  7. When he entered office he immediately took over the banks, the auto industry, health care (by bribery) and is intent on ending freedom of speech on the?Internet, radio and TV by fees and fines. He is intent on using the myth of human-caused global warming to usurp control over our energy by Cap 'n Tax, which would limit the number of minutes we take a shower and the kind of light bulbs we use.
  8. His arrogant, excessive spending, with his stimulus laws and over-taxation, is destroying our economy, the middle class and our children's future quality of life.
You had the audacity to invite this communist over to your home to raise money for the Democratic Party, which is controlling Congress and giving him unlimited power to achieve his goal of making our once-free country a welfare state, just like the Cuba you left.
You are either uninformed, ignorant or crazy.
Estudio Espanol dos anos en mi escuela secundario, y I think you are loco en la cabeza.
I ask my Cuban friends and neighbors what happened to you. Don't you remember where you came from? ?Your father in a Cuban communist jail? They shake their heads sadly.
You spit on the free country that gave you the American Dream.
I urge you to educate yourself on what is happening in America today. ?Nov. 2 is the most serious vote of our nation's history. ?We will vote in either liberty or tyranny.
How can you vote in tyranny when your family and friends risked their lives on rafts to escape it?
I don't understand you.
Sincerely,
Victoria Jackson ("Saturday Night Live" cast member 1986-1992 because of capitalism/freedom)

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:46
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
S?bado, 16 de octubre de 2010

?


WND Exclusive


BORN IN THE USA?

THE BIG LIST of eligibility

'proofers'

See those who have raised questions

about legitimacy of Obama presidency


Posted: October 15, 2010
10:30 pm Eastern

??2010?WorldNetDaily

?

U.S. President Barack Obama pauses while speaking about the economy in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington July 19, 2010. REUTERS/Larry Downing (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS BUSINESS)

Here is a compilation of the statements, questions, and videos of the many high-profile personalities and leaders who have raised questions about Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.

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

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

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

Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and his appointment of lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation.

Here are the comments:

Michigan congressional candidate Tim Walberg


Tim Walberg in video by Mediaite

A candidate for Congress in Michigan is suggesting the easiest way to resolve questions over Barack Obama's eligibility to be commander-in-chief would be a simple, just-a-few-close-friends, birth certificate party.

The idea from Tim Walberg is being reported by Tommy Christopher, a columnist at the website Mediaite, which has posted a video of Walberg's comments online.

According to the video, Walberg, asked about Obama's eligibility, responds:

I'm going to take him at his word that he's an American citizen. I don't know why it's not resolved, other than the fact that the president hasn't resolved it yet. ?If I had to do it, I'd just simply, of course I had to show my birth certificate in order to be on the ballot. If I were going to do it, I'd call Rush Limbaugh, Alan Colmes, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, and maybe one justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Call them into a room and lay out my birth certificate on the table. ? and say, now all of you take a look at it. Tell me what you find. Now go and report it."

?Walberg noted the president "has an awful lot of power to keep from showing certain things unless the courts will stand up to him. Or unless Congress in majority will stand up, up to and including impeachment. And Republicans don't have that majority."

The Mediaite said, "Now, Alan Colmes is a great guy, a great liberal, but I'm sure even he would admit that he and Rush Limbaugh might not possess the gravitas to serve on a panel with a Supreme Court justice. Luckily for them, in Walberg's plan, SCOTUS participation is optional."

New Mexico congressional candidate Steve Pearce

Steve Pearce, a candidate for Congress in New Mexico, says he wouldn't mind being "in the fight" over the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.

The candidate made the comment in response to a question from a constituent at a public campaign stop, and it is being publicized by Heath Haussamen at the NMPolitics website.

Haussamen used the opportunity to warn that Obama is eligible, is president and a candidate that suggests there still could be unanswered questions would "empower those on the extreme, fringe right who may be willing to resort to violence."

Haussamen said the comments came at a Sept. 30 meeting in Los Lunas.

A video that was posted on the Huffington Post website reveals a woman asking Pearce for his position on whether Obama is eligible, since an ineligible president would create all sorts of questions about the legitimacy of his actions in office.

Pearce said Obama raised the "most significant questions himself" by talking about his travels to Pakistan as a youth, at a time when travel there by U.S. residents was not easy.

He then tries to focus the discussion on the nation's economy, noting that a member of Congress can only fight so many battles in a year, and he believes the economy is paramount.

But he also confirmed, according to the video, that should the issue arise formally, "I don't mind being in the fight. ? I don't have a problem expressing my opinion or expressing a vote."

Arizona state House candidate Cecil Ash

During a meeting for state House candidates with editors and others at the Arizona Republic, House District 18 Democrat candidate Michael Conway blasted GOP incumbent Cecil Ash for signing onto a plan that would require future presidential candidates to verify their eligibility.

The newspaper reported Conway questioned why Ash would support such a plan, and Ash responded that states don't verify the eligibility of presidential candidates, and he thinks it should happen in the future.

He explained to the newspaper that it hasn't been an issue before, because people know the parentage and heritage of Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and others.

"That's not the case with President Obama," he said.

He cited a New York Times poll revealing that 1 in 5 Americans believe Obama foreign-born and another nearly 1 in 4 have doubts.

Conway then pointed to the "Certification of Live Birth" that the Obama campaign posted online during his 2008 race, the newspaper said.

"And you don't think you as a leader had the opportunity to let people know the truth? The electronic copy of the birth certificate had been released. It had been on the Internet. It had been on multiple news networks," Conway claimed.

But Ash pointed out that the online document is not the same as a "birth certificate," and the document posted by Obama could have been obtained under Hawaii law without proof of a birth in the state.

"That is the only copy there is, sir," Conway said, according to the newspaper. "You know this."

Then he accused Ash of being racist.

"The fact of the matter is, if he was white you wouldn't have put the issue forward," the newspaper reported he charged.

Ash said race has nothing to do with GOP opposition to Obama.

Michigan congressional candidate Andrew Raczkowksi


Rocky Raczkowski

Just one day after a poll by CNN included the startling revelation that 6 of 10 Americans doubt President Obama's birth story, Andrew "Rocky" Raczkowski, who won a Michigan GOP primary for Congress over establishment candidate Paul Welday, said he had concerns, too.

According to a report in Politico, he is on tape telling a meeting of supporters in Novi, Mich., "You have a president that seems to be, um ... well ... I don't know if he even has been born in the United States, but ... until I see a birth certificate."

Raczkowski doesn't care that his words are on tape, reportedly being circulated by Democrats in an attempt to damage his campaign.

"They don't need an HD recorder ? they can call me. I'm very open, they can call me; we can have an open discussion, perhaps even a debate," he told the publication.

Anthony Tolda

A candidate for Congress in New York's Second District, a seat now held by Democrat Steve Israel, says there is a "usurper" in the Oval Office and impeachment isn't the solution since "that would imply that he held the seat in a valid manner in the first place."

The comments by Constitution Party candidate Anthony Tolda were reported on a blog calling on Obama to release his records.

"For our Constitution to continue to exist much longer Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro must be removed from office," the candidate's statement said. "I would not seek to impeach him, as that would imply that he held the seat in a valid manner in the first place."

Tolda's speech was captured in two segments on video:

?

?

?

?

In it, he references the "usurper" in the office of the president.

But the blog expands on that, noting that Tolda was asked specifically about Obama's eligibility to be president.

The candidate responded, "There is a process to remove seat holders that are not able to legally hold a seat. Until now the highest seat that was removed from the holder in this manner is a seat(s) in the U.S. Senate.

"I will seek to begin this process as soon as I am sworn in. Although I do not intend to pursue an impeachment, I would assist in any efforts started by others in office to impeach. Only so long as I can verify that it would not nullify my plans for the annulment-type removal that has been used on senators unfit to legally hold office in the past," he said.

Indiana congressional candidate Marvin Scott

Indiana congressional candidate Marvin Scott was responding to call-in questions from campaign supporters when he was confronted with a question about his position on the eligibility issue:

?

?

Scott, who is challenging Democrat incumbent Andre Carson, said, "Certainly, we have a right to know as citizens of this country. And that particular question has to be vetted over and over again to assure the public that the people who are representing us are fair and have ascended to that particular position because they have met all of the requirements, and therefore they are entitled to by a vote of the populace to be there."

Scott has been a professor of sociology at Butler University for nearly 20 years and for nine years was president of a management-consulting firm.

He's served as a consultant to public schools, colleges, universities and federal courts. His website explains he's running for the House of Representatives because Republicans have a "long and rich history with basic principles: Individuals, not government, can make the best decisions; all people are entitled to equal rights; and decisions are best made close to home."

Sen. David Vitter, R-La.

Louisiana's Vitter says the dispute over Barack Obama's eligibility to be president should be resolved in court.

"I support conservative legal organizations and others who would bring that to court," Vitter said, according to an Associated Press report citing a video of the event.

It's also significant that the AP reported on Vitter's comments. The news wire has stated the president's "birth certificate" has been made public even though the image of the document posted online actually is a "certification of live birth," which was available to those not born in Hawaii.

Want to help find out the real answers? Join others in supporting the national billboard campaign that asks the simple question, "Where's the birth certificate?"

?

?

Vitter was responding to a constituent at a town-hall meeting in Metairie, La., who asked about Obama's "refusal to produce" a birth certificate.

The AP reported the crowd applauded the question.

Vitter said he didn't have personal "standing" for litigation. But he said he supports the efforts to bring the question to court.

"I think that is the valid and most possibly effective grounds to do it," he said.

He said "first and foremost" Americans need to "fight the Obama agenda at the ballot box starting this fall."

Vitter said, according to the AP report, that the matters of the nation are too important to be diverted by distractions.

U.S. Rep. Steve King

U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, appears to have suggested he's not entirely satisfied that all the questions about President Obama's eligibility have been answered fully.

The issue came up as he talked about the national debt in a recent address in Congress, televised by C-SPAN and posted on YouTube:

?

?

The congressman referred to the estimated $44,000 that each child born in the United States owes at the moment of birth as his or her part of the federal debt.

"We worry about them carrying a student-loan debt ? maybe $40,000 in student loans," he said. "We'll, I'd be happy to take that $40,000 loan and a guarantee of a college degree and think that child could pay that off."

But for the $44,000 in federal debt obligations, all the individual gets is access to citizenship in the United States of America, he said.

"Little baby with ink on their foot, stamped right there on the birth certificate ? there's one in this country we haven't seen," he said. "But the footprints on those we have seen. Those little babies owe Uncle Sam $44,000."

U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C.

Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C., said Obama was born "not in Hawaii." He gave the answer during a tongue-in-cheek "interview" on the satirical Colbert Nation show.

The Colbert Report Mon - Thurs 11:30 p.m. EDT / 10:30 p.m. CDT
South Carolina's 4th District Primary - Bob Inglis
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Fox News

?

Inglis was being grilled about whether he was a conservative.

"Are you conservative enough for the 4th District?" Stephen Colbert asked.

"I sure hope so," Inglis responded.

Inglis noted he had been endorsed by the National Rifle Association and the Christian Coalition.

Then Colbert said, "Complete this sentence. 'Barack Obama was born in ...'"

"Oh," said Inglis, "Not Hawaii."

Champaign, Ill., mayor Gerald Schweighart

A few weeks earlier, the mayor of Champaign, Ill., Gerald Schweighart, said Obama should produce his birth certificate.

?

?

The mayor was asked about Obama and responded he doesn't think he's "American."

"If you are not willing to produce an original birth certificate, then you've got something to hide," he said. "If he doesn't have something to hide, produce it."

Others raising questions are Tennessee state Senate speaker Ron Ramsey, Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, Oklahoma state Rep. Mike Ritze, U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., and many others with similar questions.

Ramsey said, "I don't know whether President Obama is a citizen of the United States or not. I don't know what the whole deal is there."

But Ramsey also said he doesn't believe citizens are concerned about Obama's citizenship status.

"But I'm going to tell you something," he said. "When you walk out on the street down here, people don't really care about this issue."

There also have been efforts to raise the question of Obama's eligibility at the state and national levels. Several state legislatures are working on proposals that would require presidential candidates to submit proof of their eligibility. Among the states where election qualification or eligibility requirements are being considered or developed include Oklahoma, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Virginia and New York.

Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero

Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, a Democrat, has suggested that legislation could be adopted to release Obama's birth records and satisfy critics.

While Espero said he believes Obama was born in Hawaii, he explained, "My decision to file the legislation was primarily a result of the fuss over President Obama's birth records and the lingering questions."

Oklahoma state Rep. Mike Ritze

Oklahoma state Rep. Mike Ritze sponsored a proposal to demand eligibility documentation from candidates for political office, including the president. Ritze, who says he regularly gets questions from his constituents about Obama's eligibility, said an "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" on the issues of candidate qualifications and eligibility.

U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.

In March 2009, Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., proposed H.R. 1503, known as the Presidential Eligibility Act. It is still pending in a House committee and has nearly a dozen co-sponsors, including Reps. Dan Burton, R-Ind.; Ted Poe, R-Texas; Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.; John Campbell, R-Calif.; John R. Carter, R-Texas; John Culberson, R-Texas; Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.; Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas; Trent Franks, R-Ariz.; Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; and Kenny Marchant, R-Texas.

The measure seeks to "amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate ? to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."

Arizona state Sen. Sylvia Allen

Arizona state Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said the controversy over Obama and his birth certificate has raised questions.

"It just makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future to just show you are a natural born citizen," she told the Arizona Capitol Times.

Arizona state Rep. Judy Burges

Arizona state Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, told WND she has been getting questions from other states about H. 2442, a proposal she sponsored to require future presidential candidates to show they are qualified under the U.S. Constitution's demand for a "natural born citizen." The bill was co-sponsored by some three dozen lawmakers who also want state officials to independently verify the accuracy of documentation.

U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga.

Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., sent a Dec. 10 letter to the White House formally requesting that President Obama address questions about his place of birth ? and thus, whether he is qualified to be president. Deal, who is running for governor, said several months ago he would ask Obama to prove his eligibility.

"I have looked at the documentation that is publicly available, and it leaves many things to be desired," Deal said in November.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin

Even Sarah Palin, former vice-presidential candidate and best-selling author, affirmed that questions about Barack Obama's eligibility for office are legitimate.

"I think it's a fair question, just like I think past association and past voting records ? all of that is fair game," Palin said. "The McCain-Palin campaign didn't do a good enough job in that area."

Former House majority leader Tom DeLay

In October, former House majority leader Tom DeLay offered his views on Obama's birth, saying, "Why wouldn't the president of the United States show the American people his birth certificate? You have to show a birth certificate to play Little League baseball. It's a question that should be answered. It's in the Constitution that you have to be a natural born citizen of the United States to be president."

U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

Asked whether he believes Obama is eligible to be president, U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said, "What I don't know is why the president cannot produce a birth certificate. I don't know anyone else who can't produce one. I think that's a legitimate question."

U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.

U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said he believes Obama was born in the U.S., but he also said he thinks the president is trying to hide something:

"I believe he's a natural born citizen of the United States. Therefore, even if he acts un-American and seems to go against American interests, he's still an American-born citizen," he said. "All that being said, probably Barack Obama could solve this problem and make the birthers back off by simply showing ... his long-form birth certificate."

Because that isn't happening, "There's some other issue there."

"I don't know what it is that he doesn't want people to see the birth certificate. I don't think it has to do with his natural-born citizenship," Franks continued. "He's spent an awful lot of money to keep people from seeing the birth certificate. ... I think it has to do with something else."

Feminist icon Camille Paglia

Even feminist icon Camille Paglia, a Salon.com columnist who earlier wrote about the ambiguities of President Barack Obama's birth certificate, told a National Public Radio audience that those who have questions about his eligibility actually have a point. "Yes, there were ambiguities about Obama's birth certificate that have never been satisfactorily resolved. And the embargo on Obama's educational records remains troubling," she wrote.

New Hampshire State Rep. Laurence Rappaport

In September, New Hampshire State Rep. Laurence Rappaport, R-Colebrook, said he was tired of telling his constituents that he's not sure of Obama's eligibility to serve as president. He met with New Hampshire's secretary of state, William Gardner, who oversees the state's elections, to demand answers.

"Regardless of where he was born, is he a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution? I don't know the answer to that," Rappaport said. "My understanding is that ? a natural born citizen had to be someone with two American parents. If that's true, his father was a Kenyan and therefore a British subject at the time. Then there's the issue: If he was born out of the country, was his mother old enough at the time to confer citizenship?

"I expect somebody to come up with the legal answers to this," Rappaport told WND, "and so far that hasn't happened."

Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz.

In his Jan. 26 appearance on "Hardball," former Rep. J.D. Hayworth was asked by Chris Matthews, "Are you as far right as the birthers? Are you one of those who believes that the president should have to prove that he's a citizen of the United States and not an illegal immigrant? Are you that far right?"

Hayworth replied, "Well, gosh, we all had to bring our birth certificates to show we were who we said we were, and we were the age we said we were, to play football in youth sports. Shouldn't we know exactly that anyone who wants to run for public office is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and is who they say they are?"

"Should the governor of Hawaii produce evidence that the president is one of us, an American?" Matthews asked. "Do you think that's a worthy pastime for the governor of Hawaii right now?"

"No, I ... Look, I'm just saying the president should come forward with the information, that's all," said Hayworth. "Why should we depend on the governor of Hawaii?"

A video of the interview follows:

?

?

Prominent commentators

A prominent array of commentators, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Lou Dobbs, Peter Boyles and WND's Chuck Norris and Pat Boone have all said unequivocally and publicly that the Obama eligibility issue is legitimate and worthy.

Longtime New York radio talker Lynn Samuels did the same. "We don't even know where he was born," she said. "I absolutely believe he was not born in this country."


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 19:49
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 14 de octubre de 2010
Pravda: American military officers against Obama; It is looking more and more that Obama is not a lawful eligible President
Via Pravda; - American military officers against Obama -

?
Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin, Major General Carroll D. Childers, Captain Neil B. Turner, Commander Charles Kerchner, Lt. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick, Captain Connie Rhodes, Lieutenant Colonel David Earl Graef, Major Stefan Frederick Cook, Paul Vallely, Major General (Ret), US Army, Jim Cash, Brigadier General (Ret), USAF, Harry Riley, Colonel (Ret), US Army, Michael A. Trudell, Captain (Ret), USN, Harry Soloman, Lieutenant Colonel (Ret), USAF, Carmen A. Reynolds, Lieutenant Colonel (Ret), USAF, Debra A. Gunnoe, Lieutenant Colonel (Ret), USAF, Greg Hollister, Lieutenant Colonel (Ret), USAF, Richard C. Morris, Lieutenant Colonel (Ret), US Army, William Harker, Commander (Ret), USN, Bill Little, Commander (Ret), USN. John Johnson, 1st Lieutenant (Ret), USAF, Luther B. Neff, Captain (Ret), USAF, Fred Herndon, Captain (Ret), USAF, Jerry Curry Army Major General (Retired), General Thomas McInerney.

All of these people are either engaged in a legal action against Obama or have publicly expressed their support for people in legal actions against Obama.

What motivates these people to risk their lives, their freedom and their fortunes by publicly stating their position against a US President?

It is their sworn duty.

Upon entering the service of the American military, everyone must take this 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 the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God"

The oath of an OFFICER of the United States Armed Forces, is as follows:

"I, __________________, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of Major 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."

Notice that for an Officer, there is no "promise to obey the orders of the President".

This oath is based on Title 5, ?3331 of the United States Code:

More can be seen here: http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm

The question is: Are these men committing Treason or Mutiny?

Mutiny is described in Merriam Webster's Dictionary as: Forcible or passive resistance to lawful authority especially concerted revolt (as of a naval crew) against discipline or a superior officer.

And they define Treason as: 1. The betrayal of a trust. 2. The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance.

IF...Obama is a lawful eligible President or lawful or eligible superior officer, their actions may be construed as Mutiny. IF......Obama is a lawful eligible President and IF he is "the government", which he is not, then their actions may be construed as Treason.

It is looking more and more that Obama is not a lawful eligible President. And no President is "the government". "We the People" are THE government. The President is just part time hired help.

Lt. Commander Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III filed a charge of "Treason" against Obama in Federal Court in Tennessee.

Commander Charles Kerchner, through his attorney, Mario Apuzzo, has filed a lawsuit against all of the US Congress, Dick Cheney, Nancy Pelosi and Obama for violating the US Constitution in certifying the Electoral College votes for Obama's favor.

Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin has refused to be deployed until he sees proof that Obama is an eligible President. He is now being Court Marshaled, with a military Judge telling him that he can not see, nor present evidence pertaining to Obama's eligibilty to be President, because Colonel Denise Lind ruled, "It may embarrass the President".

Of the 100 or so legal actions against Obama to prove he is eligible to hold the office of President of The United States, most are dismissed without any trial, without any hearing, without any evidence presented by either side, never being judged on the merits of the case.

Instead, Judge after Judge says, "You don't have "Standing". It is none of your business if Obama is eligible or not."

One Judge's excuse was, "This has been tweeted and twittered on the Internet". The Judge knows that the Internet is not a realm of unadulterated truth.

Many of these dozens of cases can be found on http://www.therightsideoflife.com/current-lawsuit-listing/eligibility-case-archive and
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/02/09/various-other-cases-against-obama

...Part 2 & 3 continued here; http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/13-10-2010/115351-american_military_officer-1

Previous reports from Pravda 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].
Obama Is a Usurper - Illegal President - 20100802 Issue Wash Times Natl Wkly - pg 5





Read more at Birther Report

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:31
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

BORN IN THE USA?

Candidate on birth

certificate: Let Rush

Limbaugh see

'Executive has an awful

lot of power to keep from

showing certain things'


Posted: October 13, 2010
11:50 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
??2010?WorldNetDaily

?

A candidate for Congress in Michigan is suggesting the easiest way to resolve questions over Barack Obama's eligibility to be commander-in-chief would be a simple, just-a-few-close-friends, birth certificate party.

The idea from Tim Walberg is being reported by Tommy Christopher, a columnist at the website Mediaite, which has posted a video of Walberg's comments online.

According to the video, Walberg, asked about Obama's eligibility, responds:

I'm going to take him at his word that he's an American citizen. I don't know why it's not resolved, other than the fact that the president hasn't resolved it yet. ?If I had to do it, I'd just simply, of course I had to show my birth certificate in order to be on the ballot. If I were going to do it, I'd call Rush Limbaugh, Alan Colmes, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, and maybe one justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Call them into a room and lay out my birth certificate on the table. ? and say, now all of you take a look at it. Tell me what you find. Now go and report it."

Walberg noted the president "has an awful lot of power to keep from showing certain things unless the courts will stand up to him. Or unless Congress in majority will stand up, up to and including impeachment. And Republicans don't have that majority."

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

U.S. President Barack Obama pauses while speaking about the economy in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington July 19, 2010. REUTERS/Larry Downing (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS BUSINESS)

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

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

Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and his appointment of lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation.

The Mediaite said, "Now, Alan Colmes is a great guy, a great liberal, but I'm sure even he would admit that he and Rush Limbaugh might not possess the gravitas to serve on a panel with a Supreme Court justice. Luckily for them, in Walberg's plan, SCOTUS participation is optional."

On the site's forum page, DrFunke said, "All Democrats see this and love it. It turns off most if not all non-idiots including most Republicans. It shows an extreme side of the right-wing that is laughably idiotic."

But Chris Kelly suggested, "The establishment treatment of this issue shows a) they're scared and they think there's something there, and b) how little faith you can put in the establishment. Their entire shtick on this issue has consisted of mocking and ferociously smearing those who have valid concerns and of lying and misleading.

"Since anti-'Birthers' are some of the biggest liars around, I have to point out that the above doesn't say Obama wasn't born here. I'm only saying I don't know since he hasn't provided definitive proof (despite what some have been lied into believing)," Kelly continued.

Walberg is just the latest in a long line of public officials to say there at least are questions for which the American public needs answers:

New Mexico congressional candidate Steve Pearce

Steve Pearce, a candidate for Congress in New Mexico, says he wouldn't mind being "in the fight" over the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.

The candidate made the comment in response to a question from a constituent at a public campaign stop, and it is being publicized by Heath Haussamen at the NMPolitics website.

Haussamen used the opportunity to warn that Obama is eligible, is president and a candidate that suggests there still could be unanswered questions would "empower those on the extreme, fringe right who may be willing to resort to violence."

Haussamen said the comments came at a Sept. 30 meeting in Los Lunas.

A video that was posted on the Huffington Post website reveals a woman asking Pearce for his position on whether Obama is eligible, since an ineligible president would create all sorts of questions about the legitimacy of his actions in office.

Pearce said Obama raised the "most significant questions himself" by talking about his travels to Pakistan as a youth, at a time when travel there by U.S. residents was not easy.

He then tries to focus the discussion on the nation's economy, noting that a member of Congress can only fight so many battles in a year, and he believes the economy is paramount.

But he also confirmed, according to the video, that should the issue arise formally, "I don't mind being in the fight. ? I don't have a problem expressing my opinion or expressing a vote."

Arizona state House candidate Cecil Ash

During a meeting for state House candidates with editors and others at the Arizona Republic, House District 18 Democrat candidate Michael Conway blasted GOP incumbent Cecil Ash for signing onto a plan that would require future presidential candidates to verify their eligibility.

The newspaper reported Conway questioned why Ash would support such a plan, and Ash responded that states don't verify the eligibility of presidential candidates, and he thinks it should happen in the future.

He explained to the newspaper that it hasn't been an issue before, because people know the parentage and heritage of Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and others.

"That's not the case with President Obama," he said.

He cited a New York Times poll revealing that 1 in 5 Americans believe Obama foreign-born and another nearly 1 in 4 have doubts.

Conway then pointed to the "Certification of Live Birth" that the Obama campaign posted online during his 2008 race, the newspaper said.

"And you don't think you as a leader had the opportunity to let people know the truth? The electronic copy of the birth certificate had been released. It had been on the Internet. It had been on multiple news networks," Conway claimed.

But Ash pointed out that the online document is not the same as a "birth certificate," and the document posted by Obama could have been obtained under Hawaii law without proof of a birth in the state.

"That is the only copy there is, sir," Conway said, according to the newspaper. "You know this."

Then he accused Ash of being racist.

"The fact of the matter is, if he was white you wouldn't have put the issue forward," the newspaper reported he charged.

Ash said race has nothing to do with GOP opposition to Obama.

Michigan congressional candidate Andrew Raczkowksi

Just one day after a poll by CNN included the startling revelation that 6 of 10 Americans doubt President Obama's birth story, Andrew "Rocky" Raczkowski, who won a Michigan GOP primary for Congress over establishment candidate Paul Welday, said he had concerns, too.

According to a report in Politico, he is on tape telling a meeting of supporters in Novi, Mich., "You have a president that seems to be, um ... well ... I don't know if he even has been born in the United States, but ... until I see a birth certificate."

Raczkowski doesn't care that his words are on tape, reportedly being circulated by Democrats in an attempt to damage his campaign.

"They don't need an HD recorder ? they can call me. I'm very open, they can call me; we can have an open discussion, perhaps even a debate," he told the publication.

Anthony Tolda

A candidate for Congress in New York's Second District, a seat now held by Democrat Steve Israel, says there is a "usurper" in the Oval Office and impeachment isn't the solution since "that would imply that he held the seat in a valid manner in the first place."

The comments by Constitution Party candidate Anthony Tolda were reported on a blog calling on Obama to release his records.

"For our Constitution to continue to exist much longer Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro must be removed from office," the candidate's statement said. "I would not seek to impeach him, as that would imply that he held the seat in a valid manner in the first place."

Tolda's speech was captured in two segments on video:

?

?

?

?

In it, he references the "usurper" in the office of the president.

But the blog expands on that, noting that Tolda was asked specifically about Obama's eligibility to be president.

The candidate responded, "There is a process to remove seat holders that are not able to legally hold a seat. Until now the highest seat that was removed from the holder in this manner is a seat(s) in the U.S. Senate.

"I will seek to begin this process as soon as I am sworn in. Although I do not intend to pursue an impeachment, I would assist in any efforts started by others in office to impeach. Only so long as I can verify that it would not nullify my plans for the annulment-type removal that has been used on senators unfit to legally hold office in the past," he said.

Indiana congressional candidate Marvin Scott

Indiana congressional candidate Marvin Scott was responding to call-in questions from campaign supporters when he was confronted with a question about his position on the eligibility issue:

?

?

Scott, who is challenging Democrat incumbent Andre Carson, said, "Certainly, we have a right to know as citizens of this country. And that particular question has to be vetted over and over again to assure the public that the people who are representing us are fair and have ascended to that particular position because they have met all of the requirements, and therefore they are entitled to by a vote of the populace to be there."

Scott has been a professor of sociology at Butler University for nearly 20 years and for nine years was president of a management-consulting firm.

He's served as a consultant to public schools, colleges, universities and federal courts. His website explains he's running for the House of Representatives because Republicans have a "long and rich history with basic principles: Individuals, not government, can make the best decisions; all people are entitled to equal rights; and decisions are best made close to home."

Sen. David Vitter, R-La.

Louisiana's Vitter says the dispute over Barack Obama's eligibility to be president should be resolved in court.

"I support conservative legal organizations and others who would bring that to court," Vitter said, according to an Associated Press report citing a video of the event.

It's also significant that the AP reported on Vitter's comments. The news wire has stated the president's "birth certificate" has been made public even though the image of the document posted online actually is a "certification of live birth," which was available to those not born in Hawaii.

Want to help find out the real answers? Join others in supporting the national billboard campaign that asks the simple question, "Where's the birth certificate?"

?

?

Vitter was responding to a constituent at a town-hall meeting in Metairie, La., who asked about Obama's "refusal to produce" a birth certificate.

The AP reported the crowd applauded the question.

Vitter said he didn't have personal "standing" for litigation. But he said he supports the efforts to bring the question to court.

"I think that is the valid and most possibly effective grounds to do it," he said.

He said "first and foremost" Americans need to "fight the Obama agenda at the ballot box starting this fall."

Vitter said, according to the AP report, that the matters of the nation are too important to be diverted by distractions.

U.S. Rep. Steve King

U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, appears to have suggested he's not entirely satisfied that all the questions about President Obama's eligibility have been answered fully.

The issue came up as he talked about the national debt in a recent address in Congress, televised by C-SPAN and posted on YouTube:

?

?

The congressman referred to the estimated $44,000 that each child born in the United States owes at the moment of birth as his or her part of the federal debt.

"We worry about them carrying a student-loan debt ? maybe $40,000 in student loans," he said. "We'll, I'd be happy to take that $40,000 loan and a guarantee of a college degree and think that child could pay that off."

But for the $44,000 in federal debt obligations, all the individual gets is access to citizenship in the United States of America, he said.

"Little baby with ink on their foot, stamped right there on the birth certificate ? there's one in this country we haven't seen," he said. "But the footprints on those we have seen. Those little babies owe Uncle Sam $44,000."

U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C.

Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C., said Obama was born "not in Hawaii." He gave the answer during a tongue-in-cheek "interview" on the satirical Colbert Nation show.

The Colbert Report Mon - Thurs 11:30 p.m. EDT / 10:30 p.m. CDT
South Carolina's 4th District Primary - Bob Inglis
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Fox News

?

Inglis was being grilled about whether he was a conservative.

"Are you conservative enough for the 4th District?" Stephen Colbert asked.

"I sure hope so," Inglis responded.

Inglis noted he had been endorsed by the National Rifle Association and the Christian Coalition.

Then Colbert said, "Complete this sentence. 'Barack Obama was born in ...'"

"Oh," said Inglis, "Not Hawaii."

Champaign, Ill., mayor Gerald Schweighart

A few weeks earlier, the mayor of Champaign, Ill., Gerald Schweighart, said Obama should produce his birth certificate.

?

?

The mayor was asked about Obama and responded he doesn't think he's "American."

"If you are not willing to produce an original birth certificate, then you've got something to hide," he said. "If he doesn't have something to hide, produce it."

Others raising questions are Tennessee state Senate speaker Ron Ramsey, Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, Oklahoma state Rep. Mike Ritze, U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., and many others with similar questions.

Ramsey said, "I don't know whether President Obama is a citizen of the United States or not. I don't know what the whole deal is there."

But Ramsey also said he doesn't believe citizens are concerned about Obama's citizenship status.

"But I'm going to tell you something," he said. "When you walk out on the street down here, people don't really care about this issue."

There also have been efforts to raise the question of Obama's eligibility at the state and national levels. Several state legislatures are working on proposals that would require presidential candidates to submit proof of their eligibility. Among the states where election qualification or eligibility requirements are being considered or developed include Oklahoma, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Virginia and New York.

Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero

Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, a Democrat, has suggested that legislation could be adopted to release Obama's birth records and satisfy critics.

While Espero said he believes Obama was born in Hawaii, he explained, "My decision to file the legislation was primarily a result of the fuss over President Obama's birth records and the lingering questions."

Oklahoma state Rep. Mike Ritze

Oklahoma state Rep. Mike Ritze sponsored a proposal to demand eligibility documentation from candidates for political office, including the president. Ritze, who says he regularly gets questions from his constituents about Obama's eligibility, said an "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" on the issues of candidate qualifications and eligibility.

U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.

In March 2009, Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., proposed H.R. 1503, known as the Presidential Eligibility Act. It is still pending in a House committee and has nearly a dozen co-sponsors, including Reps. Dan Burton, R-Ind.; Ted Poe, R-Texas; Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.; John Campbell, R-Calif.; John R. Carter, R-Texas; John Culberson, R-Texas; Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.; Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas; Trent Franks, R-Ariz.; Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; and Kenny Marchant, R-Texas.

The measure seeks to "amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate ? to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."

Arizona state Sen. Sylvia Allen

Arizona state Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said the controversy over Obama and his birth certificate has raised questions.

"It just makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future to just show you are a natural born citizen," she told the Arizona Capitol Times.

Arizona state Rep. Judy Burges

Arizona state Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, told WND she has been getting questions from other states about H. 2442, a proposal she sponsored to require future presidential candidates to show they are qualified under the U.S. Constitution's demand for a "natural born citizen." The bill was co-sponsored by some three dozen lawmakers who also want state officials to independently verify the accuracy of documentation.

U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga.

Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., sent a Dec. 10 letter to the White House formally requesting that President Obama address questions about his place of birth ? and thus, whether he is qualified to be president. Deal, who is running for governor, said several months ago he would ask Obama to prove his eligibility.

"I have looked at the documentation that is publicly available, and it leaves many things to be desired," Deal said in November.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin

Even Sarah Palin, former vice-presidential candidate and best-selling author, affirmed that questions about Barack Obama's eligibility for office are legitimate.

"I think it's a fair question, just like I think past association and past voting records ? all of that is fair game," Palin said. "The McCain-Palin campaign didn't do a good enough job in that area."

Former House majority leader Tom DeLay

In October, former House majority leader Tom DeLay offered his views on Obama's birth, saying, "Why wouldn't the president of the United States show the American people his birth certificate? You have to show a birth certificate to play Little League baseball. It's a question that should be answered. It's in the Constitution that you have to be a natural born citizen of the United States to be president."

U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

Asked whether he believes Obama is eligible to be president, U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said, "What I don't know is why the president cannot produce a birth certificate. I don't know anyone else who can't produce one. I think that's a legitimate question."

U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.

U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said he believes Obama was born in the U.S., but he also said he thinks the president is trying to hide something:

"I believe he's a natural born citizen of the United States. Therefore, even if he acts un-American and seems to go against American interests, he's still an American-born citizen," he said. "All that being said, probably Barack Obama could solve this problem and make the birthers back off by simply showing ... his long-form birth certificate."

Because that isn't happening, "There's some other issue there."

"I don't know what it is that he doesn't want people to see the birth certificate. I don't think it has to do with his natural-born citizenship," Franks continued. "He's spent an awful lot of money to keep people from seeing the birth certificate. ... I think it has to do with something else."

Feminist icon Camille Paglia

Even feminist icon Camille Paglia, a Salon.com columnist who earlier wrote about the ambiguities of President Barack Obama's birth certificate, told a National Public Radio audience that those who have questions about his eligibility actually have a point. "Yes, there were ambiguities about Obama's birth certificate that have never been satisfactorily resolved. And the embargo on Obama's educational records remains troubling," she wrote.

New Hampshire State Rep. Laurence Rappaport

In September, New Hampshire State Rep. Laurence Rappaport, R-Colebrook, said he was tired of telling his constituents that he's not sure of Obama's eligibility to serve as president. He met with New Hampshire's secretary of state, William Gardner, who oversees the state's elections, to demand answers.

"Regardless of where he was born, is he a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution? I don't know the answer to that," Rappaport said. "My understanding is that ? a natural born citizen had to be someone with two American parents. If that's true, his father was a Kenyan and therefore a British subject at the time. Then there's the issue: If he was born out of the country, was his mother old enough at the time to confer citizenship?

"I expect somebody to come up with the legal answers to this," Rappaport told WND, "and so far that hasn't happened."

Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz.

In his Jan. 26 appearance on "Hardball," former Rep. J.D. Hayworth was asked by Chris Matthews, "Are you as far right as the birthers? Are you one of those who believes that the president should have to prove that he's a citizen of the United States and not an illegal immigrant? Are you that far right?"

Hayworth replied, "Well, gosh, we all had to bring our birth certificates to show we were who we said we were, and we were the age we said we were, to play football in youth sports. Shouldn't we know exactly that anyone who wants to run for public office is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and is who they say they are?"

"Should the governor of Hawaii produce evidence that the president is one of us, an American?" Matthews asked. "Do you think that's a worthy pastime for the governor of Hawaii right now?"

"No, I ... Look, I'm just saying the president should come forward with the information, that's all," said Hayworth. "Why should we depend on the governor of Hawaii?"

A video of the interview follows:

?

?

Prominent commentators

A prominent array of commentators, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Lou Dobbs, Peter Boyles and WND's Chuck Norris and Pat Boone have all said unequivocally and publicly that the Obama eligibility issue is legitimate and worthy.

Longtime New York radio talker Lynn Samuels did the same. "We don't even know where he was born," she said. "I absolutely believe he was not born in this country."


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:25
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 12 de octubre de 2010

Why BHO Cannot be a Legal President

Print This Post

STATE QUALIFICATION LAWS WERE NOT ENFORCED IN 2008

by Cynthia Wilson

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/10/12/why-bho-cannot-be-a-legal-president/

Why was this candidate for President of the United States not asked for any documentation proving his eligibility?

(Oct. 12, 2010) ? This editorial is pragmatic: Barack Hussein Obama has never provided any court-vetted probative contemporaneous birth documents**. If he had, we would know. We do not know factually who BHO?s parents are, what his real name is, where he was born, nor when. Obama once said, ?The only people who don?t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.?

Obama also said, ?I can?t spend all my time with my birth certificate plastered to my forehead.? This statement is true, since he does not have a court-vetted U.S. birth certificate and it?s also a good distraction from his Article II ineligibility.

We know McCain showed documents during the campaign to demonstrate his constitutional eligibility, which had been challenged before. BHO had never been vetted, and because he has failed to demonstrate any evidence of eligibility, the 20th amendment should have precluded him from assuming the presidency.

In many states, proof of eligibility is required for various offices, including the presidency. Since this documentation does not exist for BHO, the various state agencies responsible for balloting presidential candidates where specific proof of constitutional eligibility is required have failed to uphold their respective state laws.? They have also failed the citizens of their states and the nation.

Below are four state laws which were not upheld in the case of BHO. In Hawaii, South Carolina and Texas, state laws require the Party to certify constitutional eligibility. In Texas and South Carolina, this was done without any court-vetted documents. In Hawaii, it appears that the state Democratic Party refused to certify constitutional eligibility; therefore, Nancy Pelosi, as representative of the Democrat National Committee, signed a nomination form stating that Obama and Biden were qualified.? However, that document was filed only in Hawaii; the other 49 states received a nomination form which did not contain that language.? Again, it appears that Pelosi signed the Hawaii form without any court-vetted documents.

In Arizona, the state statute requires proof of eligibility to be filed along with Nomination Papers, but there is no evidence that it was ever done. However, BHO was balloted anyway:

1. Arizona: BHO Signs Affidavit But Provides No Required Documentation Proof of Eligibility

Arizona: 16-311. Nomination papers; filing; definitions

All persons desiring to become a candidate shall file with the nomination paper provided for in subsection A an affidavit which shall be printed in a form prescribed by the secretary of state. The affidavit shall include facts sufficient to show that, other than the residency requirement provided in subsection A, the candidate will be qualified at the time of election to hold the office the person seeks.

In December 2007, BHO swore he was a ?Natural Born Citizen of the United States? on a notarized form which he submitted to the Arizona Secretary of State to participate in that state?s Presidential Preference Election (primary). BHO signed an affidavit of eligibility BUT did not include facts sufficient to prove that eligibility. State Rep. Judy Burgess?s (R) recently-proposed bill to require proof of eligibility is superfluous and a diversion, since Arizona already requires facts sufficient to show eligibility, and facts require evidence, which BHO failed to provide.

On September 27, 2010, a researcher contacted the Arizona Secretary of State at (602) 542-4285 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting??????????????(602) 542-4285??????end_of_the_skype_highlighting‎ and asked, ?What documents were used to fulfill state statute 16-311 in regard to the presidential election in 2008??

An eight-minute hold ensued, after which the researcher was told, ?There was an affidavit that was filed.?? The researcher asked, ?By Barack Obama?? The answer was ?Yes.?

The researcher then asked, ?Was that all?? and the clerk answered, ?Yes. If there was anything else it is across the street.? It?s been two years; I can?t remember.? Are you asking about some birth certificate?? The media person, Matt Benson, will have to call.?

On September 28, 2010, Matt Benson called the researcher and left a message. The researcher returned the call at (602) 350-2834 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting??????????????(602) 350-2834??????end_of_the_skype_highlighting and left a message. On September 30,? Mr. Benson left a message, saying ?I?m confused as to what documents (you?d) be looking for.?? (Note:? The AZ statute requires ?facts sufficient to show that?the candidate will be qualified??; ?facts? require evidentiary support, and none was provided.)

On October 7, 2010, the researcher called Mr. Benson as a follow-up and asked, ?Can we get specific information about the evidentiary support for ?facts? for 16-311? A person can?t attest to something they cannot witness, so they cannot swear an affidavit for place of their own birth as a ?fact.?? Mr. Benson answered, ?No other documents were provided besides Mr. Obama?s affadavit; candidates for office can self-attest to their eligibility by Arizona law.?? The researcher asked where this was written.? He then said, ?I?ll have to talk to our attorney, and I will get back to you.?

Later that day the researcher received a letter from Mr. Benson to which was attached Mr. Obama?s sworn affidavit.

Page 1 of notarized, signed statement from BHO attesting that he met the constitutional qualifications to run for president

Page 2 of signed, notarized statement from BHO

Mr. Benson wrote a letter stating that the applicable statute in this instance was:

ARS 16-242 Qualifications for ballot; nomination paper
A. A person seeking nomination as a candidate for the office of president of the United States shall sign and cause to be filed with the secretary of state a nomination paper that contains the following information:
1. The name, residence address and mailing address of the candidate.
2. The name of the recognized political party from which the person seeks nomination.
3. The name and address of the chairman of the candidate?s state committee.
4. The exact manner for printing the candidate?s name on the presidential preference ballot pursuant to section 16-311.
B. The nomination paper shall be filed not less than fifty days nor more than seventy days before the presidential preference election and not later than 5:00 p.m. on the last day for filing.
C. Section 16-351 does not apply to a nomination paper filed pursuant to this section.
D. Within seventy-two hours after the close of filing the secretary of state shall certify to the officer in charge of elections the names of the candidates who are qualified for the presidential preference election ballot.

Mr. Benson wrote:? ?As I indicated when we last spoke, Arizona law requires that candidates for local, state and federal office self-attest to their eligibility. I?ve attached the form that Mr. Obama submitted prior to Arizona?s Presidential Preference Election. Following the Democratic National Convention, the party filed additional forms with our office identifying Mr. Obama as the Democratic nominee for president.?

The researcher wrote to Mr. Benson about the omission of 16-311 for facts to be filed along with the nomination paper prescribed by 16-242, and a summary statement:? ?For my take-away, you?re (Mr. Benson) stating per ARS 16-311 that Barack Obama never provided to the Arizona Secretary of State any ?facts sufficient to show?the candidate will be qualified at the time of election to hold the office the person seeks; he presented only the personal affidavit portion.? Correct me if I?m wrong.? Thank-you.?

The researcher did not receive any correction from the Arizona Secretary of State?s office to this take-away statement.? Apparently the Arizona Secretary of State by tacit admission then agrees that ARS 16-311 was never upheld.? No 16-311 Subsection A affidavit with facts sufficient to show eligibility was ever provided when filing nomination papers for Barack Obama, yet he was still balloted in Arizona.

The 205 Arizona Code Revised, Statute 16-351, allows for challenges to eligibility of any candidate to be placed on the state ballot.

2.?? ?Hawaii Democratic Committee Refuses to Certify Constitutional Eligibility, Pelosi Steps In, No Documents Ever Shown

Hawaii statute ?11-113, Presidential ballots.

(c)? All candidates for president and vice president of the United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the general election ballot under either of the following procedures:

(1)? In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:
(A)? The name and address of each of the two candidates;
(B)? A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;
(C) A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection.

As opposed to all former Democratic candidates such as Gore and Kerry, the Hawaii Democratic Committee refused to qualify BHO as constitutionally eligible in 2008 as required by Hawaii law in order to be placed on the ballot.? Instead, they attested to his being chosen by acclamation (popularity).? The attorney for the Hawaii Democratic Party is William H. Gilardy, Jr., who was also the attorney for Stanley Ann Soetoro in her divorce from Lolo Soetoro.? Therefore, Mr. Gilardy might know the exact birth circumstances of BHO (key pages of the Soetoro divorce documents were redacted).

To meet Hawaii statutory requirements, Nancy Pelosi signed a notarized nomination certificate affirming that BHO was eligible to serve as president according to the U.S. Constitution, yet she apparently used no court-vetted probative contemporaneous documents to do so.? However, in submitting Mrs. Pelosi?s testimony of BHO?s constitutional eligibility, the Secretary of State of Hawaii has legally cited Mrs. Pelosi who could therefore be held liable if she had no probative contemporaneous documents (which do not exist) as the basis of her testimony, which would then be contrived.

On September 28, 2010, the Hawaii Elections Commission was called at (808) 453-8683 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting??????????????(808) 453-8683??????end_of_the_skype_highlighting.

The researcher asked, ?Why did the Hawaii Democratic Committee refuse to qualify Barack Obama as constitutionally eligible??

The answer was, ?You will have to call the Hawaii Democratic Committee. Their number is (808) 596-2980 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting??????????????(808) 596-2980??????end_of_the_skype_highlighting.?

The researcher then called the Hawaii Democratic Committee and asked, ?Why did you refuse to qualify Barack Obama as constitutionally eligible??

The answer was, ?I don?t know what you mean.?

The researcher explained, ?Well, the language was changed in the HDC candidate form between that of Kerry and Gore whereby constitutional eligibility was noted, to that of Barack Obama whereby only acclamation was noted, and Nancy Pelosi vouched for his constitutional eligibility per Hawaii law requirements.?

The HDC?s response was, ?What?s your email?? I?ll have the chair get back to you.?? As of publication, the researcher has not heard back.

On September 28, 2010, the researcher contacted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi?s office at (202) 225-0100 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting??????????????(202) 225-0100??????end_of_the_skype_highlighting and asked, ?What documents were used to certify constitutional eligibility for the Hawaii Democratic Committee??

The staffer said, ?Oh, hold on a minute and I?ll get someone to help you.?? The call was then transferred to House Speaker?s COMMENT LINE, where a message was left, but she received no return call.

3.?? ?The Texas Democratic Party Chair Attested To Obama?s eligibility With No Documentation Ever Shown

Texas:? ?192.031. PARTY CANDIDATE?S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT.

A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if:? (1)? the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law;

?

Boyd Richie, Chairman of the Texas Democrat Party

Boyd Richie, the Texas Democratic Party Chair, attested to BHO?s Constitutional eligibility yet apparently used no court-vetted probative contemporaneous birth documentation to do so.? Texas state law deems the chairs of state parties to be public officials who thus are obligated to Texas Freedom of Information laws.? However, Mr. Richie has defied all requests for information about the evidence he used to attest to BHO?s constitutional eligibility.? This is because there are no court-vetted probative contemporaneous birth documents for BHO and therefore Mr. Richie used no evidence.

On September 28, 2010, the Texas Secretary of State Chief Elections Officer?s office was called at (800) 252-8683 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting??????????????(800) 252-8683??????end_of_the_skype_highlighting and the researcher asked, ?What documents were used to support 192.031??

They responded: ?The only documentation filed was an application with the party (Texas Democratic Party) about qualification.?

The researcher then asked:? ?Were any supporting documents filed?? and the staffer answered, ?I don?t know if anything else was filed; you?d have to ask the party.?

The researcher then asked, ?Didn?t Mr. Boyd Richie defy all attempts to glean information about documents that he used?? and he answered, ?I don?t know anything about that.?

4.?? ?South Carolina Democratic Committee Treasurer Certifies Eligibility, No Documents Used

South Carolina:? SECTION 7-11-20. Conduct of party conventions or party primary elections generally; presidential preference primaries.

Political parties must verify the qualifications of candidates prior to certifying to the State Election Commission the names of candidates to be placed on primary ballots. The written certification required by this section must contain a statement that each certified candidate meets, or will meet by the time of the general election, or as otherwise required by law, the qualifications in the United States Constitution, statutory law, and party rules to participate in the presidential preference primary for which he has filed. Political parties must not certify any candidate who does not or will not by the time of the general election meet the qualifications in the United States Constitution, statutory law, and party rules for the presidential preference primary for which the candidate desires to file, and such candidate?s name must not be placed on a primary ballot.

In the fall of 2007, then-South Carolina Democratic Party Treasurer Kathy Hensley tried to deliver the South Carolina Democratic Committee Chair Carol Fowler?s list of candidates for the 2008 Presidential Preference primary to the South Carolina Elections Committee.? However, they wouldn?t accept it, because Ms. Fowler had left out the eligibility Certification.? To ?fix? the situation, Ms. Hensley scribbled out her own Certification, on the spot, again, without any probative court-vetted contemporaneous birth documents (or any evidence at all).

On September 28, 2010, the South Carolina Elections Commission was contacted at (803) 734-9060 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting??????????????(803) 734-9060??????end_of_the_skype_highlighting.

The researcher asked, ?Were any vetted birth documents used to support the certification by the SCDC?? and the answer was, ?Hold on a minute.?? The call was then put on hold and transferred to a Mr. Gary Baum of the SC Commission.? The researcher left a message with him and awaited a call back or email information.? Chris Webmier of Media Relations called back and said, ?Only a letter was presented by SCDC. I can send it to you, but no other documents were used.?? (Since the letter is linked above no request was made after it.)

?

Kathy Hensley, South Carolina Democrat Committee Treasurer

The South Carolina Democrat Committee Presidential Primary Ballot Request is here.

So in at least four states, BHO failed to qualify for legal balloting per the laws of each state, since no statement of fact can be made without vetted evidence.

BHO has failed the requirement to be qualified to be ?President of the United States? at the Constitutional level (cannot ?be? a legal president per the Constitution):

The 20th Amendment to the US Constitution states:

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

At the federal level, BHO has failed to qualify by vetted birth documents.? BHO failed to qualify to serve as President with any court-vetted probative contemporaneous birth documents by January 20, 2009.? Neither the Oath of Office nor the Joint Session to ascertain electoral college tallies has any language about qualifying the president-elect as constitutionally eligible.? Therefore BHO has never been qualified and cannot be a constitutionally legal president, no matter whose fault it is that he was not called to be qualified.

The 20th Amendment of the Constitution says that if a President elect ?fails to qualify? by January 20th, the Vice President elect is to ?act as President? until a President qualifies.? Because the procedure to determine Obama?s birthplace and other qualifying factors has never occurred, we know that Obama could not have ?qualified? by January 20th. Anyone who certified his eligibility perjured him/herself since neither his age, name, nor birthplace has been definitively proven.? Certainly no qualification by Congress of BHO is on the record utilizing any vetted documentation to establish the facts.

The president elect becomes president automatically at noon on January 20th, but there are TWO Constitutional requirements which must be met before a sitting president can ?act as president? or exercise the presidential powers: he must take the oath of office, and he must ?qualify.?? Doing one of the two is not enough and in no way impacts the need to meet the other requirement.? Obama has ?failed to qualify? and the only person the 20th Amendment allows to ?act as president? is Joe Biden, until a president qualifies.

?

Image of John McCain's original long-form birth certificate stating that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone

McCAIN WAS QUALIFIED BY CONGRESS PER THE 20TH AMENDMENT BUT OBAMA WAS NOT AND CANNOT THEREFORE BE DEEMED A LEGAL PRESIDENT.

The vetting of John McCain by the Senate via Senate Resolution 511 means Democrats were the original birthers! Is this scrutiny of McCain but not Obama more anti-white discrimination?? McCain was compelled to produce his court-vetted long-form birth certificate in 2008, but Obama, who ironically examined McCain?s qualifications, was never required to produce any documentation himself.

McCain was born in Panama while his father was on active duty in the U.S. Navy.? Vattel defines a ?natural born Citizen? as ?born in-country of citizen parents,? with the singular exception of birthplace for children born ?in the armies of the state,? but still of parents who are citizens.

Vattel, Sec. 217.? Children born in the armies of the state.

For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

Whereas McCain?s status as a natural born Citizen was arguable, BHO?s was impossible.? The result of the Senate?s 20th Amendment vetting of McCain?s eligibility, which was sponsored by Sen. Claire McCaskill and cosponsored by Barack Obama, reads:

SR511
?Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen? under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.?

However, John McCain was not born on a military base (even though a newspaper microfiche incorrectly says he was born on a submarine base hospital (page 3), he could not have been for it was not built until five years after McCain?s birth, and no hospital is listed in a 1936 description of the compound).? His birth certificate states that McCain was born at Colon Hospital, which was outside of the Panama Canal Zone.

The birthplace statement in SR511 is deliberately inaccurate.? First, the Senate cannot deem anyone a natural born Citizen; only status-at-birth makes a person so, as Vattel asserts.? McCain was born in Panama proper, ?in the armies of the state.?? It appears that perhaps someone gave McCain inaccurate counsel by omitting Vattel?s other definition: that he might not qualify as a natural born Citizen because of his birthplace when he actually would have qualified as a natural born Citizen, having been born ?in the armies of the state.?? This would be the reason for the inaccuracy in McCain?s stated birthplace in SR511.? This seems to be a fake ?favor? to unnecessarily describe that birthplace as a military base, since it is illogical to think BHO would positively help McCain?s campaign.? The apparent quid pro quo McCain-silence about Obama?s obvious ineligibility appears to be cover for his own questionable eligibility so as to keep the issue out of the realm of public discourse.? The resolution cosponsored by BHO displays one other potential argument: that BHO knew himself that two US Citizen parents were required for a person to be a natural born Citizen.? Also, the microfiched birth announcement which by all facts cannot be correct, and for which an original newspaper does not exist, seems analogous to BHO?s microfiched birth announcement, which by all facts cannot be correct, and for which an original newspaper does not exist.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:11
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar



Defending our?Defenders

?2010 drkate

In the midst of one of the greatest assaults on our Nation since its founding? the usurpation of the Presidency? We the People have turned to the Constitution as our guide to identifying and resolving the problem of Obama?s on-going violation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and other Articles of the Constitution.

On the table in recent days are reports of Obama?s mental state as a disability and removal through the 25th Amendment, and with a hat tip to reader KM,? Article II of the Constitution itself.? Both avenues are worth considering and seem a reasonable way to remove a usurper, but many including me? are left with questions,

what about the civil and criminal charges against Obama, his ineligibility, and all the things done under his watch, and the court-martial of LTC Terry Lakin?

The answer to these questions is? still the Constitution as we defend our defenders:? those who have risen to defend our Constitution and are in the arena,? fighting for all of us:? Commander Charles Kerchner?with the brilliance of Mario Apuzzo, and LTC Terrence Lakin, having the integrity to obey his oath of office and ensure his orders are legal. ? The love of country more than self, the absolute integrity of upholding the oath to protect and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help me God, has not failed.

?And? we must not waiver in our support of and insistence that the Kerchner case be heard and that LTC Terry Lakin have a fair trial where evidence of Obama?s eligibility is absolutely required.? Our lives and our Nation depend on these bold works.

Resignation or removal by any means will not protect Obama from these charges, nor will it allow him to jail by fiat a decorated Army officer.

And that is our mission. No matter who is behind the Obama machine or how he is removed, Obama and his enablers must be fully outed and held accountable for his high crimes and misdemeanors against our country.? It is the beginning of the end of this thievery.

?

?

?

?



Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:59
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 10 de octubre de 2010
??

First Prayer of the Continental Congress,?1774

Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on October 9, 2010

?

The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774

O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!

Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.

Amen.

Reverend Jacob Duch?
Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
September 7, 1774, 9 o?clock a.m.

?

Oh how this rings true for today?s times.??We are not far from our founding in years, but oh so far from its founding principles that the chains of oppression are felt daily. Can we make it back? Only God knows. Say a?prayer for His will to be done.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 21:29
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
??
?

WND
BORN IN THE USA?

Gingrich sounds off

on Obama eligibility

Says prez has 'obligation' to

determine why people don't

believe his life story


Posted: October 10, 2010
7:45 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
??2010?WorldNetDaily

?

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich speaks during the National Rifle Association's 139th annual meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina on May 15, 2010. REUTERS/Chris Keane (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS)

?

Former House Speaker and potential GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich used an appearance on Spanish-language television to sound off on questions surrounding President Obama's birthplace and religious faith, declaring the president has an "obligation" to figure out why so many Americans doubt his life story.

"If I were the president, that would really concern me, not because of Fox News or talk radio or Rush Limbaugh, but what is there that he's doing that would let that many people be confused?" Gingrich said on Univision's "Al Punto," according to a report from The Hill.

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

Since even before Obama's election, questions have swirled around his eligibility to serve as president, starting with the question of his birthplace. Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii, but the Certification of Live Birth provided by his campaign does not conclusively prove his birthplace, leaving him open to rumors that he was born abroad.

Similarly, rumors have circulated that Obama is secretly a Muslim only claiming to be Christian.

As for Gingrich's opinion, the former speaker insisted that Obama was "absolutely" born in the United States and is a Christian, but Gingrich also insisted the president needs to consider what he's doing that may lead people to suspect him Muslim.

"I think some of this stuff is just a sign of how much fear and anxiety has built up," Gingrich said, "but I think the president has an obligation to slow down and say, if you're president of all the people, what is it the White House is doing that so frightens a third of the Republican Party that they don't even believe something as simple and as obvious as his self-professed religious belief."

Questions surrounding Obama's religious belief stem from his adopted father's Muslim religion, his childhood registration in an Indonesian school as a Muslim student and his current policies toward Islamic nations.

The controversy surrounding his eligibility, however, 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.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 21:04
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Unleashed

?

?2010 drkate

http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/unleashed/

The absolute, imminent? danger that faces the? United States with a constitutionally ineligible person acting as President and Commander-in-Chief? can never be underestimated.?? Every other constitutional violation that exists now, while true, has no meaning and cannot be addressed, as with an ineligible President, the constitution is not in force.

The national security of the United States is cited as a major reason why the Supreme Court should grant the Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed in the Kerchner v. Obama & Congress case.? That ?national security? is now in the hands of a the ineligible Obama, a controlled puppet doing the business of others, under the usurped authority of the United States.

With Obama in office and incapable of acting independently because he is owned by his benefactors,? drugged, and psychologically impaired, his primary national security adviser Brzezinski is now unleashed to implement his the NWO vision using a formula and tools that also target the United States, discussed here and here.? Beyond ?false flag? events, these are deadly attacks in which the United States is implicated through the actions of the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

??Mumbai-Style Attacks? and the CIA

Underwear Bomber, Yemen, the USS Cole

Why did Eric Holder drop the charges against the USS Cole bombers?

Pakistan Destabilization and the new ?Axis of Evil?

The target?? China

Dismantling the ?Foreign Entanglement? Apparatus

This is a long-term and must-do enterprise, and it is essential to the preservation of liberty.? Extra-constitutional ?agencies? have been allowed to undertake attacks external and internal to the United States.

Obama has done his job in awakening all of us to this broader reality, and to our required course ahead.? Our first step is to pull yank the string of eligibility and see what who spills out of Humpty Dumpty when he falls off the wall.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 19:14
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Sunday, October 10, 2010

A Sampling of Some Constitutional Quotes from History

?
A Sampling of Some
Constitutional Quotes
from History

Source: http://www.constitution.org/cons/const_quotes.htm

The following example quotes make some very important points about the principles of constitutional republican government:

1. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition. ? Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat 304; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 419; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet 10; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U.S. 139; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662; Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1; Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628; The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655; (Justice) Story on the Constitution, 5th ed., Sec 451; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 2nd ed., p. 61, 70.

2. It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect;... ? Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803).

3. The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. ? South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905).

4. In the United States, Sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution. ? Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall 419, 471; Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall 54, 93; McCullock v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 404, 405; Yick Yo Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370.

5. The necessities which gave birth to the constitution, the controversies which precede its formation and the conflicts of opinion which were settled by its adoption, may properly be taken into view for the purposes of tracing to its source, any particular provision of the constitution, in order thereby, to be enabled to correctly interpret its meaning. ? Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 558.

6. The values of the Framers of the Constitution must be applied in any case construing the Constitution. Inferences from the text and history of the Constitution should be given great weight in discerning the original understanding and in determining the intentions of those who ratified the constitution. The precedential value of cases and commentators tends to increase, therefore, in proportion to their proximity to the adoption of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any other amendments. ? Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 547 (1969).

7. To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning, would be a departure from the first principle of constitutional interpretation. "In expounding the Constitution of the United States," said Chief Justice Taney in Holmes v. Jennison, 14 U.S. 540, 570-1, "every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that, no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation and its force and effect to have been fully understood. ? Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938).

8. The courts are not bound by mere forms, nor are they to be misled by mere pretences. They are at liberty ? indeed, are under a solemn duty ? to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of thye courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution. ? Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 661.

9. Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. It is the duty of the courts to be watchful of constitutional rights against any stealthy encroachments thereon. ? Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 635.

10. It cannot be assumed that the framers of the constitution and the people who adopted it, did not intend that which is the plain import of the language used. When the language of the constitution is positive and free of all ambiguity, all courts are not at liberty, by a resort to the refinements of legal learning, to restrict its obvious meaning to avoid the hardships of particular cases. We must accept the constitution as it reads when its language is unambiguous, for it is the mandate of the sovereign power. ? Cook vs. Iverson, 122, N.M. 251.

11. Where the words of a constitution are unambiguous and in their commonly received sense lead to a reasonable conclusion, it should be read according to the natural and most obvious import of the framers, without resorting to subtle and forced construction for the purpose of limiting or extending its operation. ? A State Ex Rel. Torryson v. Grey, 21 Nev. 378, 32 P. 190.

12. If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repitition of the wrong will not create a right. ? Amos v. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619.

13. A long and uniform sanction by law revisers and lawmakers, of a legislative assertion and exercise of power, is entitled to a great weight in construing an ambiguous or doubtful provision, but is entitled to no weight if the statute in question is in conflict with the plain meaning of the constitutional provision. ? Kingsley v. Merril, 122 Wis. 185; 99 NW 1044.

14. Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of cardinal constitutional guarantee. ? Riley v. Carter, 165 Okal. 262; 25 P. 2d 666; 79 ALR 1018.

15. Disobedience or evasion of a constitutional mandate may not be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public. ? State v. Board of Examiners, 274 N.Y. 367; 9 NE 2d 12; 112 ALR 660.

16. When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it. ? (See 16 Ma. Jur. 2d 177, 178) State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A. 630 Am. St. 459.

17. I cannot subscribe to the omnipotence of a state legislature, or that it is absolute and without control; although its authority should not be expressly restrained by the Constitution, or fundamental law, of the state. The nature, and ends of legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require, nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit. There are acts which the Federal, or State, Legislature cannot do, without exceeding their authority. There are certain vital principles in our free Republican governments, which will determine and overrule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power; as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take away that security for personal liberty, or private property, for the protection whereof the government was established. An Act of the legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact, and on republican principles, must be determined by the nature of the power, on which it is founded. A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. A law that punishes a citizen for an innocent action, or, in other words, for an act, which, when done, was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys, or impairs, the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a judge in his own cause; or a law that takes property from A and gives it to B. It is against all reason and justice for a people to intrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The genius, the nature and the spirit, of our State Government, amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation; and the general principles of law and reason forbid them. The legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; they may declare new crimes, and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; they may command what is right, and prohibit what is wrong; but they cannot change innocence into guilt; or punish innocence as a crime; or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract; or the right of private property. To maintain that our Federal, or State, Legislature possesses such powers, if they had not been expressly restrained, would, in my opinion, be a political heresy altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments. ? Opinion of Justice Chase in Calder v. Bull, 3 Dallas 386-389 (1798).

?

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:40
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
?

Obama and Mao, a short history lesson

by Don Hank

Obama has surrounded himself with maoists, like terrorist couple Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

The Czars he has named include Maoist-leaning Van Jones, and his White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has publicly expressed admiration for Mao Tse Tung.

At least three of Obama?s campaigners, Carl Davidson, Bill Fletcher and Mike Klonsky, are big Mao fans.

So if Obama is surrounding himself with Maoists, how is that affecting policy? Or rather, if Obama is enough of an admirer of Mao to have named these people in the first place, can we expect to see some evidence of this in his style of governance?

Well, liberation theologists like Jeremiah Wright, Obama?s pastor, believed that, in a ?just? society,?accidents of birth?(being born black in their case) automatically confer privileges to members of a downtrodden minority. That is in line with Mao?s thinking. For him, a person born as a peasant or worker was to be given special treatment.

Another striking similarity with Mao is Obama?s clever use of thugs. Not only are union thugs useful in intimidating his enemies, but his unprecedented open borders and no-arrest policies vis-a-vis illegal aliens encourage the cartel and undocumented low-life to bludgeon his opposition through often-violent crimes such as the savage murder of rancher Rob Krentz and the recent murder of an American boater on a lake shared with Mexico.

Put the administration?s ignoring of?recent murders of Americans?by Mexican thugs?together with the testimonies of Justice Department whistle blowers?Christian Adams and Christopher Coates declaring that the Obama administration had a hands-off order for accused criminal minority members, i.e., blacks and Hispanics, and you get an unmistakable pattern of the double standards for minorities vs whites taught by his beloved Liberation Theology mentor and in line with the thinking of his maoist pals. Under this policy, cases against Black Panther members who were seen by millions of viewers on national TV brandishing night sticks in front of a polling place in Philadelphia, and against prominent Black Panther leader Malik Shabazz, who had recently visited the Obama White House, were dropped by the Obama DOJ without adequate explanation.

The connection to thugs of the historic global left is evident if you look back at the history of the criminal scum who played key roles in the French Revolution, the Paris Communes, Mao?s Chinese revolution, the Mexican Revolution (Pancho Villa), etc.

The lumpen proletariat have long had a role in leftwing revolutions. Even today, by doing nothing to halt crime, Hugo Chavez encourages bands of roving bandits to roam the countryside and the city streets and intimidate and rob the wealthy and intimidate or kill dissidents. The murder rate in Venezuela has tripled since he rose to power.

A look at Part 2 of ?Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party,? published by the Epoch Times shows an uncanny similarity with the way Mao Tse Tung used the ?scum of society? to intimidate his enemies. This low life, often violent and typically criminally minded, actually was integrated into the Chinese Communist Party. The Chinese analysts identified the ?unleashing of the scum of society? as one of the inherited traits of communism in China. They point out that while Marx rejected this lowest of all social classes, Mao welcomed them in his movement. Epoch Times observes:

?Fourth Inherited Trait: Unleashing the Scum of Society?Hoodlums and Social Scum Form the Ranks of the CCP

?Unleashing the scum of society leads to evil, and evil must utilize the scum of society. Communist revolutions have often made use of the rebellion of hoodlums and social scum. The ?Paris Commune,? actually involved homicide, arson, and violence led by social scum. Even Marx looked down upon the ?lumpen proletariat.? [4] In the Communist Manifesto, Marx said, ?The ?dangerous class,? the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution. Its conditions of life, however, prepare it far better for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue????

?The CCP developed further the dark side of Marx?s theory. Mao Zedong said, ?The social scum and hoodlums have always been spurned by the society, but they are actually the bravest, the most thorough and firmest in the revolution in the rural areas.?[2]?

Incredibly, Obama is imitating the most virulent and radical of his Marxist forebears. To call him a Marxist is in fact missing the mark. His?promotion of thuggery?is distinctly Maoist.

So, to get an idea of what awaits American blacks and Hispanics, let?s take a look at what happens to the favored class of peasants and workers (not including?the thugs) in a Maoist society.

One of Mao?s first steps after winning the revolution was to confiscate all the land then in the hands of the landlord class and give it to the peasants, who received about 4 acres per family.

For a few years, they lived quite well and were able to even sell off some surplus to buy consumer goods for their families.

But this was too much free market for Marxist ideologue Mao, who soon began confiscating the grain of the peasant class. In perfect imitation of Stalin in his treatment of the Ukrainian farmers,?Mao didn?t just make life a little tougher for them by taking a large amount of this grain.

He in fact took it all, every last grain of wheat, in order to sell it to the Russians in exchange for help in industrializing China.

As a result, millions of peasants died of starvation.

All told, some estimate that Mao killed off as many as 70 million of his countrymen, most of whom worshipped him even in their last moments.

?This, then, is the ?leader? that Obama?s mentors and supporters admire.

Which?begs the question: what is in store for the minorities that voted for Obama and are the most devoted to him?

Already many blacks are complaining of joblessness and the way Obama has catered to the rich bankers instead of giving relief to those who supported him. Others complain that Democrat-run sanctuary cities cater to illegal aliens who steal their jobs.

But this is just a foretaste of the misery. Once the money runs out and the printing presses start rolling, inflation?can be expected to?eat away life savings in short order, welfare and social security checks will fall to bare subsistance levels.

There is so much more to come. As they say: the revolution eats its useful idiots.

Link recommended by a reader:

http://swiftread.blogspot.com/2010/09/desperate-dems-hire-ppst-e-thugs-for.html


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

Who is Thune?s Armed Services Personnel Staffer, John Costic & What are His Credentials Regarding?UCMJ?

Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on October 9, 2010

I hadn?t posted this as I have been waiting for the Thune staffer, John Costic,?responsible for this reply to my request regarding Lt. Col. Terry Lakin.?John has had?a week to answer my questions regarding the reply he sent?on behalf?of Thune. I guess he thinks he is really clever. I?ll let you decide. Did Thune actually see the request or did?Costic act independently regarding the grave? situtation of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, a highly decorated? Army officer & battle tested doctor to the brave men & women in harms way?

original request:

Sept. 24, 2010

Dear Sen. Thune,

As a member of the Armed Forces Committee & member of the sub-committee on Personnel, I am imploring you to please take this seriously & take immediate action.

The Commander in Chief has begun court martial proceedings against Lt Col Terry Lakin. Now Lt Col Lakin is being refused access to documents that are critical to his defense. The most current ruling from the military judge who refused release of Obama?s original vault birth certificate & ALL school & college records stated:

Sept 2, 2010 Fort Meade, Maryland

?The potential for embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question are uniquely powerful to ensure that courts-martial do not become the vehicle for adjudicating the legality of political decisions and to ensure the military?s capacity to maintain good order and discipline in the armed forces.?

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=5329?

If there is no question as to the location of Obama?s birth, then why for over 2 years now has he been fighting in courts all over the country to keep his original vault records from seeing the light of day. This is ?NOT? the actions of an honorable commander of the US military.

In July of this year, in a blatant disregard of orders of a federal judge, the US State Dept. released only partial passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham-Soetoro.

However, after careful study of the files that were released, what the records do conclusively show is that in 1968 Barack-Barry-Hussein-Obama II-Soetoro-Soebarkah was ?NOT? a US citizen.?

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/us-state-dept-confirms-obama-not-a-us-citizen-in-1968/

This has gone on far too long & it?s time to put politics & elections aside for the sake of our nation & our national security.

I am trusting, that in light of all this new evidence, you will do the honorable thing and put your country before yourself. Please do the right & moral thing by serving your state & country as an upright public servant of honor & integrity by once & for all putting an end to this abuse of political power currently being displayed by Obama & his administration. I implore you to request the immediate release of all the records requested on behalf of Lt Col Terry Lakin by his defense team.

No one is above the law, especially those public servants who took an oath to protect & defend it.

Respectfully,

Linda Melin

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/

I will be in contact with your office on Monday, Sept. 28, 2010. The day of the next hearing for Lt Col Lakin in his legal defenses efforts to get the vital records for his defense released.

_______________________________________________

Lt Col Terry Lakin Defense @ http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/

Reply from John Costic, Thune staffer on Armed Services Personnel Issues:

Correspondence from Senator Thune

[email protected]

To: [email protected]

September 30, 2010

(address redacted by me)

Dear Linda:

Thank you for contacting me about the qualifications necessary to serve as President of the United States. I appreciate hearing from you.

Like you, I believe we must vigorously uphold the provisions of our Constitution. Although all three branches of the federal government must abide by the Constitution, the interpretation and applicability of its terms are usually determined by the judicial branch.

As you may know, Article II of the United States Constitution states the requirements for an individual to be President. A presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States, be 35 years of age, and have been a resident within the United States for 14 years.

On December 8, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States turned down an appeal from Leo Donofrio, a New Jersey man who argued that President Barack Obama is ineligible to serve as president because of the British citizenship of his father. A similar appeal by a Connecticut man, Cort Wrotnowski, was also rejected by the Supreme Court on December 15, 2008.

On July 28, 2009, the Senate passed S. Res. 225 by unanimous consent. This nonbinding resolution, which commemorates the 50th anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the United States as the 50th State, also states that, ?the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.?

Thanks again for contacting me. If you would like additional information on my activities in the Senate, please feel free to visit my website, http://thune.senate.gov. Please keep in touch.

Kindest regards,

JOHN THUNE

United States Senator

Who is John Costic & what are his credentials regarding the USMCJ? UCMJ? Or for that matter, what is his education background regarding the US Constitution?

Posted in Corruption, Media Blackout, Media Propaganda | Leave a Comment ?


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:49
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
S?bado, 09 de octubre de 2010
?
Has the Judiciary Destroyed the Constitution


I was asked to comment on the question, ?Has the Judiciary Destroyed the Constitution? My first response was, "Is the Pope Catholic?" My answer was an unequivocal "yes"! But where was my evidence? Where were the facts? How and why did it happen? Why didn?t "we the people" stop it? Was it done with malice? Was there specific intent? Is it still going on? Can it be stopped? And, on and on ad nauseam.

This question lead me on an incredible journey of 250 hours research and review of 100 plus cases, reading and review of five books, i.e. A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, Justice Antonin Scalia; The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It, Phyllis Schlafly; God Betrayed: Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application, Jerald Finney; Men In Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America, Mark R. Levin, and, The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land, Judge Andrew Napolitano.

With all of this research, you would think I would be ready to write. Wrong! How do you start and how do you condense this amount of information into a 30 minute presentation. You go back to the beginning, the genesis, the root ? the Constitution. It is my belief that the Founders knew exactly what they wanted when they created a republican government with the primary purpose being to divide and diffuse all power between the states and federal government and among all three branches. Originalists, which I am, believe in a narrow and common sense interpretation of the plain meaning of the law and clearly delineated separation of powers. This belief, ??seeks to promote the rule of law by imparting to the Constitution a fixed, continuous, and predictable meaning.? Robert Bork. They wanted a government which could protect and nurture this fledgling country, but one limited in its power so that it could not stifle the state's right or their citizens' liberties. Remember the states were sovereign entities that the Continental Congress could not directly control because there was essentially no binding central government. Above everything else was the Founders concern to prohibit any concentration of power to a small group of institutions or individuals.

This being said, can anyone tell me how we have end up having a judiciary with its nose stuck in every aspect of our lives, i.e., controlling school systems, prisons, flag burning, welfare, taxation, childcare, throwing out God, prayer, and the 10 Commandments from public schools, hiring/firing practices of private business, states grants for illegal immigrants, election processes, partial birth abortion, limits on political speech, terrorism, same sex marriage, promoting racism, telling states to increase private property taxes, rewriting immigration laws, and perhaps the best ruling was, "?that morality was an insufficient basis for legislation." etc, etc.

One of the reasons we ended up where we are today is because of the infamous decision, Marbury vs. Madison, 1803. In this decision, Justice John Marshall gave the federal judiciary the power to rule on the constitutionality of both statutory law, the behavior of the executive branch, and Congressional actions. This means that the Supreme Court granted itself the authority to declare the will of the people . . . null and void. This was politely called judicial review. This of course has caused endless tyranny and is the reason for the Courts runaway power which they exercise today. In no section of the Constitution were the Courts granted the authority to overrule Congress and the President. John Marshall ?spent the remainder of his career finding clearly disingenuous, historically inaccurate and highly questionable justifications for ruling that federal power is not limited.? Judge Andrew Napolitano. For my money, Marbury v Madision was enough of a disaster to last him a lifetime.

No where in the Constitution is the federal judiciary expressly given authority to interject itself into every facet of federal and state operations. They have accumulated this power under the ruse of ?judicial review?, overturning an act of Congress or the executive branch on the grounds that the act in question contravenes the federal Constitution. It is founded on the joke that the Courts will be the unbiased guardians of the clear meaning of the Constitution. When in essence what we have are judicial activists, because of their high position, imposing by fiat, that which should be determined through the democratic process. They continue through their absurd, inane and socialistic decisions, substituting personal policy preferences for Constitutional imperatives, which has destroyed both the intent and the spirit of the Constitution.

Along with this is their fraud of the supremacy clause which only grants to the central government seventeen specific functions which are delineated in the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, many of which involve waging war and foreign policy. Period!!!!!! This power has been grossly abused by the Courts implication that the federal government is somehow "supreme" in anything and everything vis-a-vis the citizens of the states.

The second most deadly act from the judiciary was their expansive definition and abuse of the commerce clause, which allowed them to justify virtually unfettered federal intrusion into the conduct of state and local governments, and to defend the establishment of massive bureaucracies and their seemingly endless regulations on private enterprise. As a result the government is now centralized?enter socialism on the hoof. Their expansive use of the commerce clause violates the Tenth Amendment. The Founders believed that individual liberties could be better protected when the power is retained by the state and local governments. The state is better prepared to develop solutions at a grassroots level which reflects the desires of the community. "Between 1937 and 1995 not one single federal law was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Not one piece of legislation was seen as exceeding the scope of Congress's commerce power." Judge Andrew Napolitano. Well, so much for the phony argument that ?judicial review? by the federal courts acts to protect liberty. Instead, it does exactly the opposite: It expands the size and scope of government at the expense of liberty.

Rather than upholding the Constitution the Supreme Court helped Congress use the commerce clause to get power at the expense of the state and local authorities in direct violation of the Constitution and in denial of liberty to the America people. The Founders wanted to increase commerce between the states and trade between their citizens. But typical of the courts deceit, they have turned the commerce clause into exactly the opposite. Through all of the federal regulations, statutes, rules, mandates, licenses, permits, and registrations, etc., they are destroying the ability of both individuals and businesses to succeed, and creating a vehicle to strengthen federal power, deny authority to the states, and once again deprive the American people their God given rights.

The third disaster, as I perceive it, is that lingering misinterpretation of the phrase ??a wall of separation between church and state.? No where in that statement does it refer to separation between God and state. God is not a church. God is not religion. God is not prayer. God is not the 10 Commandments pasted on a school wall or in front of a Courthouse. God is not the Pledge of Allegiance; God is not an invocation or benediction. God is not only the Creator of the universe and all things therein, He is the sovereign ruler of every individual, family, church and nation. The Bible has laid out the specific jurisdictions and principles for the functioning of each one of these governments. The courts, and therefore America, has violated its God given jurisdiction and principles.

Lets look at the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment, the Framers understood the word ?establishment?, and they meant this clause, ?? to involve actual legal coercion and that government practices that have nothing to do with creating or maintaining coercive state establishments simply do not implicate the possible liberty interest of being free from the coercive state establishments.? Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas said further in Van Orden v Perry 2005, ?The unintelligibility of this Court?s precedent raises the further concern that, either, in appearance or in fact, adjudication of Establishment Clause challenges turns on judicial predilections?The outcome of constitutional case ought to rest on firmer grounds than the personal preferences of judges.? There you have it from one of their own. This is the crux of the entire problem and the cause of the chaos in our Country?the courts, through their activist judges position and power, conjure up the ideas that they are righting wrongs or doing justice and impose their will and warped beliefs by fiat.

Confusion is the courts stock and trade. They have no standards of operation. They talk about interpretive problems presented by conflicts between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. They have problems because they have no knowledge of God and His sovereignty. Therefore, they have to twist meanings; they have no standards upon which to base their principles, because they use different standards than the standard which was used to formulate the thing they are judging; and, they have no knowledge of the true history and intent of that which they are judging. The courts and the other branches of the federal government have let us know that with enough liberals and moderates, they can reconstruct the Constitution into whatever form they want, completely ignoring history, logic and totally discounting God.

Yes, the judiciary has destroyed the Constitution. They are unelected and unaccountable, and have rejected and violated their Constitutional role and continue to legislate from the bench. When they make decisions beyond their authority they are violating and destroying the will of the people. An opinion from these courts, instead of remaining a simple decision, becomes law, a precedent if you will, which further perpetrates the fallacy of stare decisis, which by its very concept violates our rule of law? that each case shall be judged on its own merits. But more importantly, the federal government, through its laws and its courts, has rejected God. From this decision America will not escape I am believing that we, the United States Patriots Union, have formulated a plan, which is pleasing to God, and which will enable us to take America back. May God bless each of you and may God bless the United States of America. Thank you.

Barbara Ketay, President, United States Bar Association and Co-Founder of United States Patriots Union


A FEW OF THE DECISIONS WHICH HAVE NEGATIVELY ALTERED AMERICA
(THIS LIST IS BY NO MEANS COMPLETE - *INDICATES RELIGIOUS LIBERTY ISSUES)

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137, (1803) SCOTUS granted themselves the power to review all executive, Congressional actions and statutory laws in total violation to the spirit and intent of the Constitution, as well as the specific powers given.

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), states may not impede valid exercises of Constitutional power of the federal government, i.e. fines, taxes etc, and granted unlimited implied powers in Constitution, did this to establish a central bank, powers of federal government only limited by the imagination of evil politicians.

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1(1824)-SCOTUS ruled that Congress could regulate interstate commerce thru the Commerce Clause of the Constitution-Marshall wrote not pertain to individuals between each other or intrastate lasted 110 years, test was devised to determine if enterprises or transactions effected interstate commerce then the Congress could regulate.

United States v. Butler, 297 U.S.1 (1936), ? SCOTUS ruled that the taxes instituted under the1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act were unconstitutional, but they did not miss the opportunity to intervene in economic and societal matters thru a new doctrine of fed spending.

National Labor Relations Board v. Jones ∓ Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1 (1937) ? disastrous decision set the stage for the massive expansion of commerce clause and federal government unconstitutional control over the marketplace?intra-state activities that have such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that their Constitutional control is essential or appropriate to protect the commerce from burdens and obstructions are within Congress' power to regulate."

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S.174 (1939) -first time SCOTUS addressed the 2nd Amendment requires certain types of firearms, including but not limited to, fully automatic firearms and short-barreled rifles and shotguns, to be registered with the Miscellaneous Tax Unit $200 paid for registration and if resold, eventually BATF established.

*Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) - decision marked the first time SCOTUS incorporated the free exercise clause into the 14th Amendment, Court ruled 1st Amendment protected religious practitioners against restrictions at the state and local levels, as well as federal, this case enforced the 1st Amendment Free Exercise Clause against the states, thereby protecting free exercise of religion from intrusive state action.

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111(1942)-no rational basis test, SCOTUS ruled Congress could regulate what farmer grew even though it had no effect on interstate commerce, ruled because he did not use the interstate market, he effected the interstate commerce(ex farmer and wheat for himself example) if it wasn?t so pathetic it would be funny.

*Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township 330 U.S. 1 (1947)-SCOTUS decided under Establishment Clause incorporated into due process clause of 14th Amendment, this case changed everything, because now whether you were an establishment of religion or the establishment of a state supported church, you became an ?establishment of religion?, altered mindset and conditions for churches and Christians.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), (overturned1896 Plessy v Ferguson ?separate but equal upholding segregation) SCOTUS ruled state laws that established separate public schools for black and white students denied black children equal educational opportunities. "Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." segregation violated equal protection of 14th Amendment, paved the way for integration and the civil rights movement.

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)-SCOTUS landmark case in criminal procedure; ruled that evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures", may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state as well as federal courts.

*Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)-landmark case, SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools.

*Abington Township School District v. Schempp (consolidated with Murray v. Curlett), 374 U.S. 203 (1963),-SCOTUS ruled school sponsored Bible reading or reciting Lord's Prayer in public schools unconstitutional, landmark case.

Miranda v. Arizona (consolidated with Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart), 384 U.S. 436 (1966), landmark case-"Has he been Mirandised?", subject had to be advised of rights in order for inculpatory/exculpatory evidence to be admissible by prosecution at trial.

*Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 461 (1971)-SCOTUS ruled that no public funds could be used for other than public schools violated Establishment Clause of 1st Amendment resulted in Lemon test 3 prongs were used government's action must have a secular legislative purpose; government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion's government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

*Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S.113 (1973),-landmark case, most Controversial and politically significant decision ever made by SCOTUS, in essence it says its OK to murder babies in the womb dependent upon the mothers Constitutional right to privacy based on the due process clause of 14th Amendment.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) ?landmark case, SCOTUS ruled no affirmative action in college admissions, no quota systems, but affirmed that affirmative action programs were Constitutional.

*Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) SCOTUS ruled that statutes requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public classroom in the State, was unconstitutional, in violation of the Establishment Clause of 1st Amendment, because it lacked a secular legislative purpose.

*Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)-SCOTUS, landmark case, ruled Louisiana could not require creationism be taught along with evolution, unconstitutional because it was intended to promote a particular religion.

Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) -SCOTUS ruled that Texas could not refuse to educate illegal immigrants because it violated the 14th Amendment, as illegal immigrant children are people "in any ordinary sense of the term", and therefore had protection from discrimination unless a substantial state interest could be shown to justify it.

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) SCOTUS ruled flag burning was protected speech.

*Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)-SCOTUS- ruled that clergy giving invocations/benedictions for high school graduation ceremonies were coercive and therefore unconstitutional.

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) SCOTUS made possessing a gun near a school a federal crime, when states and local representatives have the power to outlaw gun possession near a school and many have, the Framers never intended for the federal government to be able to define a crime and prosecute such a wholly local activity thru enactment of federal criminal laws.

1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) was enacted by Congress, SCOTUS stuck its nose in immigration law and has found that equal protection and due process clause of 5th and 14th Amendments gave judiciary all authority it would need to rewrite immigration laws.

Kelo v. New London, (04-108) 545 U.S. 469 (2005) SCOTUS redefined public use which was tied to eminent domain, SCOTUS gutted the taking clause of 5th Amendment which insures our possessions i.e. private property, and redefined Framers definition of public use to really mean "public purpose", and that means whatever any government agency wants it to mean.

2002 McCain-Feingold Act ? SCOTUS approved this act which is obviously unconstitutional, draconian free speech limitations, right to redress grievances, all protected, no parties, no contributions to support political campaigns, no advertising, etc., this confusion typical of Court, in 1976 in Buckley v Valeo, they ruled you could give money to support political campaigns.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:38
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/documenting-lies/

Documenting?Lies

?2010 drkate

Documentation of the deceit through which Obama usurped the Presidency is an important task for all of posterity.? This collection of video clips will be the record of the psychological operations used against the American people by a controlled media.

Your own collection of what you consider to be seminal documents, video clips, articles, etc, is important as well!? As are all your historical finds and understandings of how our Constitution evolved and how it was attacked.

I am preparing a couple of long posts, one of which will be up today, so in the meantime, please consider this an open thread!? :smile:

2 Responses to ?Documenting?Lies?


  1. 1 sk1951 Saturday, October 9, 2010, at 2:06 am

    Democratic Party of Hawaii Refused To Certify Obama
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXFwqUi3zR0&feature=player_embedded#!

    PROOF OF DNC FRAUD by Pelosi and Osama and Congress. Make sure to read exhibits 6 and 7.
    http://americangrandjury.org/public/


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:07
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/10/08/judge-grants-request-to-file-amicus-curiae-brief-nullifying-health-care-bill-on-grounds-of-obamas-ineligibility/

Judge grants request to file Amicus Curiae Brief claiming health care bill null and void due to Obama?s ineligibility

Print This Post

?THIS MOTION IS GRANTED?

by Sharon Rondeau

?

Commonwealth of Virginia's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed the first lawsuit against government-mandated health care

(Oct. 8, 2010) ? Last March The Post & Email reported on an ?Admission of Ineligibility? declared by a Florida man after he charged Barack Hussein Obama with ?negligence? for failing to answer his request that Obama prove he is a natural born Citizen and therefore qualified to hold the office of President of the United States.

Mr. W. Spencer Connerat III, the author of the document which he deemed a ?confession,? had originally sent it to the attorneys general of Florida and Virginia last March in the likely event that either or both of them decided to file a lawsuit over the impending passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).? Some have referred to the legislation as ?Obamacare,? and its constitutionality has been debated since long before its passage.

Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia, filed suit against Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius directly after the legislation was passed by Congress on March 23, 2010.? A group of more than 20 states filed a similar lawsuit led by Attorney General Bill McCollum of Florida.

Regarding Obama?s constitutional qualifications for office, Cuccinelli has acceded to the possibility that Obama might have been born in a foreign country, but has also said that he ?believes? that Obama was born in the United States.

Just today, Sebelius announced that ?the government is giving $727 million to 143 community health centers across the country.?

On July 2, 2010, Judge Henry Hudson denied the federal government?s request to dismiss the Commonwealth of Virginia?s lawsuit over the PPACA, ruling that the Commonwealth had ?standing? to sue because of its passage of a law protecting its citizens from being forced to purchase a government-mandated health care program.

On September 21, 2010, Judge Hudson granted Mr. Connerat?s motion to file an Amicus Curiae brief to be included in the Virginia lawsuit along with many others filed by interested parties, including Physician Hospitals of America, former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III, and the American Civil Rights Union.

?

Judge Henry Hudson's order to send a copy of the Amicus Curiae brief "to all counsel of record"

The text of the order reads:

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on an Optional Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief (Dk. No. 92), submitted by W. Spencer Connerat, III.? Upon due consideration, this Motion is GRANTED.

Movant included his Brief as Amicus Curiae with the Motion that he filed with the Court.? The Clerk is therefore directed to file Movant?s Optional Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief (Dk. No. 92) as Movant?s Brief as Amicus Curiae Supporting Plaintiff.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.

It is SO ORDERED.

Connerat?s Friend of the Court brief consists of three pages and reportedly alleges that the health care bill was signed into law by someone ineligible to do so. It can be found on Scribd here. The brief and Mr. Connerat?s original ?Tacit Admission of Ineligibility? can be found here.

Others have speculated that it is widely known by members of all branches of government that Obama does not meet the constitutional eligibility requirements to serve as President.

One report states that if Republicans gain enough seats in the House and Senate in next month?s midterm elections, a host of possible crimes will be investigated, although it does not mention the question of Obama?s eligibility.

? 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 @ 9:23
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar



BORN IN THE USA?

Army officer's supporters

warn of 'greatest fraud ever'

Group joins doctor's campaign to

challenge Obama's eligibility


Posted: October 09, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
??2010?WorldNetDaily

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=211881

An organization that says it linked an Army doctor challenging Barack Obama's eligibility with a new legal defense team contends the unveiling of the president's birth certificate would prove one of two things: he was a dual citizen or there has been "the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people."

Leaders of the United States Patriots Union have told WND the officer's arguments need to go beyond the quest for the president's original birth certificate because that would reveal only some of the evidence needed.

"A birth certificate would only prove one of two things ? 1) Barack Hussein Obama (Sr) is his bloodline birth father and Barack Jr. was thereby a 'dual citizen' rather than natural born citizen at birth. In this case, Obama fails constitutional requirements," a statement prepared by the organization said.

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

Or, in the second case, "Barack Hussein Obama (Sr) is NOT his stated birth father on the birth records, in which case Obama has committed the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people."

"A birth certificate cannot solve Barack Hussein Obama's problem, unless and until an unconstitutional precedent can be set in court that 'natural-born' ? 'native-born' and 'naturalized' are all one in the same. We know that they are not the same things, and why the Founders limited eligibility for the office of president to only 'natural-born' citizens. Anything less creates a very real national security crisis," the organization stated.

The statement was provided to WND by spokesman J.B. Williams, who explained the union and Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely helped introduce Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin to a new attorney, Lt. Col. Neal Puckett.

He reported the union also is putting together an "A Team" of expert legal counselors to support Puckett and Lakin.

Exactly what strategic changes, if any, will be made in Lakin's case are yet to be revealed. Lakin's position has been to maintain that there are enough legitimate questions about Obama's eligibility to support his conclusion that orders under Obama's chain of command could be illegal and he would, therefore, be required to disobey them.

Vallely, a noted military leader who now is a presence on the Internet with his Stand Up For America and Veteran Defenders, has told WND he thinks Obama should resign.

"We can wait no longer for a traditional change of power and new government," he warned during an earlier interview. "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 U.S. oath of office and the Constitution."

Lakin's strategy has been to seek verification of the legality of his orders. But Denise Lind, who is acting judge in the case, has ruled he cannot access Obama's records nor can he question those who have custody of Obama's records. She even ruled he could not explain that he believes the orders are illegal.

The restrictions ultimately could be problematic, since as a judge she must preserve Lakin's constitutional rights. Not doing so would be judicial error, much like an illegally recorded conversation being introduced as evidence, analysts noted.

Ultimately, Lakin's case could end up before the Supreme Court, which may have difficult ruling that he has no "standing" in the dispute. Virtually every other judge to date has concluded plaintiffs challenging Obama's eligibility lacked standing. But Lakin might be accorded standing, because the threat of jail time fulfills the requirement of facing a real and personal penalty.

Others serving on the Veterans Council of the Patriots Union include Ret. Brig. Gen. Jim Cash, Ret. Col. Harry Riley, Ret. Capt. Michael Trudell, Ret. Lt. Col. Harry SOloman, Reet. Lt. Col. Carmen Reynolds, Ret. Lt. Col. Debra A. Gunnoe and Ret. Lt. Col Greg Hollister.

The organization explains Lakin's case this way:

"LTC Lakin did not refuse movement on behalf of himself or his family. He has deployed to forward combat positions with honor and distinction numerous times over his decorated 18-year military career as a flight surgeon, and has publicly offered to deploy again if and when his concerns over the legality of the current chain of command can be remedied."

The organization said Lakin refused deployment "on behalf of his officers oath, the U.S. Constitution, his fellow soldiers and every American citizen also convinced that an ineligible commander-in-chief cannot issue legitimate orders."

The organization said the officer still faces a "corrupted" military justice system as well as "monstrous pressure" from the chain of command under Obama.

"Pressure from 'we the people' to find the truth must be greater than the pressure from the system to conceal the truth, or all that LTC Lakin has sacrificed will be for nothing," the organization's position paper said.

Among the positions the organization takes is that without a legitimate chain of command up to the president, there are problems with any orders or procedures.

"The authority to convene a courts-martial itself is without legal authority when the chain of command is broken at the top," the union position paper said. "This is true for any soldier who has been court-martialed under Barack Hussein Obama, or ordered to deploy by Barack Hussein Obama, until all reasonable doubt concerning Obama's eligibility can be removed by way of fact and evidence."

"This entire matter amounts to a national security crisis beyond monumental proportions, which is why everyone up the chain of command to the White House hopes to keep this case from ever reaching an honest unfettered discovery phase," the group said.

The American Patriot Foundation, which has been running the Safeguard our Constitution website and working in support of Lakin, meanwhile, has confirmed the public still will be able to use the channel to support Lakin.

The foundation said Lakin is focusing on the trial, scheduled Nov. 3-5.

"LTC Lakin is consistent in continuing on the same path that he announced publicly six months ago when he released his first YouTube video ? and consistent with his military training, to continue to request assurance from Pentagon leadership that his military orders, including his deployment orders to Afghanistan, are legal ? authorized at the highest level by a commander-in-chief who is constitutionally eligible, per Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution," the American Patriot Foundation said just yesterday.

"As a medical officer and not a lawyer or constitutional scholar, LTC Lakin is not laying claim to be the sole arbiter of the president's constitutionality in attempting to determine, without any genuine evidence to make such a determination, the president's 'natural born' citizen status," the organization said.

"The burden of proof rests solely on Barack Obama to demonstrate to the American people and to the U.S. armed forces that he commands, that he is lawfully serving in his current capacity as head of the executive branch of the federal government," the foundation said.

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.

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

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 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.

?

?





Bob Unruh is a news editor for WorldNetDaily.com.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:12
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 08 de octubre de 2010

Translation from a machine of french words? only in the previous post.

FULL ARTICLE AT http://puzo1.blogspot.com/


Found in the

Library off Congresses Website Yew you look At Article III in the body off the text below, you will see, the consuls and vice respective consuls could be taken only among the natural subjects of the power which will name them. All will be sharpened by their respective sovereign, and they will be able consequently to make any traffic or trades unspecified neither for their own account, nor for the account of others. Going down further to the end you will find under number 3, The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only Be taken from among the natural born subjects off the power nominating them. They shall all Be appointed by to their respective Sovereign, and in Consequence off such appointment they shall not exercise any traffic gold trades whatsoever either one to their own account, but one account off any other Translation by Charles Thomson secretary off the Continental Congress This is pretty convincing proof that the framers did not need to wait off for the translated edition Vattel' S Law off Nations. It appears they were well apt to relocates it themselves. This accepted translation off natural, predates John Jay' S letter to George Washington by 6 years. From the Library off Journals Congress off the Continental Congress, 1774-1789
FRIDAY, JULY 27,1781 Page 792 | Image page
Link to date-related documents. With honourable memorial from the. the Minister off France was read, accompanied with the plane off has convention for regulating the powers and duties off consuls and vice consuls. MEMORY Philadelphia, July 26,1781. The twenty-ninth article off the treaty off amity and trade, between his Most Christian Majesty and the United States, reserves to the two contracting powers ?the liberty off having each in the ports off the other, consuls, vice consuls, agents and commissaries, whose functions shall Be regulated by has particular agreement.? In consequence off this stipulation, the Court off Versailles has caused has draft to Be made off has convention, relative off to the Establishment consuls, which the undersigned minister plenipotentiary off France has the honour to communicate to Congress. It is the desired off his Majesty, that this draft should Be examined by Congress; and those points marked which admitted No difficulty off; and that the others should Be submitted to the examination off delegates appointed by both left, who may make such observations ace they shall judge proper, and proposes such deteriorations ace they may think convenient. Thesis objects will require discussion in repeated conferences; and the undersigned intreats that given Congress would in what manner thesis conferences shall Be held. The proposed convention requires the most mature consideration off both left; while At the same time it is equally the interest off both, with all speed, to introduce consistency and uniformity into to their respective commercial Establishments; and the undersigned is off opinion that Congress will think it Page 793 | Image page

necessary to prosecute this possible business with all despatch. (Signed) Chev. of Luzerne.1 [Note 1:1 This version is taken from the printed Secret Newspaper, Foreign Affairs; it is also printed in the Diplomatic Correspondence off the American Revolution (Wharton), IV, 604. Another translation is in the Papers off the Continental Congress, No 25, II, folio 17.] Draft convention enters King Tr?s Ch?rtien, and the United States of America Septentrionale, with the effect to determine and fix the functions and prerogatives of the Consuls, Vice Consuls, and of Agens respective. The very Christian king, and the United States of America Septentrionale, being granted, mutually, by article 29 of the treaty of friendship and trade concluded between them, faculty to hold in their respective states, of the consuls, vice consuls, and of the agens, and consequently wanting to determine, and fix in a way reciprocal and permanent the functions and prerogatives of the known as consuls, vice consuls, and respective agens, it was agreed what follows. ARTICLE I consuls, and vice consuls named by the very Christian king, and the United States, will be held to present their provisions to their artiv?e in their respective states. One will deliver to them, without no expenses, the exequatur necessary to the performance of their duties and on the exhibition which they will make of known as the exequatur, the governors, pr?sidens, commandans, chiefs of justice, the bodies of the courts or other officers, taking place authority in the ports and of their consulates, will make there enjoys, at once, and without difficulty, of preeminences, authority and privileges reciprocally granted without them being able Page 794 | Image page

to require known as consuls, and vice consuls no right under any unspecified pretext. ARTICLE II the respective consuls will have faculty to establish vice consuls in the diff?rens ports and places of their department or the need will require it. One will also deliver the exequatur necessary to them to the performance of their duties and on the exhibition which they will make of known as the exequatur they will be admitted and recognized in the terms and according to the capacities, authority and privileges stipulated by articles 1,5, and 6, of this convention. ARTICLE III the consuls and vice respective consuls could be taken only among the natural subjects of the power which will name them. All will be sharpened by their respective sovereign, and they will be able consequently to make any traffic or trades unspecified neither for their own account, nor for the account of others. ARTICLE IV the respective consuls will be able to establish agens in the diff?rens ports and places of their department, where the need will require it. The agens could be selected parrot the national or foreign n?gocians and taunts of patents of the one of the known as consuls; they will be respectively contained to return to the respective commer?ans, navigators, and the possible batimens, all services and to inform the consul or vice consul nearest to the needs for known as the commer?ans, navigators and batimens, without known as the agens being able differently to take part Page 795 | Image page

with immunities, rights and preferences allotted to the consuls and to vice consuls by present convention. ARTICLE V the consuls and vice consuls, the officers of the consulate, and generally all the people attached to the consular functions will enjoy respectively full and whole immunity for their people, their papers, and their houses. They will be free from any personal service and public offices, housing of people of war, militia, guet, guard, supervision, trusteeship, as well as straight, taxes, impositions, unspecified loads, out the goods funds, of which they will be owners, which will be fixed with the taxation imposed of the goods of all other private individuals. They will be able to make place on the door external of their house the weapons of their sovereign, without however that this distinctive mark can give to say it house the right of azile for any criminal or criminal so that IE arriving case or no criminal or criminal would take refuge there it will be returned on the field with the first requisition and without difficulty. ARTICLE VI the consuls or the vice respective consuls, in the places or it will not have there consuls will be able to have in their house a vault to celebrate there the divine service, and the very Christian king as well as the United States, will give precise and effective orders in the ports and places of their domination so that it is not brought any delay nor prevention at the time of the ceremony, of funerals and funeral of the subjects of the one of the two nations, which will have died in the extent of the grounds of the other. Page 796 | Page image ARTICLE VII In all the generally unspecified cases concerning the police force or the administration of justice, or it will be necessary to have a legal declaration of the consuls and vice respective consuls, the governor, the commander, the chief of justice, the bodies of the courts or other unspecified officers of their respective residence having authority there, will be held to prevent them in their writing, or in their sending a military or civil officer, to make them conno?tre, is the object which one proposes is the need in which one is outward journey on their premises to ask them for this declaration, and the known as consuls, or defect consuls will be held on their side to lend itself honestly so that one will wish them in these occasions. ARTICLE VIII the consuls, and vice respective consuls, will be able to establish a chancellery or will be deposited the consular acts and d?1iberations, all the effects forsaken by late, or saved shipwrecks, as well as the testamens, obligations, contracts, and generally all the acts and procedures made, between their nationals. They will be able consequently to make with the exercise to say it chancellery of the able people to receive them; their to make lend oath, give them the Minister of Justice, and the right to seal the commissions, jugemens, and other acts of the consular, like fulfilling the functions there of notaries and clerks. ARTICLE IX. The consuls, and vice respective consuls will have the exclusive right receive in their chancellery, or access Page 797 | Image page

b?timens, the d?clarations and all the other acts, that the captains, momentary owners, crews, and n?gotians, of their nation, will want to pass there, even them testamens and other provisions of last will, and forwardings of the known as acts duement legalized by the known as consuls or vice consuls and provided with the seal of their consulate will be taken, in justice, in all the courts of France, and of the United States. They will have also, and exclusively, the right to make an inventory, liquidation, and to proceed to the sale of the movable effects of the succcession of the subjects of their nation which will come to die in the respective states. They will proceed to it with the assistance of two n?gotians of their known as nation, their choice, and will make deposit in their chancellery the effects, and papers, of the known as successions, without none the military officers, justice, or police force, the country being able to disturb there, nor to intervene there in some manner that it either: But known as consuls and vice consuls will be able to make d?ivrance, of successions and of their product with heirs legitimate where with their agents, that after having made discharge all the debts that the late ones could have contracted in the country by judgement, acts, or tickets whose writing and signature will be recognized and certified, by two notable n?gotians of the nation of known as late, and in all other cases the payment of the debts could be ordnn? only by giving, by the creditor, guarantee sufficient, and domiciled to return the sums indu?ment per?ues, the main thing, inter?ts, and expenses, which guarantees however, will remain du?ment discharged apr?s one year in terns from peace, and two in terns of war; if the demand for discharge cannot be formed before these d?1ais against the heirs who if will present. Page 798 | Page image ARTICLE X the consuls and vice respective consuls, will receive the declarations, and the consulates of all captains and owners of their respective nation, for reason of damages wiped with the sea by voyes of water or jets of goods, even when there are foreign n?gotians interested in the cargo; or these captains and owners will give in the chancellery of the known as consuls and vice consuls the consulates which they will have made in other ports for the accidens, which will be to them arrive during their voyage; and in both cases, the known as consuls and vice respective consuls, will regulate the damage without delay by experts, of their nation which they will name of office; and by experts of part of their nation and the other from abroad in the case or a foreigner will be interested in the cargo. ARTICLE XI In the case or per storm, or another accident, of the vessels or batimens Fran?ois will ?ch?ueront on the coasts of the United States, and of the vessels or batimens of the United States will ech?ueront on the coasts of France, the consul or the vice consul nearest to the place of shipwreck will be able to do all that he will consider so much conyenable to save says it vessel or building, his loading and memberships, which for the magazinage and the safety of the saved effects and goods: He will be able to make of it an inventory without no military officers, of the customs, justice, or the police force of the country being able to involve themselves there differently than to facilitate to the consuls, and vice consuls, captain and crew of the vessel shipwrecked man, or failed, all the helps and favours that they will ask them, either for the celerity and the safety of the rescue, and the saved effects, or to avoid the disorders which Page 799 | Image page

only too often these accidents accompany. To prevent even all esp?ce conflict and of discussion in the known as cases of shipwreck, it was agreed, that at the time it will not be consul or vice consul for fairs to work with the rescue, or that the residence of the known as consul or vice consul who will not be on the place of the shipwreck, will be further away from the known as place than that of the qualified territorial judge, this last will make there proceed on the field with any celerity, the safety and the precautions prescribed by the respective loix, except with the known as territorial judge withdrawing itself; the consul or vice occurring consul, and to give the made procedures by him to him, whose consul or vice consul will make him refund the expenses. The saved goods will have to be deposited with the nearest customs with the inventory which will have been drawn up by it by the consul or vice consul, or in their absence by the judge who will have known some; for, them known as goods, being then delivered, after pr?1evement of the expenses and without form of lawsuit to the owners, who provided with the hand raised with the consul or the vice nearest consul will claim them by them same or their agents; that is to say to defer the goods, and in this case they will not pay any esp?ce export duty; that is to say to sell them in the country, if they are not prohibited there, and in this case, them known as goods being damaged one will grant a moderation to them on the import duties proportioned to the suffered damage, which will be noted by the verbal proc? drawn up at the time of the shipwreck and the failure. ARTICLE XII consuls and vice consuls of the very Christian king, established in the United States, and the consuls and vice consuls of the United States established in France, will exert the police force there on Page 800 | Image page

all the batimens their respective nations and will have access of said the batimens all to be able and jurisdiction in all the discussions which will be able to occur there. They will have a enti?re inspection on known as the batimens, their crews, the changemens, and the remplacemens there to be made, as for all that will relate to their navigation, and the observation of their loix, ordinances, r?glemens respective. They pourfont to be transported access of the batimens of their nation arriving in the ports, harbours or insipid respective, and this as often as they will judge it apropos for the receipt of their load without no officers of the customs, of police force, or others can prevent some. They will be able to make stop any building carrying the house of their respective nation, make it sequester, and even, return it respectively France in the United States and of the United States to France, and make stop without difficulty any captain owner, sailor or passenger to tell them respective nation. They will be able to claim the sailors, deserters, and the vagrants of their respective nation, to make them stop and hold in the country or to return them and make transport out of the country. It will be enough that the consuls or vice respective consuls, can justify that these sailors, deserters and vagrants of such nation that they can be besides, are registered, on their register or are related to the role of the crew, and one or the other of these two parts being sufficient to found the validity of the complaint, detention, and the deportation of the known as sailors, deserters, and vagrants, none iceux, Fran?ois or American will even be able in the respective countries by him or others to claim the loix or the local authority, prohibiting on this any connoissance with all unspecified courts, judges and officers. In all these cases, the known as sailors, deserters and vagrants will be Page 801 | Image page

given to claiming, some are their engagements, and they will be able to become committed, retained or withdrawn in no mani?re unspecified and by which it is, national or foreigners with the searching that the known as consuls or vice consuls, will make some make by people authorized by them and responsible for a requisition signed of them; and for the execution of all the provisions this top the governors, commandans, chiefs of justice, the bodies of the courts or other officers of the respective countries having authority there, will be held and oblige pr?ter strong hand with the consuls and vice respective consuls and on a simple requisition signed of them except making stop, hold and keep in the prisons at the disposal and the expenses of the known as consuls and vice consuls, the sailors, deserters, and the vagrants advertisements until they ayent occasion to make them embark and leave the country. And if known as sailors, deserters, and vagrants in the sight to elude their reference alliguaient that they want to turn over to their fatherland to become prone of S. m.t. C. or the United States, respectively, one will not have any regard to this assertion. ARTICLE XIII In the respective cases or subjects will have committed some crime against somebody of the habitans country, which deserves punishment to exemplair, they will be justiciable to the judges of the country. ARTICLE XIV the consuls and vice consuls of king T.C. established in the United States, and the consuls and vice consuls of the United States established in France, will conno?tront there, other than the courts of the country, of all the diff?rens and lawsuits, which could be born with ground between the captains, owners, Page 802 | Image page

crews, passengers and comm?erans of their respective nation. They will grant them amicably or will judge them summarily, and without expenses, for the call of their jugemens to be carried respectively with the courts of France and of the United States, which judges in last spring, and which will have in conno?tre. They will exert these functions of justice, private, or of police force necessary without none the military officers, justice or police force of the country, being able there to be involved and intervene there in any manner. In all the cases or it will also occur between the n?gotians Fran?ois remaining in established France, and their compatriots ous the protection of the king very chr?rien in the United States, of the diff?rens lawsuit for reason of their trade, as it will occur about it in the same way between the American n?gotians domiciled in the United States, and their compatriots cattle sheds under the protection of ETAS Linked in the royuame of France, pareillement for reason of their trade, known as the diff?rens and lawsuits will be insfruits and judged, summarily and without expenses, between them, each one by the consul or vice consul of their respective nation and the calls of the judgement carried with the respective courts which judge in last spring, either in France, or in the United States. With regard to the others diff?rens and lawsuits, which could be born between the subjects from king T.C. and those from the United States, in the respective states, either like applicants, or like defendants, ones towards the others so much at the time of the supplies, markets, traffic, which they will do units, and of the balances which will result from it, that bill of exchanges, insurances, damages, faillities and of all other civil actions, and criminal, relating to the trade, they will be carried in the country in front of the courts that will owe in conno?tre in first authority and by call, without under any pretext the consuls and vice respective consuls putssentthere to involve in any manner. Page 803 | Page image ARTICLE XV the general utility of the trade having made establish in France of the courts and the particular forms to accelerate the decision of the businesses of trade, the American n?gotians will enjoy the benefit of these ?tablissemens in France, and the United States will get equivalent advantages and coincidents with these courts and these forms in favour of the n?gotians Fran?ois in the businesses of comparable nature. ARTICLE XVI the subjects of the very Christian king, and those of the United States, which will justify being of the body of the respective nation, the certificate of the consul or vice consul of the district making mention of their names, nicknames, and of the place of their establishment like registered voters in the registers of the consulate, will not be able to lose for such cause that it is in the respective fields and states, the quality of subjects of the country in which they are originating, in accordance with article 11 of the treaty of friendship and trade of February 6, 1778, of which this article will be used as interpretation where necessary; and the known as respective subjects will enjoy, consequently, of the exemption of all personal services in the place of their establishment, and moreover, they could be there fixed with no tax relating to industry. ARTICLE XVII All stipulations Ci above founded on an exact reciprocity, will be used henceforth as rules, fixed, and invariable for all the objects, to which they relate; but if some other nation preserves or acquires with such title that it either, or under the terms of an unspecified convention, a more favorable treatment or on Page 804 | Image page

France, is in the United States, relative with the consuls, vice consuls and agens, and with their preeminences, capacities, authority and privileges, the consuls, vice consuls and agens of the very Christian king in the United States, and the consuls, vice consuls and agens of the United States in Frances will take part in it under the terms stipulated by article 11 of the known as treaty of friendship and trade concluded between the very Christian king and the United States. ARTICLE XVIII the ratifications of this convention, will be given in the fine shape and will be exchanged on both sides in the six months space, or rather if to make may be. In roy of what, &c. Conform to the original remained to ourselves. The Knight of the Alfalfa. To Philadelphia on July


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 21:28
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Friday, October 8, 2010

Absoloute Proof Founding Fathers knew and accepted the definition of Vattel`s use of the French naturels was natural born in English not native born!

Absoloute Proof the Founding Fathers knew and accepted the definition of Vattel`s use of the French 'naturels' was 'natural born' in English not 'native born'!


by: Teo the Bear @ http://www.thebirthers.org

Found in the Library of Congress Website

If you look at Article III in the body of the text below, you will see,

Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront ?tre pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera. Tous seront appoint?s par leur souverain respectif, et ils ne pourront en cons?quence faire aucun traffic ou commerce quelconque ni pour leur propre compte, ni pour le compte d'autrui.

Going down further to the end you will find under number 3,

The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them. They shall all be appointed by their respective Sovereign, and in Consequence of such appointment they shall not exercise any traffic or commerce whatsoever either on their own account, or on account of any other
Translation by Charles Thomson secretary of the Continental Congress
This is pretty convincing proof that the framers did not need to wait for the translated edition of Vattel's Law of Nations. It appears they were well apt to translate it themselves. This accepted translation of naturel, predates John Jay's letter to George Washington by 6 years.
From the Library of Congress
?
Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789
FRIDAY, JULY 27, 1781

Page 792 | Page image
Link to date-related documents.

?

?

?

?

A memorial from the honorable. the Minister of France was read, accompanied

with the plan of a convention for regulating the powers and duties of consuls and vice consuls.

MEMOIRE

Philadelphia, July 26, 1781.

The twenty-ninth article of the treaty of amity and commerce, between his Most Christian Majesty and the United States, reserves to the two contracting powers "the liberty of having each in the ports of the other, consuls, vice consuls, agents and commissaries, whose functions shall be regulated by a particular agreement." In consequence of this stipulation, the Court of Versailles has caused a draft to be made of a convention, relative to the establishment of consuls, which the undersigned minister plenipotentiary of France has the honour to communicate to Congress. It is the desire of his Majesty, that this draft should be examined by Congress; and those points marked which admit of no difficulty; and that the others should be submitted to the examination of delegates appointed by both parties, who may make such observations as they shall judge proper, and propose such alterations as they may think convenient. These objects will require discussion in repeated conferences; and the undersigned intreats that Congress would determine in what manner these conferences shall be held. The proposed convention requires the most mature consideration of both parties; while at the same time it is equally the interest of both, with all speed, to introduce consistency and uniformity into their respective commercial establishments; and the undersigned is of opinion that Congress will think it


Page 793 | Page image

necessary to prosecute this business with all possible despatch.

(Signed)Le Chev. de la Luzerne.1

[Note 1: 1 This version is taken from the printed Secret Journal, Foreign Affairs; it is also printed in the Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution (Wharton), IV, 604. Another translation is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 25, II, folio 17.]

Projet de Convention entre le Roi Tr?s Ch?rtien, et les Etats Unis de l'Am?rique Septentrionale, ? l'effet de d?terminer et fixer les fonctions et pr?rogatives des Consuls, Vice Consuls, et des Agens respectifs.

Le roi tr?s chr?tien, et les Etats Unis de l'Am?rique Septentrionale, s'?tant accord?s, mutuellement, par l'article 29 du trait? d'amiti? et de commerce conclu entre eux, la facult? de tenir dans leurs ?tats respectifs, des consuls, vice consuls, et des agens, et voulant en cons?quence d?terminer, et fixer d'une mani?re r?ciproque et permanente les fonctions et pr?rogatives des dits consuls, vice consuls, et des agens respectifs, il a ?t? convenu ce qui suit.

ARTICLE I

Les consuls, et vice consuls nomm?s par le roi tr?s chr?tien, et les Etats Unis, seront tenus de pr?senter leurs provisions ? leur artiv?e dans leurs ?tats respectifs. On leur d?livrera, sans aucun frais, l'exequatur n?cessaire ? l'exercice de leurs fonctions et sur l'exhibition qu'ils feront du dit exequatur, les gouverneurs, pr?sidens, commandans, chefs de justice, les corps des tribunaux ou autres officiers, ayant autorit? dans les ports et lieux de leur consulats, les y feront jouit, aussitot, et sans difficult?, des pr?-?minences, autorit? et privil?ges accord?s r?ciproquement sans qu'ils puissent


Page 794 | Page image

exiger des dits consuls, et vice consuls aucun droit sous aucun pr?texte quelconque.

ARTICLE II

Les consuls respectifs auront la facult? d'?tablir des vice consuls dans les diff?rens ports et lieux de leur d?partement ou le besoin l'?xigera. On leur d?livrera ?galement l'exequatur n?cessaire ? l'exercice de leurs fonctions et sur l'exhibition qu'ils feront du dit exequatur ils seront admis et reconnus dans les termes et selon les pouvoirs, autorit? et privil?ges stipul?s par les articles 1, 5, et 6, de la pr?sente convention.

ARTICLE III

Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront ?tre pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera. Tous seront appoint?s par leur souverain respectif, et ils ne pourront en cons?quence faire aucun traffic ou commerce quelconque ni pour leur propre compte, ni pour le compte d'autrui.

ARTICLE IV

Les consuls respectifs pourront ?tablir des agens dans les diff?rens ports et lieux de leur d?partement, o? le besoin l'?xigera. Les agens pourront ?tre choisis parrot les n?gocians nationaux ou ?trangers et taunts de brevets de l'un des dits consuls; ils se renfermeront respectivement ? rendre aux commer?ans, navigateurs, et batimens respectifs, tous les services possibles et informer le consul ou vice consul le plus proche des besoins des dits commer?ans, navigateurs et batimens, sans que les dits agens puissent autrement participer


Page 795 | Page image

aux immunit?s, droits et privil?ges attribu?s aux consuls et vice consuls par la pr?sente convention.

ARTICLE V

Les consuls et vice consuls, les officiers du consulat, et g?n?ralement toutes les personnes attach?es aux fonctions consulaires jouiront respectivement d'une pleine et enti?re immunit? pour leurs personnes, leurs papiers, et leurs maisons. Ils seront exempts de tout service personnel et offices publics, logement de gens de guerre, milice, guet, garde, tutelle, curatelle, ainsi que de tous droits, taxes, impositions, charges quelconques, hors les biens fonds, dont ils seront propri?taires, les quels seront assujettis aux taxes impos?es sur les biens de tous autres particuliers. Ils pourront faire placer sur la porte ext?rieure de leur maison les armes de leur souverain, sans cependant que cette marque distinctive puisse donner ? la dire maison le droit d'azile pour aucun malfaiteur ou criminel de mani?re que Ie cas arrivant o? aucun malfaiteur ou criminel s'y refugierait il sera rendu sur le champ ? la premi?re r?quisition et sans difficult?.

ARTICLE VI

Les consuls ou les vice consuls respectifs, dans les lieux ou il n'y aura pas de consuls pourront avoir dans leur maison une chapelle pour y c?l?brer le service divin, et le roi tr?s chr?tien ainsi que les Etats Unis, donneront des ordres pr?cis et effectifs dans les ports et lieux de leur domination pour qu'il ne soit apport? aucun retard ni emp?chement lors de la c?r?monie, des obs?ques et fun?railles des sujets de l'une des deux nations, qui seront d?c?d?s dans l'?tendue des terres de l'autre.


Page 796 | Page image

ARTICLE VII

Dans tous les cas g?n?ralement quelconques concernant la police ou l'administration de la justice, o? il sera n?cessaire d'avoir une d?claration juridique des consuls et vice consuls respectiffs, le gouverneur, le commandant, le chef de la justice, les corps des tribunaux ou autres officiers quelconques de leur r?sidence respective y ayant autorit?, seront tenus de les en pr?venir en leur ?crivant, ou en leur envoyant un officier militaire ou civil, pour leur faire conno?tre, soit l'objet que l'on se propose soit la n?cessit? dans la quelle on se trouve d'aller chez eux pour leur demander cette d?claration, et les dits consuls, ou vice consuls seront tenus de leur c?t? de se pr?ter loyalement ? ce qu'on d?sirera d'eux dans ces occasions.

ARTICLE VIII

Les consuls, et vice consuls respectifs, pourront ?tablir une chancellerie ou seront d?pos?s les actes et les d?1iberations consulaires, tous les effets d?laiss?s par d?funts, ou sauv?s des naufrages, ainsi que les testamens, obligations, contrats, et g?n?ralement tous les actes et proc?dures faits, entre leurs nationaux. Ils pourront en cons?quence commettre ? l'exercice de la dire chancellerie des personnes capables les recevoir; leur faire pr?ter serment, leur donner la garde du s?eau, et le droit de sceller les commissions, jugemens, et autres actes du consular, ainsi que d'y remplir les fonctions de notaires et greffiers.

ARTICLE IX.

Les consuls, et vice consuls respectifs auront le droit exclusif de recevoir dans leur chancellerie, ou abord


Page 797 | Page image

des b?timens, les d?clarations et tous les autres actes, que les capitaines, patrons, ?quipages passagers, et n?gotians, de leur nation, voudront y passer, m?me leur testamens et autres dispositions de derniere volont?, et les exp?ditions des dits actes duement l?galis?es par les dits consuls ou vice consuls et munis du s?eau de leur consulat feront foi, en justice, dans tous les tribunaux de France, et des Etats Unis. Ils auront aussi, et exclusivement, le droit de faire l'inventaire, la liquidation, et de proc?der ? la vente des effets mobiliers de la succcession des sujets de leur nation qui viendront mourir dans les ?tats respectifs. Ils y proc?deront avec l'assistance de deux n?gotians de leur dite nation, leur choix, et feront d?poser dans leur chancellerie les effets, et papiers, des dites successions, sans qu'aucun des officiers militaires, de justice, ou de police, du pays puissent les y troubler, ni y intervenir de quelque mani?re que ce soit: Mais les dits consuls et vice consuls ne pourront faire la d?ivrance, des successions et de leur produit aux h?ritiers l?gitimes o? ? leurs mandataires, qu'apr?s avoir fait acquitter toutes les dettes que les d?funts auront pu avoir contract?es dans le pays par jugement, par actes, ou par billets dont l'?criture et la signature seront reconnues et certifi?es, par deux notables n?gotians de la nation des dits d?funts, et dans tous autres cas le payement des dettes ne pourra ?tre ordnn? qu'en donnant, par le cr?ancier, caution suffisante, et domicili?e de rendre les sommes indu?ment per?ues, principal, inter?ts, et frais, lesquelles cautions cependant, demeureront du?ment d?charg?es apr?s une ann?e en terns de paix, et deux en terns de guerre; si la demande en d?charge ne peut ?tr? form?e avant ces d?1ais contre les h?ritiers qui si pr?senteront.


Page 798 | Page image

ARTICLE X

Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs, recevront les d?clarations, et les consulats de tous capitaines et patrons de leur nation respective, pour raison d'avaries essuy?es ? la mer par des voyes d'eau ou jets de marchandise, m?me lorsqu'il y aura des n?gotians ?trangers int?r?ss?s dans la cargaison; ou ces capitaines et patrons remettront dans la chancellerie des dits consuls et vice consuls les consulats qu'ils auront faits dans autres ports pour les accidens, qui leur seront arrives pendant leur voyage; et dans les deux cas, les dits consuls et vice consuls respectifs, r?gleront l'avarie sans d?lai par des experts, de leur nation qu'ils nommeront d'office; et par des experts d'une partie de leur nation et l'autre d'?trangers dans le cas ou un ?tranger sera interess? dans la cargaison.

ARTICLE XI

Dans le cas ou par temp?te, ou autre accident, des vaisseaux ou batimens Fran?ois ?ch?ueront sur les c?tes des Etats Unis, et des vaisseaux ou batimens des Etats Unis ech?ueront sur les c?tes de France, le consul ou le vice consul le plus proche du lieu de naufrage pourra faire tout ce qu'il jugera conyenable tant pour sauver le dit vaisseau ou batiment, son chargement et appartenances, que pour le magazinage et la suret? des effets sauv?s et marchandises: Il pourra en faire l'inventaire sans qu'aucun officiers militaires, des douanes, de la justice, ou de la police du pays puissent s'y immiscer autrement que pour faciliter aux consuls, et vice consuls, capitaine et ?quipage du vaisseau naufrag?, ou ?chou?, tous les secours et faveurs qu'ils leur demanderont, soit pour la c?l?rit? et la suret? du sauvetage, et des effets sauv?s, soit pour ?viter les d?sordres qui


Page 799 | Page image

n'accompagnent que trop souvent ces accidents. Pour pr?venir m?me toute esp?ce de conflit et de discussion dans les dits cas de naufrage, il a ?t? convenu, que lors qu'il ne se trouvera pas de consul ou de vice consul pour fairs travailler au sauvetage, ou que la r?sidence du dit consul ou vice consul qui ne se trouvera pas sur le lieu du naufrage, sera plus ?loign?e du dit lieu que celle du juge territorial comp?tent, ce dernier y fera proc?der sur le champ avec toute c?l?rit?, la suret? et les pr?cautions prescrites par les loix respectives, sauf au dit juge territorial ? se retirer; le consul ou vice consul survenant, et ? lui remettre les proc?dures par lui faites, dont le consul ou vice consul lui fera rembourser les frais. Les marchandises sauv?es devront ?tre d?pos?es ? la douane la plus prochaine avec l'inventaire qui en aura ?t? dress? par le consul ou vice consul, ou en leur absence par le juge qui en aura connu; pour, les dites marchandises, ?tre ensuite d?livr?es, apr?s le pr?1evement des frais et sans forme de proc?s aux proprietaires, qui munis de la main lev?e du consul ou vice consul le plus prochain les r?clameront par eux m?mes ou par leur mandataires; soit pour reporter les marchandises, et dans ce cas elles ne payeront aucune esp?ce de droit de sortie; soit pour les vendre dans le pays, si elles n'y sont pas prohib?es, et dans ce cas, les dites marchandises se trouvant avari?es on leur accordera une mod?ration sur les droits d'entr?e proportion?e au domage souffert, lequel sera constat? par le proc? verbal dress? lors du naufrage et de l'?chouement.

ARTICLE XII

Les consuls et vice consuls du roi tr?s chr?tien, ?tablis dans les Etats Unis, et les consuls et vice consuls des Etats Unis ?tablis en France, y exerceront la police sur


Page 800 | Page image

tous les batimens de leurs nations respectives et auront abord des dits batimens tout pouvoir et jurisdiction dans toutes les discussions qui pourront y survenir. Ils auront une enti?re inspection sur les dits batimens, leurs ?quipages, les changemens, et les remplacemens ? y faire, ainsi que pour tout ce qui concernera leur navigation, et l'observation de leurs loix, ordonnances, r?glemens respectifs. Ils pourfont se transporter abord des batimens de leur nation arrivant dans les ports, havres ou fades respectifs, et ce aussi souvent qu'ils le jugeront apropos pour l'acquit de leur charge sans qu'aucun officiers des douanes, de police, ou autres puissent les en emp?cher. Ils pourront faire arr?ter tout batiment portant le pavillon de leur nation respective, le faire s?questrer, et m?me, le renvoyer respectivement de France dans les Etats Unis et des Etats Unis en France, et faire arr?ter sans difficult? tout capitaine patron, matelot ou passager de leur dire nation respective. Ils pourront r?clamer les matelots, d?serteurs, et les vagabonds de leur nation respective, les faire arr?ter et d?tenir dans le pays ou les renvoyer et faire transporter hors du pays. Il suffira que les consuls ou vice consuls respectifs, puissent justifier que ces matelots, d?serteurs et vagabonds de telle nation qu'ils puissent ?tre d'ailleurs, sont inscrits, sur leur registre ou port?s sur le r?le de l'?quipage, et l'une ou l'autre de ces deux pi?ces ?tant suffisantes pour fonder la validit? de la r?clamation, de la d?tention, et de la d?portation des dits matelots, d?serteurs, et vagabonds, aucun d'iceux, Fran?ois ou Am?ricain ne pourra dans les pays respectifs par lui m?me ou par autrui r?clamer les loix ou l'autorit? locale, interdisant sur ce toute connoissance ? tous tribunaux, juges et officiers quelconques. Dans tous ces cas, les dits matelots, d?serteurs et vagabonds seront


Page 801 | Page image

remis aux r?clamants, quelques soient leurs engagements, et ils ne pourront devenir engag?s, retenus ou soustraits en aucune mani?re quelconque et par qui ce soit, nationaux ou ?trangers ? la perquisition que les dits consuls ou vice consuls, en feront faire par personnes autoris?es par eux et charg?es d'une r?quisition sign?e d'eux; et pour l'?x?cution de toutes les dispositions ce dessus les gouverneurs, commandans, chefs de la justice, les corps des tribunaux ou autres officiers des pays respectifs y ayant autorit?, seront tenus et obliges de pr?ter main forte aux consuls et vice consuls respectifs et sur une simple r?quisition sign?e d'eux sauf ? faire arr?ter, d?tenir et garder dans les prisons ? la disposition et aux frais des dits consuls et vice consuls, les matelots, d?serteurs, et les vagabonds r?clames jusqu' ? ce qu'ils ayent occasion de les faire embarquer et sortir du pays. Et si les dits matelots, d?serteurs, et vagabonds dans la vue d'?luder leur renvoi alliguaient qu'ils veulent retourner ? leur patrie pour devenir sujets de S. M. T. C. ou des Etats Unis, respectivement, on n'aura aucun ?gard ? cette assertion.

ARTICLE XIII

Dans les cas ou les sujets respectifs auront commis quelque crime contre quelqu'un des habitans du pays, qui m?rite punition exemplair, ils seront justiciables des juges du pays.

ARTICLE XIV

Les consuls et vice consuls du roi T. C. ?tablis dans les Etats Unis, et les consuls et vice consuls des Etats Unis ?tablis en France, y conno?tront, ? l'exclusion des tribunaux du pays, de tous les diff?rens et proc?s, qui pourront na?tre ? terre entre les capitaines, patrons,


Page 802 | Page image

?quipages, passagers et comm?erans de leur nation respective. Ils les accorderont amiablement ou les jugeront sommairement, et sans frais, pour l'appel de leur jugemens ?tre port? respectivement aux tribunaux de France et des Etats Unis, qui jugent en dernier ressort, et qui devront en conno?tre. Ils exerceront ces fonctions de justice, prive?, ou de police n?cessaire sans qu'aucun des officiers militaires, de justice ou de police du pays, puissent s'y immiscer et y intervenir en aucune mani?re. Dans tous les cas ou il surviendra aussi entre les n?gotians Fran?ois demeurant en France, et leur compatriotes ?tablis ous la protection du roi tr?s chr?rien dans les Etats Unis, des diff?rens proc?s pour raison de leur commerce, ainsi qu'il en surviendra de m?me entre les n?gotians Am?ricains domicili?s dans les Etats Unis, et leurs compatriotes ?tabl?s sous la protection des Etas Unis dans le royuame de France, pareillement pour raison de leur commerce, les dits diff?rens et proc?s seront insfruits et jug?s, sommairement et sans frais, entre eux, chacun par le consul ou vice consul de leur nation respective et les appels du jugement port?s aux tribunaux respectifs qui jugent en dernier ressort, soit en France, soit dans les Etats Unis. A l'?gard des autres diff?rens et proc?s, qui pourront na?tre entre les sujets du roi T. C. et ceux des Etats Unis, dans les etats respectifs, soit comme demandeurs, soit comme d?fendeurs, les uns envers les autres tant a l'occasion des fournitures, march?s, traffic, qu'ils feront ensembles, et des soldes qui en r?sulteront, que des lettres de change, assurances, avaries, faillities et de toutes autres causes civiles, et criminelles, relatives au commerce, ils seront port?s dans le pays devant les tribunaux que devront en conno?tre en premi?re instance et par appel, sans que sous aucune pr?texte les consuls et vice consuls respectifs putssent s'y immiscer en aucune mani?re.


Page 803 | Page image

ARTICLE XV

L'utilit? g?n?rale du commerce ayant fait ?tablir en France des tribunaux et des formes particuli?res pour acc?l?rer la d?cision des affaires de commerce, les n?gotians Am?ricains jouiront du b?n?fice de ces ?tablissemens en France, et les Etats Unis procureront des avantages ?quivalents et coincidents avec ces tribunaux et ces formes en faveur des n?gotians Fran?ois dans les affaires de m?me nature.

ARTICLE XVI

Les sujets du roi tr?s chr?tien, et ceux des Etats Unis, qui justifieront ?tre du corps de la nation respective, le certificat du consul ou vice consul du district faisant mention de leurs noms, surnoms, et du lieu de leur ?tablissement comme inscrits dans les registres du consulat, ne pourront perdre pour telle cause que ce soit dans les domaines et ?tats respectifs, la qualit? de sujets du pays dont ils sont originaires, conformement ? l'article 11 du trait? d'amiti? et de commerce du 6 Fevrier 1778, dont les pr?sent article servira d'interpr?tation en cas de besoin; et les dits sujets respectifs jouiront, en cons?quence, de l'exemption de tous services personnels dans le lieu de leur ?tablissement, et en outre, ils ne pourront y ?tre assujettis ? aucune taxe relative ? l'industrie.

ARTICLE XVII

Toutes les stipulations ci dessus fond?es sur une exacte r?ciprocit?, serviront dor?navant de regles, fixes, et invariables pour tous les objets, sur lesquels elles portent; mais si quelque autre nation conserve ou acquiert ? tel titre que ce soit, ou en vertu d'une convention quelconque, un traitement plus favorable soit en


Page 804 | Page image

France, soit dans les Etats Unis, relativement aux consuls, vice consuls et agens, et ? leur pr?-?minences, pouvoirs, autorit? et privil?ges, les consuls, vice consuls et agens du roi tr?s chr?tien dans les Etats Unis, et les consuls, vice consuls et agens des Etats Unis en Frances y participeront aux termes stipul?s par l'article 11 du dit trait? d'amiti? et de commerce conclu entre le roi tr?s chr?tien et les Etats Unis.

ARTICLE XVIII

Les ratifications de la pr?sente convention, seront donn?es en bonne forme et ?chang?es de part et d'autre dans l'espace de six mois, ou plut?t si faire se peut.

En roy de quoi, &c.

Conforme ? l'original rest? par devers nous.

Le Chevalier de la Luzerne.

A Philadelphie le 24 Juillet, 1781.1

???????????????????????????? READ FULL POST AT?? http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted here by:
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al v Obama et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org
####

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:57
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
?
??
2010-10-08

Huge Ramifications of Lt. Col.?s ?Obama Eligibility Case?



By Pat Shannan

The records of modern military tribunals often seem like a page torn from the dreaded British star chambers of the same era. The recent court martial sham of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin is the latest example. Also a medical doctor, Lakin is the highest ranking member of any branch of the armed forces still on active duty to refuse direct orders to report to a war zone?acting under the belief that because President Barack Obama (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro) has refused to prove himself a natural-born American citizen as the Constitution requires, any orders coming from the acting ?commander-in-chief ? would be illegal.

On Sept. 3, a female officer in the U.S. Army, Col. Denise R. Lind, acting as a judge in the prosecution of Lakin, ruled that the military is ?no place for Barack Obama?s presidential eligibility to be evaluated.?

Lind used the argument of ?not wishing to embarrass the president? and summarized with the decision that Lakin will be denied access to any of Obama?s records as well as any testimony from those who may have access to the records in the October court martial. Federal judges without exception have denied all access to any requested documentation by the many plaintiffs regarding the president?s eligibility over the past two years.

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.

Retired Army Gen. Paul Vallely of the newly founded United States Patriots Union (USPU) told this writer that the main thrust should be based on evidence other than the birth certificate because the chain of command has been corrupted from the White House to the Pentagon and all the way down to convening authority (he who convenes the court martial).

Finding foundational flaws in Lind?s decision to effectively eliminate Lakin?s defense, the USPU, along with the U.S. Bar Association [not to be confused with the ?official? American Bar Association. ?Ed.], issued written advice urging the Lakin defense team to adjust its strategy, after receiving word that Lakin would be denied access to discovery and mitigating evidence needed to provide for a legitimate defense.

Vallely believes that there are only two potential outcomes of this court martial, and that both outcomes bring certain challenges. He said, ?The first priority of USPU must be to unite in defense of Lakin in an effort to arrive at the best possible outcome for both Lakin and the nation.?

He defined the heavy ramifications of either resulting verdict. If Lakin is found guilty of wrongfully refusing orders, he says it carries these legal precedents:

1) Anyone, without so much as a birth certificate, can hold the office of president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the U.S. military.

2) All soldiers must blindly follow orders, whether or not those orders are legal.

3) Not even a high-ranking officer has the right to challenge the lawfulness of the orders. On the other hand, should Lakin be found not guilty of wrongfully refusing orders, as the president?s illegitimacy of office is confirmed, then these precedents will have been established:

1) Every soldier must make the same decision Lakin made, to follow or not to follow an illegal command.

2) The military chain of command is broken at the top of the chain.

3) Obama must be removed from office and there is no one in the normal line of succession to the Oval Office who can replace him, as they were all complicit in the fraud on America.

Lakin does not have to prove that his assertions are true and accurate, USPU says. Rather, the commander- in-chief must prove that the assertion is false in order to proceed with the prosecution on the grounds that Lakin has refused a lawful order. The burden of proof is on the White House, in other words.

A sworn affidavit filed by Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney (ret.), a former Air Force Convening Authority himself, says, ?In refusing to obey orders because of his doubts as to their legality, Lakin has acted exactly as proper training dictates. By thus stepping up to the bar, [he] 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.?

AFP also is continuing to follow the case of Walter Fitzpatrick, a retired Navy lieutenant commander. As AFP has reported, Fitzpatrick is challenging Obama?s birth status in the Tennessee courts at the state and federal levels.



The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:32
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Friday, October 8, 2010

Obamacon 2012: Third National Conference on Barack Obama's Missing Birth Certificate, College Records and Religion, November 9-16, 2010.

?


Via Andy Martin; The 2012 presidential campaign begins in Honolulu November 9-16, 2010. Obama author and film producer Andy Martin will head a Third National Conference on Barack Obama's Missing Birth Certificate, College Records and Religion in Honolulu on November 9-16, 2010. The conference is titled "Obamacon 2012."

Martin is the author of "Obama: The Man Behind the Mask" and producer of the film "Obama: The Hawai'i Years"

Dear Friends:

The 2012 presidential campaign begins in Honolulu on November 9, 2010. Barack Obama fooled a lot of voters in 2007-2008. He won't fool the American People again in 2012.

Our November 9-16, 2010 Honolulu meeting is titled: Obamacon 2012

The "Third National Conference on Barack Obama's Missing Birth Certificate, College Records and Religion" will be a landmark in American political history. Never before have ordinary Americans prepared in advance to legally remove an occupant of the White House due to serious questions about his eligibility to serve as president.

Because I have always limited myself to searching for the truth and finding the facts about Barack Obama, I enjoy worldwide credibility as the first investigative scholar on Barack Obama's early years. I believe it is inappropriate to attack Obama with anything less than the facts and truth. My book on Barack Obama, "Obama: The Man Behind The Mask" continues to sell through the publisher [OrangeStatePress.com] because it is an attempt to get at the truth behind Barack Obama.

As a result of the efforts which I began in 2004 to shed light on Barack Obama's family history, nearly 100 millions have eventually come to have doubts about Obama's credibility.

We are the most spontaneous political movement in American history.

All of you want to discuss and review developments in 2010 concerning Obama's birth, high school/college/law school records and religion. That's why we organized the Third National Conference for November 9-16 in Honolulu, the supposed "birthplace" of Obama, although Hawai'i officials continue to refuse to release his original 1961 birth certificate.

Why does Obama persist in refusing to release his original typewritten 1961 Hawai'i birth certificate? Why does he refuse to release any of his Punahou School (Honolulu private school) records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records or his Harvard Law School records? Obama's says "trust me." Nearly 100 million Americans do not.

1. Location

The conference will be held in Honolulu November 9-16, 2010. We plan a number of sessions over that period, as well as ample opportunity for you to conduct your own investigative activity and familiarize yourself with the Obama myth.

Obama saboteurs stole the tapes of our first National Conference in Washington, DC. We will ensure they do not steal the tape of Obamacon 2012. For some reason, Obama and his associates are terrified of the investigative work we do on his personal history. What is he hiding? What doesn't he want us to find out?

2. Hawai'i freedom of information materials

We are still fighting in court to release Obama's birth records and Hawai'i state records on the political cover-up orchestrated by Hawai'i Democrats.

3. Conference Registration fee and ID requirement

As always, we need some advance indication of how large the attending group could be to make space-planning decisions. Therefore, we have added a nominal $50 advance registration fee which covers all sessions. Please fill out the attendance form and mail it back with the $50 to arrive in New York before November 8th. Please include a copy of a photo ID so we can confirm your identity when you arrive at the conference. (In order to enhance security there will not be any "at the door" registration.) Once we know how many to plan for, we can work out how formal or informal to be.

We are currently scouting meeting options in Honolulu. We will notify you by e-mail as to the locations. You can also follow developments on our blog. We will be using our original blog, http://nationalconferenceonobama.blogspot.com/, for the third time.

4. Conference agenda

In the near future you will be receiving the first draft of our proposed agenda. You are invited to begin submitting suggestions, comments and proposals for any future revisions.

5. All are welcome-but please bring evidence, not illusions

Anyone is welcome to register and attend our conference. But please, if you want to express a theory, bring some rational, tangible evidence to support your claims about Mr. Obama. Those of you who know me know I am committed to working only with accurate information and, as we lawyers say, "reasonable inferences drawn from the available facts or available documentation."

Pie-in-the-sky will not fly. Hucksters who use bogus documents to obtain anti-Obama publicity only undermine legitimate inquiries into Obama's opaque past. We need to search for the truth and look for the facts.

6. Security

We will have adequate arrangements for security in case Obama's desperate sycophants try to disrupt us again.

7. Media

Media are welcome to register. We will be providing twitter.com updates during the conference (twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA).

8. Visitors to Honolulu

We selected November 9-16, 2010 for the conference because the dates fall just before air fares dramatically increase for the holiday season. There are many accommodations options in Honolulu. Please avoid lavish or extravagant spending while attending because we are there on business. Otherwise, we encourage a tourist/vacation boycott of Hawai'i (go to www.BoycottHawaii.com).

We will be issuing updates of this letter, so please feel free to make suggestions.

And please remember we operate on a shoestring, so contribute any shoestrings you can afford to help make Obamacon 2012 a success. We are going to be issuing separate fundraising letters. Please donate online at:

www.CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com

There are two dimensions to the tragedy Obama has inflicted on the American people. After rigorous study I have come to believe there is a compelling case that he is ineligible to serve as president. That's the first tragedy: Americans were lulled into voting for a man who was not eligible to serve as president because they were betrayed by the mainstream media and Democratic Party.

But even if it is ultimately held that Obama is eligible, he is unfit to serve as president. His socialist agenda is undermining our national security and destroying our economy. I was the first person to "out" Obama as a socialist on national television in 2008; go to the tape:



You will receive a separate email with the Obamacon 2012 conference registration form.

God Bless the United States, and God protect us from Barack Obama until the day he is removed from the White House.

With best wishes,

Andy Martin
Executive Director -

Obamacon Sponsors:
www.ThePostEMail.com
www.ContrarianCommentary.com
www.StopObamaCoalition.com
www.CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com

Also, on Wednesday, October 13th, Andy Martin will be interviewed on Steve Cooper's radio show the Conservative Monster. More details on the interview can be found here; http://theconservativemonster.com/2010/10/08/andy-martin-what-is-obama-hiding.aspx

Previous reports on Andy Martin 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].


Official Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth vs Obama's Certification of Live Birth

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:31
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 06 de octubre de 2010


The presidential seal falls from the podium during Obama's speech at the 2010 Fortune Most Powerful Women Summit.
Obama then states that you know who I am.
Yes we do.
A usurper.


"Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?"


Read more at:

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com

http://citizenwells.com


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:48
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner on the Revolution Radio Show hosted by Dr. Kate - Wed, 06 Oct 2010, 9:00 p.m. EST

Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Kerchner will be guests on the Revolution Radio Show hosted by Dr. Kate on Wednesday, 6 Oct 2010, at ~9:10 p.m. EST. They will be discussing the recent filing of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court for the Kerchner et al v Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al lawsuit. Direct link to the station at BlogTalkRadio.com:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drkate/

Also stop by and read Dr. Kate's blog at:
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, see this site and help the cause:
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:33
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 05 de octubre de 2010
?
The doctor, the president and the birth certificate

Posted: October 05, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

??2010
WorldNetDaily

http://www.wnd.com/

?

?

A decorated Army flight surgeon, after 18 years of service including year-long tours in Honduras, Bosnia and Afghanistan, now risks his career and faces almost certain court-martial and imprisonment.

Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin claims there's a serious conflict between adhering to his military oath and obeying deployment orders coming down the existing chain of command with Barack Obama at the top ? since the president's constitutional eligibility to be commander in chief has never been documented.

Although some scoff, Lakin is acting "exactly" as "proper training dictates," confirms retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, a Fox News military analyst who served as vice commander in chief of USAF forces in Europe. Likewise, the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore, agrees Lakin "has every right to question the lawfulness of the orders of the commander in chief."

Moreover, just like Lakin, 3 out of 5 Americans ? 58 percent according to a recent CNN poll and 61 percent according to a "60 Minutes/Vanity Fair" poll ? are not convinced Barack Obama was born in Hawaii as he has long claimed. The Constitution requires in Article 2 Section 1 that every president be a "natural born citizen."

So, now this veteran Army doctor, who would much rather continue serving his country than go to prison, is respectfully telling the military tribunal judging him that he needs for Obama or his representatives to prove that the president is occupying his office constitutionally.

In simple terms, Col. Lakin wants to see Obama's birth certificate.

A special report with evidence galore: "The Case for Impeachment: Why Barack Hussein Obama Should be Impeached to Save America"

Not the computer-generated summary document that almost everyone in the media mindlessly and ignorantly refers to as "Obama's birth certificate," but the actual document that virtually everyone reading these words possesses ? showing the hospital of birth (to date, no hospital on earth officially claims Obama was born there), the attending physician or midwife and similar information that actually proves where and when he was born.

For Obama, at long last, to produce the documentation proving his eligibility to be commander in chief is critical not just to Lakin's defense, said McInerney, but to the preservation of the nation itself.

Indeed, in an extraordinary affidavit he filed with the court in Lakin's defense, McInerney, who also served as assistant vice chief of staff of the Air Force and commander of the 3rd Tactical Fighter Wing, made this bold statement:

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.

Adds McInerney: "Officers in the United States military service are ? and must be ? trained that they owe their highest allegiance to the United States Constitution."

So, what does the officer presiding over Lakin's court-martial say in response to all this?

Army Col. Denise R. Lind, acting as judge in the case, has so far ruled that Lakin will be denied access to any of Obama's records as well as testimony from any who may have access to his records. Her reason for what amounts to denying Lakin the right to defend himself is, according to Lind, that producing such evidence about Obama in a military tribunal could be ? and I'll quote her exact word ? an "embarrassment" to the president.

Let's make this crystal clear: Lakin's whole argument is that the sacrosanct chain of command may well have been corrupted by a usurper ? and millions of Americans agree he has valid reason to suspect this is the case. Yet the presiding officer in the hearing has ruled that neither Lakin nor his defense team may present any evidence bearing on Obama's eligibility to be president ? because it might be embarrassing.

Instead, the only "defense" Lakin is being allowed, by Lind's order, revolves around whether a deployment order was given (no one contests this) and whether he refused to obey it (no one contests this either). In other words, this is shaping up as a sham proceeding in which Lakin cannot defend himself, reminiscent of the kind of justice the old Soviet Union used to mete out in kangaroo courts, followed by imprisonment.

Since when does "embarrassment" ? especially since the embarrassment in question wouldn't even occur unless Obama actually were indeed lying and usurping the office of the presidency ? have anything to do with administering justice?

Truly an amazing and consequential case, both for Lakin and for the nation.

Why, then, have you not heard anything about it from the rest of the media?

Because it's the "mainstream media" ? which Rush Limbaugh calls the "state-run media" ? that gave us Obama as president in the first place, and which continues to run interference for him to this day. (Who can forget the "thrill going up" Chris Matthews' leg and Newsweek's Evan Thomas rhapsodizing that Obama was "sort of God"?)

Moreover, when it comes to the question of Obama's constitutional eligibility, the media, including much of the "conservative" or "alternative" media, remain in denial ? with the exception of WorldNetDaily, which has endured constant ridicule and marginalization for daring to cover what the CEO of a major radio syndicator recently told me was "the story of the decade."

Fortunately, most conservative talkers ? with the notable exception of Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck ? admit this is an important, albeit radioactive, story. Beck and O'Reilly, both immensely talented commentators whom I enjoy watching, live in a "birthers-are-crazy" bubble in which they reassure each other there's just nothing to this "conspiracy theory" ? you know, the one 3 out of 5 Americans now suspect is true, according to repeated polling. Meanwhile, virtually the entire rest of the talk-radio world acknowledges the issue's legitimacy ? from Rush Limbaugh ("All [Obama] has to do is show a birth certificate") and Sean Hannity ("What was so wrong in saying that, 'Can we see your birth certificate?'") to Lou Dobbs ("I don't understand why he shouldn't produce a birth certificate") and Michael Savage ("the presidency may have been usurped by a foreign power"). Not to mention politicians, from U.S. congressmen ("Those are legitimate constitutional concerns") to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin ("I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue").

Although most of these good folks are still somewhat afraid of the issue ? nobody likes to be mocked and attacked mercilessly ? at least they acknowledge occasionally that it's a valid and important issue.

Maybe things are starting to change. I increasingly see conscientious pundits threading this scary needle ? first engaging in the obligatory distancing of themselves from the "birthers," and then agreeing with them. A typical "non-birther birther" would be National Review's Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and highly respected analyst, who after making clear he doesn't give credence to conspiracy theories, nevertheless argues that Obama seriously owes it to the American public to come clean with the major documentation of his past, including his birth certificate.

For the record, this is exactly what I ? and Joseph Farah and Jerome Corsi and Aaron Klein and pretty much every other journalist at WND ? believe. After exhaustive research, we don't know where he was born, and neither do you. Not only does he continue to conceal his birth records, but also the rest of his life's documentation ? his 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, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, and on and on. All the documents that are a routine matter of public record for all other presidents are, for Obama, hidden. And if you try to access them to find out what he's hiding, you're called a conspiracy nut.

Meanwhile, we're about to witness the spectacle of a true patriot, a decorated military physician who wants nothing more than to save more lives and continue to serve his country, a man of admirable conscience and backbone, being court-martialed and sent to Fort Leavenworth prison as a sacrificial lamb because the "judge" ? just like the establishment press and so many others for whom Obama is "too big to fail" ? is fearful of "embarrassing" the president.

If this isn't an outrage, then we have lost our capacity for moral indignation in America.

Barack Obama, if he indeed has been lying about his constitutional qualification to serve as president, should be more than embarrassed ? he should be impeached. But that's for next year.

Right now, dear reader, help Col. Lakin. Later will be too late. His court-martial is scheduled for Nov. 3-5.

  1. Send a contribution, whatever you can manage, to Col. Lakin's Legal Defense Fund.

  2. Write, call and e-mail your congressmen and senators about this case. Call talk radio shows. Forward this column to your friends. Do what you can and make your voice heard!




David Kupelian is an award-winning journalist, managing editor of WorldNetDaily.com, editor of Whistleblower magazine and author of the best-selling book, "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom." His newest book is "How Evil Works: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America."

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:13
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar


WND Exclusive
BORN IN THE USA

New strategy for officer

testing Obama's eligibility

Army doctor wants simple question

answered: Are orders legal?


Posted: October 04, 2010
8:49 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
??2010?WorldNetDaily

?


Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin

There's a new lawyer and a new, still-unreleased strategy being developed for a career doctor in the Army who is challenging the president to prove his eligibility to be commander in chief and, therefore, document the validity of his orders.

The challenge is being made by Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, whose most recent hearing in the military judiciary found the judge essentially concluding that he would be allowed to argue only two points at a court-martial: whether he was issued orders and whether he followed them.

According to the American Patriot Foundation, which has been running the Safeguard our Constitution website and working in support of Lakin, that work will continue with minor modifications.

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

The group confirmed links to a defense fund set up for Lakin will continue to provide the public an opportunity to have a hand in an issue that the officer considers so serious it's worth endangering his career.


Neither Lakin nor his new attorney, who according to online reports is Neal Puckett, could be reached immediately for details.

But the firm's website said Puckett served as a ground combat officer for the U.S. Marine Corps and for some time, the firm's sole focus was military law.

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

The American Patriot Foundation, in its announcement, said Lakin is repositioning his forces and will be focusing for the next several weeks on the court-martial, scheduled now for Nov. 3-5.

"LTC Lakin is consistent in continuing on the same path that he announced publicly six months ago when he released his first YouTube video ? and consistent with his military training, to continue to request assurance from Pentagon leadership that his military orders, including his deployment orders to Afghanistan, are legal ? authorized at the highest level by a commander-in-chief who is constitutionally eligible, per Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution," the foundation said.

"As a medical officer and not a lawyer or constitutional scholar, LTC Lakin is not laying claim to be the sole arbiter of the president's constitutionality in attempting to determine, without any genuine evidence to make such a determination, the president's 'natural born' citizen status," the organization said.

"The burden of proof rests solely on Barack Obama to demonstrate to the American people and to the U.S. armed forces that he commands, that he is lawfully serving in his current capacity as head of the executive branch of the federal government," the foundation said.

The foundation said Army prosecutors, along with the acting judge in the case, Denise Lind, have "made this determination of the commander in chief's eligibility under the Constitution impossible ? by denying discovery ? and essentially denying LTC Lakin the customary due process rights that defendants in American courts enjoy when facing criminal charges."

Lind, at the last hearing in Lakin's case, censored the last remaining arguments Lakin's original counsel had planned for the case: motive and duty. Lakin had intended to explain his motive for disobeying a deployment order and contend it was his duty as a good soldier to disobey orders he believes illegal.

Earlier, Lind ruled that nothing regarding the president could be discussed during the trial. She noted at that time providing documentation on the president might prove "embarrassing" for him.

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 told WND in an earlier interview.

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.

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 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 @ 10:57
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 04 de octubre de 2010

?

Subscribe to Our Newsletter | Contribute to the Defense Fund | About the Foundation | Watch Terry's Video | Get Graphics and Banners | Search the Site | Letters to Terry
YOU CAN HELP: CONSIDER A CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEFENSE FUND: Click here now for information... || Link to This Site
We appreciate the thousands of responses to Terry's case. Please note that even though we cannot respond to each request individually we read every one.
Please keep supporting Terry with your prayers and finances.
????
Terry Needs Your Support
PLEASE MAKE A TAX DEDUCTIBLE CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEFENSE FUND NOW:
We are at a critical stage and costs are mounting. Can you help today?

Click here now...
Key Document on The Issue
Western Journalism: Update on "Clearing the Smoke on Obama's Eligibility" The most complete overview of the issue.
[Get a PDF of this Document icon_pdf]

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:54
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 03 de octubre de 2010


WND Exclusive
FAITH UNDER FIRE
Now 'under God' dropped from Gettysburg Address!
'We now have positive evidence they know exactly what they are doing'

Posted: October 03, 2010
12:10 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
??2010?WorldNetDaily

?

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks at the announcement of the Change the Equation initiative at the White House in Washington September 16, 2010. The initiative seeks to improve science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education to better prepare students to lead in the 21st century economy. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS EDUCATION)

Barack Obama twice in recent days has dropped from a quotation from the Declaration of Independence a reference to the "Creator," and now a columnist at First Things has documented how a self-described "leading progressive legal organization" has simply dropped "under God" from the Gettysburg address.

WND reported on the first incident, from Sept. 15, when Obama told a meeting of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus that the document states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

But the actual quotation is:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The video, where the reference appears shortly past the 22-minute mark:

?

CNS news reported just a week later, Sept. 22, when Obama, speaking to a fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, did it again.

It was then he said, "If we stay true to our values, if we believe that all people are created equal and everybody is endowed with certain inalienable rights and we're going to make those words live, and we're going to give everybody opportunity, everybody a ladder into the middle class, every child able to go as far as their dreams will take them ? if we stay true to that, then we're going to be able to maintain the energy and the focus, the fight, the gumption to get stuff done."

Classic book on USA's Christian heritage: New edition of 100-year-old treasure reveals nation's true religious history

Now comes word from Robert George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, writing in the August/September edition of the First Things website, which is run by The Institute on Religion and Public Life, a nonpartisan research and education institute designed to "advance a religiously informed public philosophy."

He wrote of attending a conference where the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy was distributing copies of a pamphlet with the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address and the Constitution.

George noted that the society includes board members former New York Times Superme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse, controversial Obama judicial nominee Goodwin Liu and former attorney general Janet Reno.

"How nice, I thought. Here is a convenient, pocket-sized version of our fundamental documents, including Lincoln's great oration at Gettysburg on republican government," George wrote.

He described how, since he had memorized the Gettysburg address in school, he started reciting it, then stumbled on the final paragraph, so he opened the booklet and read: "It is rather for us, the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us ? that, from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion ? that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth."

Wrote George, "Deeply moving ? but?"

"Did you notice what had been omitted? What's missing is Lincoln's description of the United States as a nation under God. What Lincoln actually said at Gettysburg was: 'That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom."

He noted the "progressive" group, which has featured speakers including Al Gore, Joe Biden, Edward Kennedy, Barney Frank, Jesse Jackson, John Edwards, Gary Hart, Janet Reno and Eric Holder, must have found Lincoln's quotation "a little inconvenient."

"In assembling their pamphlet they were eager to include Lincoln as a founder ? the author of one of America's founding documents, the Gettysburg Address. But the Great Emancipator's characterization of the United States as a nation under God appears to undermine the strict separationism that the American Constitution Society wishes to promote."

He said it is apparent that the omission was noted, since "the version of the pamphlet now available as a PDF download on the American Constitution Society's website has been amended to introduce the words 'The Hay Draft.'"

That is one of several documents containing parts or all of Lincoln's address, he explained. Of the five historical records, three contain the words "under God" and two, including the Hay Draft, do not.

But George called the addition of the reference a "tail-covering maneuver." And he described the Hay draft as having "the greatest number of deviations from the other drafts and from what Lincoln is known to have said at Gettysburg."

"Three entirely independent reporters, including a reporter for the Associated Press, telegraphed their transcriptions of Lincoln's remarks to their editors immediately after the president spoke. All three transcriptions include the words 'under God,' and no contemporaneous report omits them," George wrote. "There isn't really room for equivocation or evasion: Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address ? one of the founding texts of the American republic ? expressly characterizes the United States as a nation under God."

Caroline Fredrickson, the executive director of the ACS, posted a response that called George's concerns a "calculated distraction."

"At a time when many conservative pundits and policymakers can only try to distract from the administration's efforts to address real problems, it is perhaps not surprising that some would try to refocus attention on such peripheral issues," she said.

She described the concerns as "hysteria."

But George noted, "The omission of the words 'under God' in a document characterized as a founding text by a liberal legal advocacy organization in the context of our contemporary debates over the role of religion in American public life and the meaning of the Constitution's provisions pertaining to religion is just too convenient. We now have positive evidence that they know exactly what they are doing, and, to achieve the result they want, they are willing to violate scholarly consensus, common sense, and the memorization of generations of schoolchildren."


If you would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today's WND Poll.

?


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:36
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 01 de octubre de 2010
Friends
?
At this link? http://www.cubacollectibles.com/cuba-108-cc7.html? you can buy the video about Che COVERING CUBA 7: The other side of an Icon
??
Estimados
?
En este link http://www.cubacollectibles.com/cuba-108-cc7.html? pueden comprar el video sobre el Che COVERING CUBA 7: The other side of an Icon.

Agustin Blazquez, producer/director

AB INDEPENDENT PRODUCTIONS

4020 Rickover Road

Silver Spring, MD? 20902-2331

301 949-8791

[email protected]

http://www.YouTube.com/JAUMS

?

Se presenta en Miami.
?

World premiere of the documentary CHE: THE OTHER SIDE OF AN ICON, produced & directed by Agustin Blazquez at the Miami-Dade College?s Tower Theater, on October 8 & 9 (6:45 pm) & 10 (4:30 pm), 2010. Sponsored in part by the Miami-Dade College. Also an screening at the University of Miami's Casa Bacardi on October 11, 2010 (6:30 pm) and a premiere at Maison de l'Amerique Latine in Paris, France, sponsored by Zoe Valdes, Ricardo Vega & Lunaticas Productions on October 18, 2010 (9:00 pm).

With the testimonies of/Con los testimonios de:

Abel N. Morales, Agustin Alles Soberon, Antonio de la Cova, Armando M. Lago, Barbara Rangel Rojas, Barbara Rojas, Emilio Izquierdo, Ernesto Betancourt, Enrique Encinosa, Enrique Ros, Felix Ismael Rodriguez, Gustavo Mata, Humberto Fontova, Jaime Suchliki, Javier D. Souto, Jorge Beruff, Margot Menendez, Pedro Corzo, Roberto Bismarck, Rolando Casta?o, Roberto Martin Perez & Sergio G. Mu?iz

Mi hijo Gustavo Mata presenta la historia de su abuelo asesinado por ordenes del Che.

My son Gustavo Mata will show the history of his grandfather killed by orders from Che.

Miriam Mata

http://www.cheasesino.com

?

VIDEO IN HONOR OF CHE'S VICTIMS AT LA CABANA PLUS A CLIP FROM A MOVIE

HOW CUBANS DIED AT THE FIRING SQUAD BY CHE'S ORDERS.


?

?


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

LTC Lakin faces lengthy prison term for refusing to deploy

to Afghanistan Obama Administration unleashes Army

lawyers instead of releasing birth certificate

http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:34
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

A Test for the?Supremes

?2010 drkate

This case is about whether our nation should allow a precedent created by a popular vote to stand that makes it possible for an individual who is born with dual and conflicting foreign allegiance to become President and Commander-in-Chief of the Military.? This case is about whether we should allow a critical question such as the meaning of a ?natural born Citizen? to be answered by the political parties and the people through their act of voting at the polls, or by the judicial branch of government?

On September 30 2010, a petition to the Supreme Court asking them to grant a Writ of Certiorari in the Kerchner v. Obama and Congress lawsuit was filed by Attorney Apuzzo for Commander Kerchner.? Painstakingly shepherding this case through the proper legal procedures for more than twenty (20) months, without legal error or misstep,? Commander Kerchner?s? case is finally ripe for judicial review.

The petition delineates in considerable detail the reasons why the Supreme Court should take the case, offering a slightly different perspective on the excellent pleadings that have characterized Kerchner?s effort since January 2009.

?

Kerchner argues that because the lower courts have dismissed the case without ever considering the underlying merits and facts,? they have in fact decided important matters of federal and constitutional law that can only be settled by the Supreme Court.

Noting that the facts in Kerchner?s filings? have never been disputed throughout the proceedings,? Attorney Apuzzo points out that by law Kerchner?s? arguments? legally must be accepted as true.? Recall that the only ?defense? Obama put up was to invent a strawman case to argue about standing and jurisdiction?thus there is no substantive legal argument refute any of the allegations made in the Kerchner lawsuit.? The Obama ?defense? is an empty suit, just like the man-child himself.

National Security of the United States

Of the many fine arguments in this petition, I will focus on the national security argument for Attorney Apuzzo has deftly linked the case of LTC Terrence Lakin to the necessity of the Supreme Court?s review.

Petitioners? claims involve the national security of the United States which is now vitally at risk.? Because both the District Court and the Court of Appeals found that petitioners do not have Article III standing, those courts never decided the underlying merits of petitioners case.

Citing the lower Courts? refusal to address the merits of the case, and its frivolous recommendation that Kerchner seek a legislative or political solution, the filings delineate that the case is

about whether we should allow a critical question such as the meaning of a ?natural born Citizen? to be answered by the political parties and the people through their act of voting at the polls, or by the judicial branch of government

and that

The answer to this question has direct implication not only for the protection of life, liberty, and property?but also for the national security of the United States?for who is allowed to wield the all and singular powers of the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Military is of vital importance to the preservation and survival of the constitutional republic?

Delineating once again the Framers intent, and citing John Jay and other historic information, the petition asserts that the reason for a ?natural born Citizen? as President was to provide a ?strong check? on foreign influence making its way into our government and specifically in the Office of the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Military.

If the President and Commander-in-Chief is ineligible for those offices, both our civilian and military sectors need to know that as soon as possible. Whether he is legitimate is also vital in maintaining the proper chain of command in our military and in giving legality to all military orders that emanate from him.

Kerchner asks the Court

to take judicial notice of an affidavit filed by Lt. General Thomas G. McInerney in the court-martial proceeding of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin who is currently in court-martial proceedings for his refusal to obey orders ?on the grounds that Obama has yet to show that he is a ?natural born Citizen?.

I am grateful to Commander Kerchner for inclusion of the Terry Lakin case in these filings, as it will help bring high level attention to this case of a soldier simply trying to honor his oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Some Final Surprises

The filings contain some additional reasons for the Supreme Court to grant the writ of certiorari, underscoring the extremely important and urgent need to address the issue of Obama?s eligibility:

  • The impact of an ineligible President on the legitimacy and integrity of U.S. foreign policy;
  • The need for the Court to take the case to maintain the proper balance of power among the branches of government;
  • The need to protect the rule of law
  • In the context of non-citizen permanent residence in the U.S., the number of illegal aliens, and the number of children in the United States born to alien (one or two) parents, the Nation needs a definition of ?natural born Citizen? for future presidential and vice presidential elections.

And the best surprise of all?? Try this:

We respectfully request that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455 (a) and (b), Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan should recuse themselves from having any involvement or deciding any issues in petitioners? petition to the Supreme Court in which they are challenging the legitimacy of the putative President Obama, the government official who appointed them to their offices.? The validity of their appointments can be questioned should Mr. Obama be found not eligible to be President which could cause them to lose their appointment in which they have a financial interest.

:lol:

Stay tuned.? This is the hour we have been waiting for, as all of our other efforts are beginning to culminate in a massive push to expose and remove the usurper.? The outcome of this case, and the LTC Lakin court-martial, will be signals for our next steps.

?


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

?

?

LIBERAL DEMOCRAPS ARE TRAITORS TO THE USA. In the last 50 years, liberals(LIKE OBAMA) have sided with every enemy that America has had. Viet Cong troops were loved by Hanoi Jane and Hanoi John and you liberals supported the communist troops over those of us that were drafted and had to go over there Communist USSR ? Stalin was called ?Uncle Joe? by Liberals (commie loving scumbags) while he exterminated close to 25 million people. Cuba ? Fidel a folk hero loved by liberals everywhere Venezuela ? Chevez, another communist dictator revered and loved by liberals Terrorist Nations and terrorist groups (they?re peaceful people who hate women / anyone who?s not in their particular sect / behead people / blow themselves up as well as children 2. Show their complete hatred of any thing patriotic and Christian 3. Teach children that perverts are living an alternate and wholesome lifestyle. 4. Believe that murderers and other deviates are just mis-understood people that shouldn?t be in prison. ?If only we could have a talk with them and point out how their behavior disappoints us??.. this also works with terrorists, maybe they just need a timeout! 5. Liberal support of illegal scumbags causing crime, getting free medical care, subsidized housing and food, free schooling all paid for by us taxpayers. 6. Demanding and passing laws that give criminals more rights than victims. 7. Yesterday one of you liberals on here posted saying you were looking for a site that was something like ?


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:10
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar