Jueves, 29 de diciembre de 2011


http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/12/28/barack-obama-communist-or-socialist/

Barack Obama: Communist or Socialist?


 ACCORDING TO OBAMA, CAPITALISM “HAS NEVER WORKED”

by Paul R. Hollrah, ©2011

Was Obama groomed to be the first socialist or communist "leader" of the U.S.?

(Dec. 28, 2011) — Dr. Paul Kengor is a professor of political science at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, a school that ranks with Hillsdale College in Michigan as one of the nation’s finest, but least known, liberal arts colleges.  Kengor is the author of The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism; William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand; and God and Hillary Clinton: A Spiritual Life.  

In his most recent book: Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century, Kengor makes the point that American Communists have always been quite realistic about their inability to impose a Soviet-style Communist regime on the American people.  He writes, “We now know that American Communists and their masters in Moscow were acutely aware that they could never gain the popular support they needed to enlist the support of a much wider coalition that could help them push their private agenda.”

But what should be most distressing for Americans is Dr. Kengor’s discovery that “it was nothing short of stunning to research this book during the presidential bid of Barack Obama and hear so many of the names in my research surface repeatedly in the background of the man who became president of the United States of America.  The way in which so many names and themes from the Cold War past aligned and made their way into Obama’s orbit was chilling.”

As conservative Alan Caruba points out in his December 12 column, America’s Communist President,“Obama’s December 8th speech in Osawatomie, Kansas revealed to anyone paying attention that the president is a Communist.”  Referring to the free market system that has made this the most prosperous nation on Earth, Obama said, “It doesn’t work.  It has never worked.”

It brings to mind an article titled The First Time I Heard of Barack, by Tom Fife, first published on November 20, 2008, and which has been held in reserve on countless computer hard drives, awaiting confirmation of its legitimacy.  Fife wrote, “In the period of roughly February 1992 to mid 1994, I was making frequent trips to Moscow, Russia, in the process of starting a software development joint-venture company with some people from the Russian scientific community.  One of the men in charge on the Russian side was named V. M.; he had a wife named T.M.

“V. was a level-headed scientist while his wife was rather deeply committed to the losing Communist cause – a cause she obviously was not abandoning.”

Fife goes on to describe a dinner party at the Russian couple’s Moscow apartment early in 1992. He tells us that, as the evening progressed and the dinner conversation became more and more political in nature, Mrs. M. “developed a decidedly anti-American edge.”

According to Fife, she said, “You Americans always like to think that you have the perfect government and your people are always so perfect.  Well then, why haven’t you had a woman president by now?  You had a chance to vote for a woman vice-president and you didn’t do it… Well, I think you are going to be surprised when you get a black president very soon.”

The Americans responded matter-of-factly that there was nothing to bar a black person from being elected president and that, given the right person and the right circumstances… “America would try to vote for the right person, be he or she black or not.”

Not satisfied with that response, Mrs. M. continued, “What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?”

Fife reports that the Americans stared at her in disbelief.  One responded, “It sounds like you know something we don’t know.”  To which Mrs. M. replied, “Yes, it is true.  This is not some idle talk.  He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now.  You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents.  He is what you call ‘Ivy League.’  You don’t believe me, but he is real and I even know his name.  His name is Barack.  His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa.  That’s right, a chocolate baby!  And he’s going to be your President.”

As Fife reported, the woman then became much more specific, saying that the man being groomed for the presidency was from Hawaii, that he went to school in California, that he lived in Chicago, and that he would soon be elected to the state legislature.  She said, “Have no doubt; he is one of us, a Soviet.”

Most who are aware of the Fife article question its authenticity.  Is it fact or fiction?  Does Fife really exist?  Did the 1992 dinner party in Moscow really happen?  While the Fife article is still available on the Internet, it has yet to be proven or disproven and Fife is a difficult man to track down.  And while the story of the dinner party conversation in Moscow may be pure fiction, the specifics appear to fit nicely with what we actually know about Obama’s path to power.

For example, we know that a young black man from Hawaii who was educated in California and in Ivy League schools, lived in Chicago, entered American politics, was elected to the Illinois state senate and to the U.S. Senate, and later became president.  We know that to be true.

We are also aware that Democrats in Congress attempted to amend the U.S. Constitution to make it possible for an individual who is not a “natural born” U.S. citizen to serve as president or vice president.  The first of these attempts was made in June 2003, followed by a second attempt in September 2003, a year before Obama exploded onto the national scene as keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  Was that pure coincidence, or are we allowed to suspect that it might have been part of some grand international conspiracy?

If the “natural born Citizen” requirement of the U,S. Constitution has not represented a major problem at any time in history, why were Democrats suddenly so concerned about it in 2003 when a young black man, fathered by an African Communist, raised by a radical left mother and grandparents, and mentored by a well-known black Communist, was emerging as a rising star in the Democratic Party?  Was it pure coincidence, or was it part of a grand conspiracy?

Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996, one of 6,978 state legislators in the United States.  He served eight totally unremarkable years in the legislature… voting “present” on some 129 occasions so as not to create a record that might later be difficult to defend… before announcing his candidacy for the United States Senate in 2004.  Then, months before being elected to the U.S. Senate, he was selected to deliver the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  Of the thousands of capable young Democrats available to them… men and women of experience and accomplishment… why did convention officials find it necessary to award that “plum” to a young man who had accomplished little or nothing in his life?  Was his name drawn out of a hat, or was his selection dictated by a grand international conspiracy?

Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2004 and was sworn into office on January 4, 2005.  Almost immediately, he launched his campaign for the presidency.   In the ensuing three years he devoted most of his time to his presidential ambitions and on August 28, 2008 he defeated Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.  Was his victory over the vaunted Clinton machine the result of tactical superiority, or was it purchased for him?

Following his nomination, when the Chairman and the Secretary of the Democratic National Convention, Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, respectively, were required to certify the names, home addresses, and qualifications of their candidates to the election boards of the 50 states, so that ballots could be printed, why did they certify to only one state, the State of Hawaii, that Obama and Biden were eligible to serve under provisions of the U.S. Constitution?

So the question arises, what role did the Communist Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s childhood mentor, play in his intellectual development?  And what did two Democratic Congressmen know that caused them to offer proposed constitutional amendments in 2003 that would benefit no one but Obama in 2008?  Specifically, what did they know about Obama’s presidential ambitions and his inability to meet the “natural born Citizen” standard, and when did they know it?  And why did Speaker Pelosi, third in line to the presidency, purposely aid and abet in the commission of a felony by purposely hiding from state election board officials, and from the American people, the fact that the man nominated for President of the United States at the 2008 Democratic National Convention was, in fact, ineligible to serve in that office?

The speech that Obama delivered at Osawatomie, Kansas was a speech that could just as easily have been delivered in the Presidium of the Communist Party, USSR.  Now, as Republicans focus on the Iowa caucuses, they must choose a candidate capable of convincing the American people that everything that Obama has accomplished in eight years can and must be undone.  But first, they must nominate a candidate who can not only defeat Obama, but defeat him utterly and completely.  His defeat must be of such a magnitude that he will not want to remain in the country that he has been taught from childhood to hate… and where he will be forever an object of derision.  Short of impeachment and conviction, it is the only thing that will send the proper message to those who put him where he is.

[email protected]


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:07
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
S?bado, 24 de diciembre de 2011

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/201245-obama-says-he-wont-be-bound-by-guantanamo-gun-control-portions-of-omnibus

Obama says he's not bound by Guantanamo, gun-control provisions

By Erik Wasson 12/23/11 04:19 PM ET

President Obama said Friday he will not be bound by at least 20 policy riders in the 2012 omnibus funding the government, including provisions pertaining to Guantanamo Bay and gun control.

After he signed the omnibus into law Friday, the White House released a concurrent signing statement saying Obama will object to portions of the legislation on constitutional grounds. 

Signing statements are highly controversial, and their legality is disputed.

"I have advised the Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress's consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient," Obama said in a statement as he signed the bill into law.

The signing statement says that on the issue of accused terrorist detainees, Obama will interpret and apply provisions that bar the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, "in a manner that avoids constitutional conflicts."

Obama also objected to Defense provisions in the bill that limit the president's ability to put troops under foreign command and require 30 days advance notice to Congress for any use of the military which would involve more than $100,000 in construction costs.

The president also objected to a section aimed at blocking health, climate, auto policy and urban affairs "czars" from being employed by the White House and a provision that bars health officials from advocating for gun control. The signing statement also objects to a portion of the omnibus that limits funding for the Copyright Office. 

The statement also objects to numerous unnamed provisions in the bill that would require executive branch officials to clear everyday spending decisions with appropriators.

Of these extra conditions, Obama writes, "our spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees."

Obama also objected to 13 sections of the State department bill, arguing they limit his ability to conduct foreign policy. In particular he objected provisions that withhold funding from Middle East allies unless the administration reveals details on ongoing negotiations to Congress.

The 1,200-page omnibus funds all parts of the federal government except for the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, as well as the science agencies. Those were funded by a smaller bill that passed Congress in November.

The signing of the spending bill caps a year of contentious spending battles that saw a near-government shutdown in April and a debt-rating downgrade in August as the U.S. nearly defaulted on its obligations when Congress threatened not to raise the debt ceiling.

That debt-ceiling debacle resulted in an agreement on spending caps that greatly smoothed passage of the omnibus. 

The bill was not without incident, however, and last week the White House and the GOP had a mini-standoff about policy riders in the bill. The White House was able to get a ban on family travel to Cuba removed but did not get extra funding for Wall Street reform that it had been seeking. 

The White House also gave up on a provision in the bill blocking District of Columbia-funded abortions.

Comments (61)

Why would the Bamster be obliged to adhere to the separation of powers. We thinks he can wreck the economy and country without limits. No surprise hereBY KEN on 12/23/2011 at 16:32
Obama needs to know that we are sick of him behaving like a dictator. To ALL in congress. We do not live in a dictatorship where Obama gets to write which rukes he will implement or defend from congress.
Obama will be smart to wise up. In the meantime Obamas illegal uncle will be blaming the police for his arrest. Blame someone else. It's an Obama trait.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/12/obamas-drunk-illegal-alien-uncle-plans-to-blame-cop-for-his-arrest/
BY MARY on 12/23/2011 at 16:38
2012 and your sorry azz is back in chicago with the rest of the trash!BY PAUL on 12/23/2011 at 16:39
No surprises there. He is the dictator of the USSA.BY TRACYW on 12/23/2011 at 16:39
Obama is a Hamas and Hezbolla supporter. As he makes rules to not insult Muslims, Christians and Israelis are mocked. 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/12/lib-media-digs-into-ron-pauls-newsletters-ignore-obama-s-trinity-church-bulletins-supporting-hamas-hezbollah/
BY PATTY on 12/23/2011 at 16:44
Government of Obama, by Obama, and for Obama. He is not a great president, nor a lawyer who respects the rule of law. It is the style of leadership you expect from a third world thug.BY GRAHAM on 12/23/2011 at 16:46
Welcome Dictatorship, America. A clear message from King Barry the Only.BY PETE WENZEL, ESQ on 12/23/2011 at 16:46
If Obama will not follow rules we are now a lawless nation. Community organizers make terrible presidents. Caos and anarchy are the Obama way. Getting the feeling all those Fema camps are there when Obama tries to get the people to rise up against him. Stay calm. Agitation is all part of Obamas game.BY THERESA on 12/23/2011 at 16:48
So in other words the only part of the Bill the Community Agitator likes is the spending part? No news there! What a sorry lazy (his words) no good for nothing liar.BY COME ON 2012 on 12/23/2011 at 16:48
With all this the REPUBLICANS are still to cowardly to call for his impeachment.BY PLAINOLAMRICAN on 12/23/2011 at 16:54

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:08
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
CERTIFIGATE

State Supreme Court deciding if politician 'ineligible' for office

Ruling to determine whether elected secretary of state properly registered


Posted: December 24, 2011
1:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND


A ruling awaited from the Indiana Supreme Court is expected to determine whether Secretary of State Charlie White will remain in office after a lower court decided he was ineligible at the time he was elected.

Marion County Circuit Court Judge Louis Rosenberg previously ruled White was ineligible to be on the 2010 ballot and Democrat runner-up, Vop Osili, should be declared the winner.

The case was moved up to the state Supreme Court today, and its eventual ruling is expected to gather much attention.  While the specific situation is different, the issue of removing an elected official from office over eligibility has been dogging Barack Obama since before his inauguration in 2009.

Obama's critics argue that he doesn't meet the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born citizen." He, therefore, can't be impeached, they further contend, because he never should have been installed in the Oval Office.

White has been confronted with series of other problems, including a pending trial in Hamilton County where there are voter fraud and perjury counts lodged against him. A spokesman for White's office told the Journal & Courier newspaper of Lafayette, Ind., that the situation was "unprecedented."

The controversy began when Democrats alleged before the 2010 election that White was guilty of voter fraud by voting in a precinct where he didn't live. While White won the election by hundreds of thousands of votes, Democrats continued to insist he never was registered correctly.

He was scolded by the Indiana Recount Commission, but that decision said state law required only that he be registered in the state. Judge Rosenberg, a Democrat, thought otherwise.

He ruled that White was not registered properly in time for the election in which he was a candidate.

"The fact that Mr. White knowingly registered in the wrong precinct is sufficient to render him ineligible for the office of secretary of state," he ruled.

Numerous court cases have been filed against Obama over his occupancy in the White House. But none has succeeded yet even in reaching the point of discovery where plaintiffs' might determine whether concealed documentation for Obama reveals his status.

Some say he was not born in Hawaii as he has maintained and, therefore, is not eligible. Other critics say the Constitution's "natural born citizen" requirement means that since his father never was a U.S. citizen, he wouldn't qualify under any circumstances.

There are impeachment campaigns that have been launched encouraging his removal from office, but others say he doesn't even qualify for impeachment, as a lack of eligibility should mean he never was president.

The Indiana decision, when it eventually is released, however, is not the only precedent that courts will have available.

Attorney Gary Kreepof theUnited States Justice Foundationhas raised in his arguments before the California courts several related issues.

He explained, "In 1968, the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for president of the United States. The then-Secretary of State, Mr. Frank Jordan, found that, according to Mr. Cleaver's birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for president.

"Using his administrative powers, Mr. Jordan removed Mr. Cleaver from the ballot. Mr. Cleaver, unsuccessfully, challenged this decision to the Supreme Court of the State of California, and, later, to the Supreme Court of the United States, which affirmed the actions."

Further, Kreep has argued, is the case of Thomas H. Moodie. He was a Democrat nominated by his party for governor in North Dakota in 1934. He beat his Republican opponent, Lydia Langer.

"As soon as the election was over, there was talk of impeachment, but no charges were filed," the state's archives say. "After Moodie's inauguration on January 7, 1935, it was revealed that he had voted in a 1932 municipal election in Minnesota. In order to be eligible for governor, an individual has to have lived in the state for five consecutive years before the election. The State Supreme Court determined that Governor Moodie was ineligible to serve, and he was removed from office on February 16, 1935."

The Indiana case could update the precedent that was established then for the removal of a politician from office, or from a ballot, because of ineligibility.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled just this weekthat although other candidates for the presidency in 2008 would have reason to think they would have standing to file a case alleging fraud against Obama, they lost their standing because they waited until minutes after the inauguration.

That ruling came even though Obama flubbed the oath during the public inauguration and the chief justice of the Supreme Court thought it necessary for him to retake it later in the privacy of the presidential quarters.

The Supreme Court justices repeatedly have refused to address the constitutional questions involved. Thejustices apparently are "avoiding" the Obama issue, according to one member of the court. Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee when the issue arose. Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the question amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.

"I'm still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States," said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. "That's another issue."

Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land's highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.

"I'm glad to hear that you don't think there has to be a judge on the court," said Serrano, "because I'm not a judge; I've never been a judge."

"And you don't have to be born in the United States," said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural born citizen but has no such requirement for a Supreme Court justice, "so you never have to answer that question."

"Oh really?" asked Serrano. "So you haven't answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?"

"We're evading that one," answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. "We're giving you another option."

One recent case against Obama to go to the high court wasbrought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Greg Hollister.

When the justices refused to listen to the concerns, Laurence Elgin, an expert working with theConstitutional Rule of Law Fund and websiteand monitoring the case, said their "defiance of the court cases, their attitude they don't really need to adhere to the law, is really unparalleled."

"The public is going to grow increasingly concerned about Obama and the failure of the courts to deal with these concerns," he told WND.



Read more:State Supreme Court deciding if politician 'ineligible' for officehttp://www.wnd.com/?pageId=380641#ixzz1hSyDcevQ
  • Kellie Driver · Wetumpka, Alabama
    It doesn't seem they can attack anyone but conservative people.
  • Tom Mc ·  Top Commenter
    AP declared Obama “Kenyan-Born”
    What most people know is that the Associated Press (AP) is one of the largest, internationally recognized, syndicated news services. What most people don’t know that is in 2004, the AP was a “birther” news organization.
    How so? Because in a syndicated report, published Sunday, June 27, 2004, by the Kenyan Standard Times, and which was, as of this report, available at
    http://web.archive.org/web/200406271…ws26060403.htm
    The AP reporter stated the following:

    Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.

    This report explains the context of the oft cited debate, between Obama and Keyes in the following Fall, in which Keyes faulted Ob...See More
  • Tom Mc ·  Top Commenter
    Obama is Barry Soetoro, not Barrack Hessian Obama, born in Canada or Kenya, not America, adopted in Indonesia. Obama appeared in Seattle Washington when 12 days old, from where? His mother’s parents both dedicated known communists all their life, may have called Honolulu’s papers for his birth announcement, for no Hawaiian or other U.S. hospital has ever confirmed his birth to date. The senior Dunham’s, after his Indonesian schooling raised him to be a communist in Hawaii and he associated with known communists, like cop killer Bill Ayers, his ghost writer, neighbor and long time confidante supporter in Chicago.

    Obama/Soetoro is not legally qualified to be president and never will be: because wherever he was born, he was born a British subject; for he was fathered by one. Obama/Soetoro is at minimal a duel citizen, prohibited by the U.S. Constitution to hold presidential office. Barack Obama /Barry Soetoro, wherever and who ever he claims to be a citizen of or from; Indonesia, Kenya or just an American repatriated, he is denied by the U.S. Constitution’s Article. II, § 1(5); Obama cannot hold presidential office. 
  • Nedd Kareiva ·  ·  Top Commenter · Central Bible College
    Living in Indiana, I am aware of this case. Besides the eligibility implications WND conveys in this story, the fact is that Judge Rosenberg is an activist judge. The proper call for him to make was that Mr. White be removed from the ballot and a new election take place with the defeated Democrat and another candidate of the state GOP's own choosing. To let this judge's decision stand as is disenfranchises the majority of Hoosier voters who selected Mr. White as Secretary of State. Like the usurper in the White House, Judge Rosenberg warrants impeachment and removal from office.
 


 

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:31
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=380197

Election fraud? Sorry, vote's over

Court rules inauguration cancels 'standing' in Obama case


Posted: December 22, 2011
10:45 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND

The judges on the9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appealshaveruled that election fraud suspected in the 2008 presidential campaign essentially was canceledby the inauguration of Barack Obama.

The ruling comes in a lawsuit that was filed on the same day Obama was inaugurated in Washington by a team of taxpayers, voters, presidential candidates, members of the military and others who alleged Obama failed to meet the Constitution's requirements for the presidency.

The case represents the work of two groups of plaintiffs, one led bylawyer Orly Taitzand the other by attorney Gary Kreep of theUnited States Justice Foundation.

Taitz said her plaintiffs definitely will pursue further action, probably a request for rehearing at two levels of federal court, while Kreep told WND he was working with his clients on the results, and they soon would make a decision regarding an appeal.

Get Jerome Corsi's "Where's the Real Birth Certificate?"

The issue was the "standing" of the groups bringing the complaint against Obama. The district court essentially said nobody had standing to bring a complaint, but the appellate judges said the individuals who were politically connected to the race should hold an interest in a fair outcome – including whether there was an ineligible candidate aboard the ticket.

The individuals were Alan Keyes and Wiley S. Drake, candidates for the White House on the American Independent Party ticket in California; Gail Lightfoot, a member of the California Libertarian Party; who was a write-in candidate; and Markham Robinson, a certified California elector for the American Independent Party.

The judges' panel observed: "These plaintiffs argue that they have standing because, as candidates running against Obama in the 2008 election, they had an interest in having a fair competition. … If Obama entered the presidential race without meeting the requirements for the office, they contend, the candidates did not have a fair opportunity to obtain votes in their favor."

The opinion from judges Harry Pregerson, Ray Fisher and Marsha Berzon explained the concept is called "competitive standing," and they affirmed it as legitimate grounds for concern.

"This notion of 'competitive standing' has been recognized by several circuits," the opinion said. "We, too, have upheld the notion of 'competitive standing.' In Owen v. Mulligan, we held that the 'potential loss of an election' was an injury-in-fact sufficient to give a local candidate and Republican party officials standing. In that case, the candidate for local office sued the Postal Service for giving his rival a preferential mailing rate, in violation of its own regulations."

The opinion said the case had the candidate and party officials seeking "to prevent their opponent from gaining an unfair advantage."

However, in Obama's case, the court panel simply said once the inauguration was held, the claims evaporated.

"The original complaint was filed on Jan. 20, 2009, at 3:26 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, after President Obama was officially sworn is as president," the judges wrote. "Once the 2008 election was over and the president sworn in, Keyes, Drake and Lightfoot were no longer 'candidates' for the 2008 general election. Moreover, they have not alleged any interest in running against President Obama in the future.

"Therefore, none of the plaintiffs could claim that they would be injured by the 'potential loss of an election,'" the court said.

Actually, Obama flubbed the Jan. 20 public oath, and retook it later, out of public view, according to the White House.

In a footnote, the judges confirmed that "some cases" have held that competitive standing continues beyond a given election, but they don't think so in this case.

The court also dismissed a quo warranto action – essentially a court case demanding to know by what authority a given official is acting – because they believe such an action can be filed only in the District of Columbia, as well as FOIA claims requesting information.

The case also unsuccessfully alleged violations of the federal racketeering law, RICO.

"We've sent our recommendation to the plaintiffs," said Kreep. "I was surprised [by the opinion] given the comments made by the justice Berzon about this was an important constitutional issue that needed to be resolved."

Taitz told WND that it is important to note that the court did not confirm that Obama is eligibile; just that there were technical troubles with all of the current case claims.

"They were careful not to state that Barack Obama is eligible for the presidency," she said. "[The opinion] doesn't say he has a valid birth certificate, valid Social Security number."

"All is says is nobody has standing," she said.

Her plan is to submit motions for rehearing at the 9th Circuit and other courts, based on the newest ruling, which seems to contradict earlier rulings she said she obtained in related cases. Her cases that were dismissed because they were brought before the inauguration and therefore lacked the requisite "ripeness" demanded by courts.

"It seems we are residing within a dictatorship, a totalitarian regime where the courts and judges are simply used as puppets to come up with some excuse to deny the complaints," she told WND.

WND previously reportedthe case claims Obama's qualifications were not checked properly, and that has resulted in a violation of the U.S. Constitution, a man occupying the Oval Office who does not meet the requirements that only a "natural born Citizen" can hold the office.

Since his election, sometimes using private attorneys and sometimes using taxpayer-funded legal teams, Obama has battled almost six-dozen lawsuits across the country, including several that reached the U.S. Supreme Court, to keep his records concealed from the public.

He even withheld the document he has since released when a career Army doctor, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, was court-martialed and imprisoned for asking for verification that the commander-in-chief was legitimate.

Kreep, on behalf of Wiley S. Drake, a vice-presidential candidate on the 2008 ballot in California; and Markham Robinson, an elector from the state; had argued that there is precedent in the U.S. for removing an unqualified chief executive.

That happened in North Dakota, Kreep argued, when Thomas H. Moodie was removed from the office of governor in the 1930s. Moodie had failed to meet a state residency requirement to be governor. But he was elected anyway, installed and ultimately removed from office by the state Supreme Court over that failure.

The plaintiffs also cite an earlier California case in which a candidate for president was removed from the ballot by state officials because he failed to qualify for the office under the U.S. Constitution's age requirements.

The plaintiffs had argued that the Constitution was too important to ignore.

"A provision of the Constitution may not be disregarded by means of a popular vote of the people," the plaintiffs' earlier brief said, "as there are specific guidelines for amending the Constitution of the United States. … Even if the people of the United States voted to elect as president a candidate who did not qualify for the position, that vote would not be sufficient to overcome the constitutional requirements for office and make that candidate eligible.

"Here, the underlying issue is one arising under the Art. 2, Paragraph 1 of the United States Constitution, whether Obama meets the eligibility requirements. … As established above, plaintiffs have standing to bring this action as they have suffered a concrete injury in fact, caused by Obama's ineligibility for the office of United States president, for which the court has a remedy," the brief said.

The issue stems from the constitutional demand that the president – unlike others in the federal government – must be a "natural born citizen." WND has covered numerous challenges and lawsuits over Obama's eligibility. Some have alleged that he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he has claimed or that the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens – Obama's father was a subject of the British crown at Obama's birth – from being eligible for the office.

While Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth" was released by the White House, other documentation for him remains sealed, including 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, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

The justices on the Supreme Court repeatedly have refused to address the constitutional questions involved. Thejustices apparently are "avoiding" the Obama issue, according to one member of the court. Last year, Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee when the issue arose. Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the question amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.

"I'm still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States," said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. "That's another issue."

Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land's highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.

"I'm glad to hear that you don't think there has to be a judge on the court," said Serrano, "because I'm not a judge; I've never been a judge."

"And you don't have to be born in the United States," said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural-born citizen but has no such requirement for a Supreme Court justice, "so you never have to answer that question."

"Oh really?" asked Serrano. "So you haven't answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?"

"We're evading that one," answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. "We're giving you another option."

The video:


One recent case to go to the high court wasbrought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Greg Hollister.

When the justices refused to listen to the concerns, Laurence Elgin, an expert working with theConstitutional Rule of Law Fund and websiteand monitoring the case, said their "defiance of the court cases, their attitude they don't really need to adhere to the law, is really unparalleled."

"The public is going to grow increasingly concerned about Obama and the failure of the courts to deal with these concerns," he told WND.

The same two attorneysalso had another case that ran through the state court system that raised similar issues and ultimately was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, which simply posted a notice it would not hear the case.

The image that Obama released as his birth documentation, which has been challenged repeatedly by computer, imaging and document experts as a fraud:





Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:15
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 22 de diciembre de 2011
 
Appeals court tosses Obama birthplace challenge

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The so-called birther movement was dealt another legal blow Thursday when a federal appeals court tossed out a lawsuit challenging President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship and his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that none of the challengers had legal standing to file the lawsuit on Jan. 20, 2009, the day Obama was inaugurated. The three-judge panel cited various reasons for disqualifying six sets of plaintiffs, who included Obama's political rivals, taxpayers and military personnel.

The birther movement has filed multiple lawsuits over the issue, so far with no success. Its leaders have lost similar challenges before the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court.

The U.S. Constitution says only "a natural born citizen" may serve as president. The challengers allege that Obama, whose father was Kenyan, was born in that African country, rather than the U.S. state of Hawaii. They claim his Hawaii birth certificate is a forgery.

The appeals court didn't address the authenticity of the birth certificate, instead ruling that the challengers couldn't show "concrete injury" from the allegations.

The taxpayers listed in the lawsuit, for instance, failed to show how the citizenship question affected any federal taxing and spending provisions.

The lawsuit was filed in 2009 by 40 plaintiffs, including conservative activists Alan Keyes and Wiley Drake, who ran for president and vice president respectively as members of the American Independent Party against Obama in 2008.

They alleged they had standing to file a lawsuit because of their interest in competing in a fair election. Libertarian Party vice-presidential candidate Gail Lightfoot was also a plaintiff.

Judge Harry Pregerson, writing for the three-judge panel, said Keyes and Drake waited too long to file their lawsuit. The election was over and Obama was already sworn in when the lawsuit was filed.

"Once the 2008 election was over and the President sworn in, Keyes, Drake, and Lightfoot were no longer 'candidates' for the 2008 general election," Pregerson wrote. "Plaintiffs' competitive interest in running against a qualified candidate had lapsed."

Orly Taitz, one of the challengers' lawyers, said she would ask the appeals court to convene a special 11-judge panel to reconsider the case. If she's turned down there, she said she would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

Taitz said she has filed similar lawsuits in five states and has two other federal appeals pending in Washington, D.C.

Related articles





Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:28
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 20 de diciembre de 2011

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/zieve/111220

December 20, 2011

US not headed towards Euro-socialism...it's far worse than that

By Sher Zieve

Are you as tired as am I about the talking heads — leftists, RINO and faux conservatives — advising us on an almost daily basis that "If we don't stop it (presumably the government, Obama and maybe even Obama's sycophant Congress) we're heading for 'European-style Socialism.'" Ahhh...as if that were the only thing about which we have to worry. Of course, the truth is that the [former] USA is not heading for Euro-Socialism. Instead, it is careening at full speed — with no discernable braking — into full-fledged Marxist Communo-Fascist elitist-ruled Islamo-Drug cartel Narco/Nazi State — replete with its own apparent and visible concentration camps. Said State has been meticulously planned over, at least, decades and is now being forcefully implemented against We-the-People who seem to have been replaced by "We-the-Sheeple."

President Ronald Reagan said: "Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."

As we take a look at our present survival possibilities, let us pray to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that there are enough of We-the-People still remaining who have both the moral courage and strength of will to bring our country back from its destruction at the hands of our "elected" traitors.

Isn't it almost Past Time to start actually telling the Truth?

First and foremost, it is incumbent upon me to, again, report on the FEMA camps and their relationship to the now-passed unconstitutional NDAA bill; a bill that was largely non-threatening prior to this year. This year, however, a great deal was added; not the least of which is the designation of the entire USA as essentially a battlefield and the authorization of the US military to arrest and detain US citizens without legal or other charge, the disallowance of legal counsel and the ability to hold said citizens indefinitely. These provisions contained within Sections 1031 and 1032 effectively nullify the Bill of Rights. The danger to our very existence — both as a nation and We-the-People individually — has taken an extremely dark turn, America. We are now decidedly living under tyranny.

Second, we are living under an apparent dictator-driven oligarchic government. Whether many are aware of it or not, the US Constitution officially ended with the passage of the "new and revised" NDAA and we are, also, officially no longer a Republic. Both had been on their last legs for years and now have come to an end under Usurper and Dictator-in-Chief Barack "the smiling Muslim" Hussein Obama.

Third, since establishing a hard-line rulership over the former United States of America, the Obama syndicate has methodically and with great and unprecedented alacrity gutted the US Treasury.

Who's Really to Blame?

For those of you who still insist upon blaming Obama's predecessor, the US economy was extremely sound, GNP was continuing to rise and unemployment was at 4.6% prior to 3 January 2007 (NOT 3 January 2009) when the Democrats took over both Houses of Congress. Unemployment rates before Democrats took over Congress went down every year of the G.W. Bush presidency: 2003 = 5.7 to 6.3 %; 2004 = 5.4 to 5.7 %; 2005 = 4.8 to 5.4%; 2006 = 4.4 to 4.8%.

The rise in unemployment AFTER Democrats took both Houses of Congress (and literally astounding after the Obama syndicate took up residency in the White House) was meteoric! The unemployment rate — despite the phony numbers released by the corrupt ObamaGov — is still continuing to rise today.

Obama has been and is a job killer — one who now denies the middle class jobs. For example, to date Obama has fought against the Keystone Pipeline project that — according to Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) — would provide 20,000 direct jobs and 100,000 indirect jobs. Obama is closing coal plants around the country leaving thousands more unemployed. Of course, this is the aim of Obama's New World Order; an Order where he and his acolytes determine who will succeed and who will not. Obama's world also now decides whom he believes worthy of life and whom he does not...thus entered ObamaCare.

Socialists, Communists, Nazis, Fascists and all totalitarian 'leaders' believe they — and only they — have the divine right (divine because of their own assumed "divinity") to rule and determine that which truly lies with God. You request an example? Witness what unapologetic Nazi collaborator and Obama handler/mentor George Soros has said: "I have always harbored an exaggerated view of my self-importance. To put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god or an economic reformer like Keynes, or, even better, like Einstein. My sense of reality was strong enough to make me realize that these expectations were excessive, and I kept them hidden as a guilty secret. This was a source of considerable unhappiness through much of my adult life. As I made my way in the world, reality came close enough to my fantasy to allow me to admit my secret, at least to myself. Needless to say, I feel much happier as a result."

This is how all 'leaders' of the hard-Left feel and it is also what they believe — they are the rulers (aka slave masters) and we are supposed to be their willing and subservient vassals.

Some Facts to Remember before they are scrubbed

To again quote the late and great President Ronald Reagan "Facts are stubborn things." Since Obama became POTUS (although an illegal one), I suspect there has been more scrubbing of truth and facts about him and his adherents than has ever occurred in the still-short history of the Internet. But, despite the Left's rewriting of the truth, eventually the truth does prevail. Even when truth is obscured, if it's hitting them in the face each and every day humans know it and will not buy the snake oil lies attempting to be sold.

The information I have presented above and in other columns is accurate. If there are any questions about that statement, one need only check the references/sources I have provided. In order to survive and — dare I suggest — begin to live again under liberty instead of oppression, we must work to make it happen. If we simply sit back and 'assume' others will do it for us...all will continue to be lost and will even worsen.

President Reagan spoke of a shining city on a hill. I will leave you with the original source:

13"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

14"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

15"Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house." — Matthew 5:13-15

It's good to remember He who gave We-the-People our right to life and liberty.

Iron Curtain begins Descending onto the United States of America (FEMA Camps):
http://gulagbound.com/23455/iron-curtain-begins-descending-onto-the-united-states-of-america/

Unemployment Rates at 4.6% before Democrats took over both Houses of Congress: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111011191804AAgQW3Q

Map of Unemployment rise after Democrats take both Houses of Congress:http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Keystone Pipeline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

Profile: George Soros: God of all he surveys:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/profile-george-soros-god-of-all-he-surveys-1158748.html

© Sher Zieve

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:31
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

http://bestnews-source.com/?p=4493

The National Defense Authorization Act has

Obama Marxist 

Redistribution of Your Wealth and Freedom----That's my Hope and Change for you America--It's Called Marxism!

already passed in the US Socialist Democrat Politburo Senate
and is now waiting for Comrade Barry Boy to sign it and make it a Law.

This Act is one of the most anti-American bills that has ever been so much as suggested in the United States Congress. If those were American’s in our Government, the Marxist oriented “National Defense Authorization Act” would have never been taken seriously by any branch of the US government.

It would have been shredded along with all the other communist bile that has ever been posed on the floor of the Senate.

But we aren’t dealing with Americans in our Senate now. Those are Marxist, pure and simple. All sworn enemies of the United States of America.

As it stands now, if Usurper Barry Boy the Despot Marxist decides to sign that Bill into Law, Americans better hope and pray they have a good supply of ammunition and food stored up and hidden away in a secure location.

The passage of this despotic Bill will mean, Americans can …and likely will… be arrested and detained for storing a 7 day supply of food at their homes.

But, it most likely won’t be the local police department doing the arresting. It will likely beComrade Barry Boy’s loyal Homosexual Military who will break down our doors and haul American Citizens away in shackles.

The Posse Comitatus Act won’t allow that to happen to US Citizens,you say?

Indeed it will. The Marxist Barry Boy Administration and merry band of despots in the Senate Politburo have taken the liberty to re-write the definition of “Terrorist” and “Terrorism” as they apply to the Law.

Once Comrade Barry Boy signs that bill, it will mean that Americans, for nearly any excuse at all, can be labeled as a “terrorist” and arrested by the US military.

Moreover, the detainees can be transported from American soil, and imprison at a facility located in a foreign country—Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

And, they can be detained there indefinitely according to Marxist Barry Boy’s new Law.

Here is the story…


Storing 7 Days of Food Could Send You to Gitmo Indefinitely

http://godfatherpolitics.com

http://godfatherpolitics.com
Written on December 19,
2011 by da Tagliare

If President Obama signs the National Defense

National Defense Authorization Act

Stoe Up a Supply of food---talk bad about the Government---missing a couple of fingers ---You can be arrested and imprisoned indefinitely!

Authorization Act that is sitting on his desk, it will give him the power to arrest any American citizen and send them to Guantanamo Bay without any charges, without a trial and the imprisonment can be indefinite.

Contained in the over 1800 pages of the massive bill is a provision that gives the military the power to indefinitely detain any suspected terrorists without filing charges. Since the President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces, that provision also gives him the same powers.

The real danger lies in the government’s definition of what a suspected terrorist is.

According to Sen Rand Paul (R-KY),

“We’re talking about American citizens who can be taken from the United States and sent to a camp at Guantanamo Bay and held indefinitely. There are laws on the books right now that characterize who might be a terrorist: someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect, according to the Department of Justice. Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist. If you are suspected because of these activities, do you want the government to have the ability to send you to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention?”

Paul says this is why he and twelve other senators voted against the bill, because they saw the dangerous implications of this provision which was designed to give the military certain powers during the current conflict with al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

A number of Democrats deny that the bill contains any provision that would allow for the indefinite detainment of American citizens without due process of law. However, if you look at the list of the Dems making the denials, you will quickly discover that they are the loyal minions of the president and have already proven that they will lie and pervert the law so as to support Obama.

The truly frightening aspect of this is that Obama has placed a number of provisions in place to set the stage for his dictatorial takeover of the country. Once he touches the ink to this piece of legislation, he will have the power to accuse anyone who opposes him of being a suspected terrorist and have them sent to Gitmo or some other military facility where they can be held without any formal charges for as long as the government determines that we are still at hostility with terrorism.

This provision is another nail in the coffin of free America, mark my word.

Read the full story…


http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1540/show


http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1540/text




Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:42
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 14 de diciembre de 2011

What is the Obama State Ballot Challenge?

Occupy White House: Help Stop Obama From Another 4 Un-Constitutional Years

This is a national call to action to help ensure Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution is upheld by stopping Obama from getting back in the White House for another 4 un-Constitutional years. The Obama State Ballot Challenge 2012 project was created to help organize and report on the Herculean effort to keep Obama off the Presidential election ballot in 2012 because he does not meet the Constitutional standard of Natural Born Citizen that was established by Minor v. Happersett, and because of his massive fraud crimes committed before and during his tenure in the White House.

We need your help now! Challenges can be filed in the primary season. You can file your own complaint with your state without hiring a attorney and without any cost. We are working on providing a generic example complaint that you can use for reference. Please go to the Contact page and email the Director Pamela Barnett if you can file a complaint in your state. See if we have election law on your state by clicking on your state page above. See the Obama State Ballot Challenge 2012 page of this website for more details.

The first ballot challenge is ongoing in New Hampshire and citizens have additionally filed ballot challenges in Georgia, Hawaii, Tennessee, Arizona, and Alabama, and many more are in the works. We need to challenge Obama in all 50 states many times. More news to come soon on new ballot challenges and a new partnership that could provide legal resources to citizen voters filing complaints. Join our campaign to stop Obama in 2012 by filing a ballot complaint or volunteering to help with advertising our effort to recruit more people to file complaints.

We do this because we are a nation of laws, and the political ruling class has failed to uphold the law regarding Obama's usurpation. We do it for God, country, and family.... and for justice. We will also fight against any non Natural Born Republican that appears on the Presidential ballot. This is not a political initiative, it is about respecting the Constitution.

We all lose if we continue to be a nation of men and not of laws. This enables corruption in Congress, the White House and the Courts. As it stands now, they are all operating above the law. This state ballot initiative brings the power back to the states to ensure their citizens are voting for only qualified candidates.

This site will mostly concentrate on news related to the Obama State Ballot 2012 initiative. Please subscribe for email updates. Your privacy will be safeguarded to the best of our ability. Your emails will not be shared with anyone. Also, sign up on our Facebook page and Twitter.

This is a sister website to www.unlawfulpresident.com.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:55
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
December 14, 2011

JustiaGate: 'Natural Born' Supreme Court Citations Disappear

By Dianna C. Cotter with L. Donofrio Esq.

Did Justia.com deliberately aid Barack Obama in 2008 by helping to hide the one legal case that might prevent him from legally qualifying for the presidency?

On October 20, 2011, New Jersey attorney Leo Donofrio accused online legal research behemoth Justia.com of surgically redacting important information from their publication of 25 U.S. Supreme Court opinions which cite Minor v. Happersett, an 1874 decision which arguably contains language that appears to disqualify anyone from presidential eligibility who wasn't born in the country to parents who were citizens.  According to the decision in Happersett:

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.  (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 [1874])

Justia is a Google Mini-powered website which has singled itself out as one of the most comprehensive and easy-to-search legal sites on the internet.  Other legal resources such as Lexis can cost as much as $5,000 a month for a subscription, and it's impossible to hyperlink to cases which include copyrighted headnotes and analysis.  This is why powerful law firms such as Perkins Coie (where former Obama White House Counsel Bob Bauer practices law) have cited Justia's pages.

The Wayback Machine, run by InternetArchive.Org, is the means by which the changes made at Justia were documented over time.  Among the first responses from Justia regarding this controversy was to block its Supreme Court Server from being viewed by the Wayback Machine.

Click the following link for an image documenting the pattern of changes made to one of those 25 cases, Luria v. U.S., 231 U.S. 9 (1913).  Notice that the case name "Minor v. Happersett" has been removed, minimizing the case searchability.

The cover-up simply reeks.  While Justia owner Tim Stanley told CNET that there were more cases which had also been "mangled," there is no way to identify how much bogus law was published by Justia over the three-year period in question.  Minor v. Happersett simply disappeared from cases which cited it, minimizing its footprint on the internet at a critical juncture in history -- the election of 2008.

McCarthy v. Briscoe, 429 U.S. 1317 (1976)

On Nov. 3, 2008, one day before the election, Donofrio petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the ballots in New Jersey from being used the next day in the case Donofrio v. Wells, claiming that the eligibility of both Obama and McCain had not been verified by the NJ secretary of State as required by law.

In his research, Donofrio had found a reference to McCarthy v. Briscoe, 429 U.S. 1317 (1976), an important precedent which allows the Supreme Court -- or even one justice acting alone if an emergency stay is requested -- to order a secretary of state to insert a name on the ballot.  The holding of the case implies a reciprocal power to remove names from ballots for the several secretaries of State, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court.

Back in '08, Donofrio couldn't find the in chambers decision anywhere online.  Forced to go old-school, he procured it from a brick-and-mortar law library.  But to this day, McCarthy v. Briscoe remains elusive at Justia.  If you look in their "Volume" database and click "429," all of the in chambers opinions are mysteriously absent. 

In chambers opinions generally begin on pg. 1,301, but not every official volume has them.  For example, Volume 428 has no in chambers opinions, but 429, 434, and 439 do.  Justia's database for Volumes 434 and 439 do exhibit the in chambers opinions, but Volume 429 has them scrubbed.

If you search Justia's Cases & Opinions by Year in 1976, McCarthy v. Briscoe is listed.  There are two cases, an insignificant one-page opinion at page 1,316, followed by the relevant decision on pg. 1,317.  There are links to the preview as well as "Full Text."  However, all of the links are broken, leading back to Justia's front page.

Additionally, Justia's publication of a following 1977 5th Circuit case, 553 F.2d 1005, includes a hyperlink back to 429 U.S. 1317, and that link is also mysteriously broken.

It would be instructive to track the timeline of changes in the Wayback Machine, but Justia is steadfastly preventing that transparency.  Furthermore, if Justia continues its previous pattern, the links (eg: http://supreme.justia.com/us/429/1317/) will be restored upon publication of this article.  Take your screenshots now.

 

With numerous state-level challenges being prepared by opponents of Obama's eligibility for 2012, McCarthy v. Briscoe will be a required citation.  That it continues to be unavailable at Justia seriously calls into question Stanley's contention that the cases on Justia's servers were mangled by an innocent coding error.

This claim of innocent technical error was debunked by Dr. David Hansen, a Ph.D. in computer science.  McCarthy v. Briscoe, 429 U.S. 1317 (1976) at Justia shows a completely different pattern of information removal from what could be explained away by a single coding error which erased case names.

The removal of prior versions of cases from the Wayback Machine by Justia amounts to nothing less than supreme hypocrisy considering Stanley's high stature as a leading light championing transparency of legal information for the public.  

Use at your own risk

Justia in 2008 tangled with the State of Oregon when it downloaded and republished the State Statutes without either informing the state or gaining its permission, in violation of copyright law.  Dexter Johnson, the head of the Office of Oregon State Legislative Counsel Committee reported that the Committee received information that the State Statutes were available at a website other than the state.  Upon investigation, the Committee ultimately decided not to pursue legal action against Justia for copyright violation; instead, "the committee decided to waive its copyright on the Oregon Revised Statutes going forward," said Johnson in a phone interview.

It is left to a user of Justia to verify the information to be found within its pages, despite a disclaimer of "Full Text of Case" on its pages.  Upon inquiry with the U.S. Supreme Court, Patricia McCabe Estrada, deputy public information officer of the U.S. Supreme Court, responded that "the official opinions of the Supreme Court are posted on the Court's Website and we don't generally monitor other sites." 

Johnson says Oregon also does not have a monitoring policy in place.  When asked how a person using Justia's services would know if he were receiving accurate information or not, Johnson replied:

The only way, it seems to me, would be to compare that with what's on the legislature's website. In which case you might as well go directly to the legislature's website. It's one of the reasons why we had originally suggested that they have their website simply point in the direction of our own.

Justia publishes SCOTUS cases with the positive affirmation "Full Text of Case."  Clearly this was not done with regards to the specific opinions it redacted and covered up.  Whether a violation of law or not, various non-profit agencies, students, law firms, and private researchers who relied upon Justia's services remain in the dark, unable to determine if their research materials were altered by Justia, as the company has released neither what it redacted nor in what cases.  Without an effective means of verifying accuracy, Justia's transparency and credibility are questionable.

Public.Resource.Org

It turns out that Justia received additional help from their close counterpart in the open government information movement, Public.Resource.Org (PRO), founded and run by Carl Malamud.  Malamud was also the chief technology officer for The Center for American Progress, a progressive think-tank funded in part by none other than George Soros.  Tim Stanley is on the Board of Trustees at Public.Resource.Org, and Justia is PRO's top benefactor.  Stanley is also a co-convenor of Malamud's Law.gov organization, which, despite appearances, is not a government entity. 

PRO makes available a huge database of court cases to other organizations such as the Cornell Legal Institute, which has now been dragged into the Justia mess through a case that cements Minor v. Happersett as defining "Natural Born Citizen."  Ex Parte: Lockwood  states:

In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word 'citizen' is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since[.]"  (Emphasis added.)

However, at Cornell, the opinion is cut off right after "Minor v.".  Someone searching for "Minor v. Happersett" will be detoured from this case and its holding in support of Minor's precedence.  Cornell's version of Ex Parte: Lockwood is completely mangled.  Yet Lockwood helps prove that the decision in Minor created a legal definition of "Natural Born Citizen," something the national narrative states that no Supreme Court Case has ever done, in part because Minor's importance was effectively obscured.

There has been a deliberate, targeted effort to minimize if not erase the legal importance of Minor v. Happersett in defining the term "Natural Born Citizen."  Justia and PRO champion freedom of information yet at the same time hypocritically redacted the law to suit a political goal.  Justia and Tim Stanley butchered these cases and, when caught, removed Wayback Machine's access to Justia's entire Supreme Court server.  The only thing hidden now is the evidence of Justia's deliberate scrubbing, as the cases are available in the public domain.

Tim Stanley has not returned messages asking for comment on this story at time of publication.  Sometime last week, Justia added a disclaimer at the bottom of its SCOTUS case texts:

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

The disclaimer speaks volumes about the credibility and accuracy of Justia.com.



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/justiagate_natural_born_supreme_court_citations_disappear.html#ixzz1gVx7nM64

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:15
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 12 de diciembre de 2011

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/43051

Marxist attack on America

Osawatomie Obama’s Waterloo


Folks are wondering, (but nobody more elegantly than talk show radio giant Rush Limbaugh) how President Barack Obama could use Tuesday’s Osawatomie speech as a three-year-later coming-out party for Obama, the Marxist.

With a “Marxist attack on America” right in Election Year, the Emperor ripped off his clothes showing his Marxist nakedness to the entire political world.

Back In 2008,  Obama, still the pocket Messiah,  bristled each time the Marxist label rose up through the fog, to roundly deny the charge.

So why on Tuesday did we have Obama the Marxist on stage?

The Osawatomie speech happened not because in his arrogant head he’s ‘King of the Global World’ and not because he can now sniff the blood on what the Dems envision as the coming bloodbath of Mitt Romney andNewt Gingrich

The Osawatomie speech happened because the ‘Time of Obama the Marxist’ is here.  Axelrod astroturf is telling him the time of his constituency is right.  Decades of public school graduates indoctrinated as global citizens who care not about patriotismor U.S. exceptionalism now fill the volunteer roles in his $1 billion campaign.

The population is aging and no one knows that better than an ObamaCare-bound Barack Obama.

There was nothing brave about Obama coming out as a Marxist.  Even the most cursory check through the history of Barack Hussein Obama shows cowardice.  Obama is so cowardly he only came before the public when every detail of his past was hidden away.


Yesterday Limbaugh put into wordswhat every American-loving patriotmust be thinking. Like panting panthers Occupy Wall Street (OWS) await the right moment in campaign time to provide the street theatre that will dominate the mainstream media news right up to Election Day.  Moves are already afoot by OWS to infiltrate the Tea Party Movement and render it useless.

..”Now Barack, if I may call you that, what is your obsession with big government, massive deficits, huge bureaucracies, endless regulations, confiscatory taxes, what is it about that that turns you on? None of what you love, sir, creates wealth or jobs.  Where has such an economic system ever worked?  Where has what you love and adore ever succeeded?  You say, sir, you want a more activist government.  What does that mean?  We’re about five steps away from the financial cliff’s edge, thanks to you, thanks to the government, the incompetent ideologues who run it like you.  What else would you like to spend money on?  What else would you like to regulate?  What else do you want to demonize?  What else do you want to cut down to size?  What else do you want to destroy?  What else would you like to ban?  What else in America do you want to smother and obstruct?

Even as a fawning mainstream media was cheering the True Birth of Barack Hussein Obama the Marxist and GOP was admonishing conservatives not to criticize the newborn babe swaddled in Socialism, Limbaugh denounced the Osawatomie speech for what it was:

“The speech you gave yesterday, sir, was idiotic, shameful, actionable, incoherent, and alien to American ideals and principles.  And above all else, it was pure pathetic.  But as my cohort here, Mr. Snerdley, says, Barack, if I may call you that, you did the nation a great favor.  You told every patriotic American-loving citizen that your view of America is not shared by them.  You finally told us that after three years the cat’s out of the bag.  After three years everybody know knows why I wanted you to fail.  Everybody that heard that speech now knows that you said America as founded has never worked.  You have outed yourself, Barack, if I may call you that.  You’ve come out.  Maybe you’ll be on the cover of the next Advocate, because you just outed yourself, sir.  You have nothing but contempt for this country.  You told us yesterday you have nothing but contempt for our economic and political system.  You told us yesterday.

“So now, as my cohort and subservient employee Mr. Snerdley has observed, even the least attentive citizen knows where you stand, even the Kardashians know.  And that’s a big achievement, folks.  To penetrate the wall of stupidity surrounding that family, even Paris Hilton; even Alec Baldwin is so ticked off he gets thrown off an American Airlines flight, Barack.  Thank you.  Norman Lear is beside himself.  So is Barbra Streisand.  You gave it up.  There’s nowhere for your supporters to hide.  They can’t say you have a vision as a great American.  You’re something else.  Your vision for this country is not rooted in any, not one, American tradition.  Your vision for the future of this country is not rooted in one single aspect of American greatness.  That is what you seek to destroy.  Even the least attentive citizens, even if they are only halfwits, now know to vote against you.”... 

Obama’s latest speech showed him for exactly what and who he is.  Not as an incompetent, golf-playing fool, but a Marxist whose mission it is to destroy what so many others love.

But the ‘Taking America Marxist Speech’ also shows a huge tactical error on the part of Obama and his global masters:  While he may have the Public School Indoctrinated walking zombie-like towards November 6, 2012,  the Marxists looking to conquer the USA forgot that you cannot possibly wipe out the generations that came before the indoctrinated—including the ones that went out to the battlefields to keep the word safe from Hitler in World War II.

Those generations and those who were allowed to be born after shall never forget and intend to make Obama’s Osawatomie speech Obama’s Waterloo. 

udi McLeod 
Most recent columns

Copyright © Canada Free Press

Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.

Judi can be emailed at:[email protected]

Older articles by Judi McLeod



Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:08
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Dr. Herb Titus: Born In Hawaii Does Not


Make Obama Natural Born Citizen PT 1 

Dr. Herb Titus: Born In Hawaii Does Not


Make Obama Natural Born Citizen PT 2


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:37
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
S?bado, 10 de diciembre de 2011

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/12/08/obama-channels-hugo-chavez-shows-why-he-cant-lead-on-the-economy/

Obama Channels Hugo Chavez, Shows Why He Can't Lead On The Economy

 
Official photographic portrait of US President...

Image via Wikipedia

On Tuesday, President Obama went to Osawatomie High School in Kansas to deliver an address framing the economic issues for the 2012 election.  He was following in the footsteps of turn of the century “progressive” Teddy Roosevelt, who spoke at that same site 100 years ago to rail against big corporations and the privileged, while calling for “fair play” for ordinary Americans.

But the speech only showed why Obama can’t lead America on the economy.  Instead of leading us forward into the modern economics of the 21st century, he keeps reaching back into the economics and politics of old – the failed Keynesian economics of Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s, the disastrous stagflation of Jimmy Carter in the 1970s, and the supposed promise of progressivism 100 years ago, before the demonstrated failures of Marxism worldwide in the 20th century.

He drew a picture of America as a struggling third world nation, saying at stake today “is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, and secure a retirement.”  He explained America before his coming as “Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and investments than ever before.  But everyone else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t.”

This sounds more like Indonesia, or Venezuela, or Nicaragua.  But it is not America “long before the recession hit.”

He explained the roots of the problem as,

Over the last few decades, huge advances in technology have allowed businesses to do more with less, and made it easier for them to set up shop and hire workers anywhere in the world….Steel mills that needed 1,000 employees are now able to do the same work with 100, so that layoffs were too often permanent, not just a temporary part of the business cycle….If you were a bank teller or a phone operator or a travel agent, you saw many in your profession replaced by ATMs or the Internet.

This Luddite analysis fundamentally misconceives the role of technology in a modern economy.  Such advancing technology increases worker productivity, and hence wages and standards of living.  Technological progress over the decades is why the average American worker in 2000 enjoyed 7 times the standard of living of the average American worker in 1900.

He identifies the solution in the speech as increased government spending as the foundation for rising prosperity.  He says,

Today, manufacturers and other companies are setting up shop in places with the best infrastructure to ship their products, move their workers, and communicate with the rest of the world.  That’s why the over one million construction workers who lost their jobs when the housing market collapsed shouldn’t be sitting at home with nothing to do.  They should be rebuilding our roads and bridges; laying down faster railroads and broadband; modernizing our schools – all the things other countries are doing to attract good jobs and businesses to their shores.

 

Before Barack Obama as President, the rest of the world looked to America as the example for the economic model that works to achieve prosperity.  But today Obama tells America “It doesn’t work.  It’s never worked.  It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression.  It’s not what led to the incredible postwar boom of the 50s and 60s.  And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade.”

Instead he tells us to look at the basic infrastructure spending of other countries as the model that works.  But American economic growth is not suffering because of a lack of basic infrastructure like a third world country.  It is suffering because Obama is so doggedly pursuing the opposite of every policy that would free the economy to produce and boom.  Under such Obamanomics, soon enough America will be suffering from the lack of a reliable energy grid like a third world country.

And of course, essential to that essential infrastructure spending, Obama tutors us, is to increase tax rates on the nation’s investors and job creators.  He said in Kansas on Tuesday,

“But we don’t have unlimited resources.  And so we have to set priorities.  If we want a strong middle class, then our tax code must reflect our values.  We have to make choices….Do we want to make the investments we need in things like education, and research, and high-tech manufacturing?  Or do we want to keep in place the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in our country?  Because we can’t afford to do both.  That’s not politics.  That’s just math.”

So there you have the Obama formula for an economic growth.  After the greatest runaway spending spree in American history during the Obama Administration, the answer is for government to increase spending even more, financed by increasing tax rates even more on the very investors and job creators that produce the jobs for the middle class and working people in America’s economic system.  That is a perfect prescription for another recession, not the long, long overdue recovery America is still waiting for under Obamanomics.

Obama tells us, “It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay a higher tax rate than somebody pulling in $50 million.”  That would be wrong if it was true.  But it is not.

What Obama is peddling to America on tax policy is only the ugliest example of his well-established rhetorical style of calculated deception.  It is based on what he thinks the average voter does not know and will not know, and can be manipulated to believe to Obama’s political advantage.  For the picture he is painting of the rich getting away without paying their fair share while working people bear most of the tax burden is the opposite of reality.

Even before Obama was elected, under those “failed policies of the past,” the top 1% of income earners in 2007 paid 40% of federal income taxes, while the CBO just reported that they earned that year 17% of the income.  Moreover, that 40% of federal income taxes paid by the top 1% was more than paid by the bottom 95% combined, according to official IRS data.  While the top 1% paid 40% of federal income taxes, the bottom 40% paid no federal income taxes as a group on net.  Today 47% pay no federal income taxes.

Yet, Obama has already enacted under current law further tax increases on the nation’s job creators, investors and small businesses going into effect in 2013, when the tax increases of Obamacare become effective and the Bush tax cuts expire.  Consequently, that year the top two income tax rates would rise by close to 20%, the capital gains tax would soar by nearly 60%, the tax on dividends would nearly triple, and the Medicare payroll tax would rocket up by 62% for these disfavored taxpayers.  This alone would take us well beyond the Clinton tax rates, despite Obama’s outdated talking point that he is still repeating from 2008.

This is in addition to America suffering with virtually the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world at nearly 40% on average, counting state corporate rates.  As I have previously noted, even China imposes only a 25% rate, with the rate in the EU even less on average.  Our Canadian neighbors next year, now booming while America lags under Obama, will enjoy a 15% rate next year.

Yet, Obama barnstorms America calling for still more tax increases on American business, large and small, and the job creators and investors on which jobs and prosperity for working people depend. The galloping regulatory burdens he is now imposing effectively involve still further tax increases stifling production.  It all adds up to a brew for another recession in 2013, unless the American people force a change in course in 2012.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:00
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 09 de diciembre de 2011

http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/ART2SUPERPACPRESSRELEASE1.pdf

http://www.art2superpac.com/

After the Office of the President of the United States was usurped by a dual-citizen candidate in 2008, the nation was awakened to the realization that the U.S. Constitution, in particular Article II and presidential eligibility; no longer matters to our elected representatives and the main stream media. Efforts for redress against this attack on the U.S. Constitution ranging from lawsuits to merely seeking the truth as to how it could happen were met with lies, obfuscation and even ridicule. With a complicit media ignoring all calls for honest reporting on the issue, Americans harnessed the internet and the new technologies of the 21st century to join in a communications revolution bypassing the media and bringing to life the ideals of our Founding Fathers.
 
Arising out of this synergy and answering the call to defend the U.S. Constitution, fellow Americans across the country have joined forces and proudly announce Article II Super PAC.

Article II Super PAC's overall goal is to ensure that citizens and elected officials clearly understand Article II and the definitive meaning intended by the United States of America's Founding Fathers of “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN,” thereby working to create a legally-binding vetting apparatus which will ensure all presidential and vice-presidential candidates are constitutionally eligible in 2012 and future elections.

We begin today to raise the needed resources to develop materials, to promote our message across the Country, assisting with key state ballot challenges, continuing to assemble our legal team which include the brightest constitutional and elections law experts and so much more.

We begin today building a virtual army of patriots who will serve as our frontline of EDUCATORS. Be it hosting neighborhood “chats,” handing out educational materials, speaking engagements, writing letters to your hometown newspapers, or correcting misinformation with the FACTS in the blogosphere, Article II PAC is ready to put you to work.

Join us in our efforts today by signing up to volunteer and/or making adonation. Every person and every penny counts. Working together increases our ability to reach a majority of voters to cast their 2012 votes for only those presidential and vice presidential candidates who are constitutionally eligible.

Help us spread the word by sharing Article II Super PAC’s mission with all of your friends, family, colleagues, fellow patriots, Twitter followers, bloggers, Facebook pals and neighbors today.

Make a secure online donation by credit card or check by clicking here. Also, you can participate in the Avenue of Allegiance interactive page here.


Article II Super PAC does not make contributions to candidates. Art2SuperPAC may accept unlimited corporate contributions and unlimited individual contributions. Funds raised by Art2SuperPAC will only be used for independent expenditures. Contributions to Art2SuperPAC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Contributions from foreign nationals and federal-government contractors are prohibited.

www.Art2SuperPAC.com


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:37
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

http://rightwingnews.com/democrats/video-obama-capitalism-and-liberty-dont-work/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rightwingnews%2FhGmL+%28Right+Wing+News%29

Video: Obama: Capitalism and Liberty Don’t Work
Written By : Warner Todd Huston

Barack Obama, President of the United Deniers of America, is slamming the country again. This time he ways that capitalism, liberty, and American principles have never worked.

Speaking in Osawatomie, Kansas, where in 1910 an off-the-rails Teddy Roosevelt laid out a new socialist-inspired dream for America he entitled the “New Nationalism,” Obama had a few choice words for our American principles.

In his speech, Obama went for the gusto in class warfare rhetoric characterizing anyone that makes a few dollars as the eeevil rich that refuse to be “fair” to the poor. Obama told his audience that capitalism doesn’t work and never did. And guess what he thinks the solution is? Yep, more power to himself and government.

If no other video clip has done it for you, this one should show that Barack Obama’s ideals are not American ideals.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:40
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/12/08/georgia-law-makes-secretary-of-state-responsible-for-vetting-candidates/

Georgia Law Makes Secretary of State Responsible for Vetting Candidates

BUT WILL THE LAW BE UPHELD?

Dear Editor:  The following letter was sent to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp:

December 8, 2011

Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp has not responded to a citizen's demand that the state and U.S. Constitutions be followed

Secretary of State Kemp, by certified mail:

Georgia O.C.G.A. Elections Title 21, Chapter 2 specifies the procedure for qualifying candidates.  O.C.G.A. 21-2-5(c) specifies that “The Secretary of Stateshall determine if the candidate is qualified . . .” My FOIA request for the certification of Barack Obama for our Georgia primary went unanswered.  Your lack of response implies that you have nothing, which makes it quite clear that Barack Obama was not qualified before placement on the Georgia ballot. enc. 5, 5a

Therefore you must remove Obama from the ballot until you can find that he has acceptable qualifications. enc. 4a However, I ask that you consider the following information in your deliberations.  It is information that clearly shows Obama cannot be qualified for the position of President of the united States.  You will conclude that Obama cannot be returned to the ballot.  To return Obama to the ballot would be additional misconduct on your part.  This is not a request or question for judicial hearing but rather a statement of your misconduct and request for redress by correction of your misconduct.  The law in Title 21 is clear!

The Minor v. Happersett SCOTUS opinion by Chief Justice Waite clearly states that natural born citizens are created by citizen parents (plural) as shown in enc. 1, attached.

The U. S. Congress affirmed this with eight failed attempts at changing the provision of Art. II, Sec. 1 of the Constitution by legislative order and/or amendment in enc. 2 and; finally settled on S. Res 511, co-sponsored by then Senator Barack Obama, which re-affirmed Minor by stating that natural born citizens came from American citizens (plural), enc. 3.  Schneider affirms that Amendment 14 does not pertain to the mandates of Art. II, Sec. 1. enc. 3a.    A rebuttal to the most recent iteration of Haskell’s CRS memo is included as enc. 3b.  Presidential candidates must be born of united States citizens (plural).

FactCheck, an arm of the liberal movement has confirmed that Obama’s reputed father was a British/Kenya citizen.  Obama’s FightTheSmears website concurs with FactCheck that his father was a foreign national, enc. 4.  Obama was not born of U. S. citizen parents (plural).

The DNC did not vet Obama as required by O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 (a), therefore you must first remove Obama from our ballot as not being certified and then review the data in my enclosures 1-4, which prove Obama is not qualified to be on our ballot for president.  This is your responsibility according to OCGA 21-2-5 (c).  You will see from the data in the attached enclosures that you then must not return Obama to our ballot.  See enc. 4a for the definition of your responsibilities, as defined by your predecessor in 2008. The law of Title 21 is clear.  It will be additional misconduct on your part to allow an unqualified candidate to appear on the ballot. 

The following excerpts have been made from the Georgia Codes for your reference.  They all have similar meaning and intent; that being: you have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, there are very real penalties for not doing so.

Title § 1-3-6 – When laws become obligatory; effect of ignorance
After they take effect, the laws of this state are obligatory upon all the inhabitants thereof. Ignorance of the law excuses no one

Title § 45-3-15 – Loyalty oath — Proceeding for false swearing when oath violated O.C.G.A. 45-3-15 (2010) 45-3-15. Loyalty oath — Proceeding for false swearing when oath violated  If any person required to do so by Code Sections 45-3-11 through 45-3-14 and this Code section executes a loyalty oath and subsequently it is proved that said individual has violated the oath, then the governing authority shall institute proceedings in the proper court against such person for false swearing.

Title § 45-10-1 – Establishment and text of code of ethics for government service generally
Any person in government service should:
I. Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or government department.
II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and the State of Georgia and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.
IX. Expose corruption wherever discovered.

Title § 16-14-3 – Definitions
(8) “Pattern of racketeering activity” means:
(A) Engaging in at least two acts of racketeering activity in furtherance of one or more incidents, schemes, or transactions that have the same or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims, or methods of commission or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents, provided at least one of such acts occurred after July 1, 1980, and that the last of such acts occurred within four years, excluding any periods of imprisonment, after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity; or
(9)(A) “Racketeering activity” means to commit, to attempt to commit, or to solicit, coerce, or intimidate another person to commit any crime which is chargeable by indictment under the following laws of this state:
(xv) Article 4 of Chapter 10 of this title and Code Sections 16-10-20, 16-10-23, and 16-10-91, relating to perjury and other falsifications;

For the Republic,

M. J. Blanchard

cc:

Attorney General Olens

media, grassroots, distribution, wide.

enc. 1

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162

U.S. Supreme Court

MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)

88 U.S. 162 (Wall.)

MINOR
v.
HAPPERSETT.

October Term, 1874

[88 U.S. 162, 163]   ERROR to the Supreme Court of Missouri; the case being thus:

discussion omitted

The CHIEF JUSTICE (Morrison Waite) delivered the opinion of the court.

excerpt:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168]   parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”

Minor is often confused with Amendment 14 which has to do with citizens.  Art. II, Sec 1 is unique to qualifications of the president in that it calls for a natural born citizen, a term the Founders took from Vattel’s Law of Nations treatise.

Note, also, in enc. 4 that the British Nationality Act of 1948 follows Vattel, as well, i.e. the citizenship of the son follows that of the father.  The BNA is otherwise irrelevant to the argument.

enc. 2

http://thepatriotsnews.com/indx.php/content/163

The Patriots News

J. B. Williams

Democrat members of Congress made no less than eight (8) attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record…

1.    On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59 in the 108th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].

2.    On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

3.    On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128 -  “Natural Born Citizen Act – Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]

4.    On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No co-sponsors.

5.    Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2 to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

6.    Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor

7.    On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]

8.    All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO]tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678 on February 28, 2008 – “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.” – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [AZ] would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.)
From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee—All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.

In politics, there are no coincidences… not of this magnitude.

Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511

enc. 3

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/text

SRES 511

Calendar No. 715

ATS

110th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. RES. 511

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 10, 2008

Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

April 24, 2008

Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment

April 30, 2008

Considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

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.

110th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. RES. 511

RESOLUTION

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.


April 24, 2008

Reported without amendment

enc. 3a:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/377/163/case.html

SCHNEIDER V. RUSK, 377 U. S. 163 (1964)

U.S. Supreme Court

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)

Schneider v. Rusk No. 368

Argued April 2, 1964

Decided May 18, 1964

377 U.S. 163

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Excerpted from Syllabus:

“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, “becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual.”

The rights and establishment of the natural born citizen do not come from the 14th amendment.  Only a natural born citizen is eligible to be President.

enc. 3b

The following rebuttal to Maskall’s latest revision to his CRS memo concerning the certification of a Natural Born Citizen was put together by Leo Donofrio.  Attorney Donofrio has been researching this void in the Constitution for several years.  His rebuttal is immaculate to the point of obviating the whole document.  Arguing against the original intent of the Constitution is a losing proposition no matter how glib or devious one may be.

However, I don’t necessarily agree with Donofrio’s LOOMING CONSTITUTIONAL DISASTERS scenario.  We are a nation of laws and those laws are derived from our Constitution, which still stands.  We have good men in elected office who have sworn oaths to defend this Constitution and who will prevent the untoward events that Donofrio predicts.

Natural Born Citizen

Debunking The New Natural Born Citizen Congressional Research Propaganda.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

December 1, 2011 at 6:03 PM

“Yesterday, attorney Jack Maskell issued yet another version of his ever changing Congressional Research Memo on POTUS eligibility and the natural-born citizen clause.  The CRS memo is actually a blessing for me in that I’ve been putting a comprehensive report together on this issue for about a month now.  But not having an official source standing behind the entire body of propaganda made my job more difficult.

The complete refutation will be available soon, but for now I will highlight one particularly deceptive example which illustrates blatant intellectual dishonesty.  On pg. 48, Maskell states:

In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”221

221 Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920). The Supreme Court also noted there: “It is better that many Chinese immigrants should be improperly admitted than that one natural born citizen of the United States should be permanently excluded from his country.” 253 U.S. at 464.

Reading this yesterday, I had a fleeting moment of self-doubt.  Could I have missed this case?  Did the Supreme Court really state that the son of two aliens was a natural-born citizen?  The Twilight Zone theme suddenly chimed in.  I then clicked over to the actual case, and of course, the Supreme Court said no such thing.

The petitioner was born in California to parents who were both US citizens.  His father was born in the United States and was a citizen by virtue of the holding in US v. Wong Kim Ark.  His mother’ place of birth was not mentioned.  Regardless, she was covered by the derivative citizenship statute, and was, therefore, a US citizen when the child was born.

It was alleged that the petitioner had obtained a false identity and that the citizen parents were not his real parents.  But the Supreme Court rejected the State’s secret evidence on this point and conducted their citizenship analysis based upon an assumption these were petitioner’s real parents.

Having been born in the US of parents who were citizens, petitioner was indeed a natural-born citizen.  But Maskell’s frightening quotation surgery makes it appear as if the petitioner was born of alien parents.  The Supreme Court rejected that contention.  And Maskell’s ruse highlights thedepravity of lies being shoved down the nation’s throat on this issue.  I can imagine Mini-Mesitting on his lap while this was being prepared.

When you look carefully at Maskell’s creative use of quotation marks, you’ll see that the statement is NOT a quote from the case, but rather a Frankenstein inspired patchwork.  He starts the reversed vivisection off with the following:

“[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son…”

These are the first few words of a genuine quote from the Court’s opinion.  Then Maskell goes way out of context for the next two body parts.  The first is not in quotation marks:

of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is

And finally, an unrelated quote from elsewhere in the Court’s opinion:

“a natural born American citizen ….”

Put it all together and you get the following monstrosity:

…the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”

But the Supreme Court never said that.  Here’s what they actually said:

“It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 Sup. Ct. 456.”  Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920).

This real quote – when liberated from Maskell’s embalming fluid – does not resemble the propaganda at all.

Maskell avoids the inconvenient truth that the Court took direct notice of the authorities having established that the petitioner’s father was born in the US and that he was a voter:

“…the father of the boy was native born and was a voter in that community.”  Id. at 460.

Maskell never mentions that the father and mother were US citizens at the time of petitioner’s birth in California.

This deceitful exercise alone strips the entire memo of all credibility.

Had Maskell simply offered his arguments fairly, using real quotes instead of Frankensteining this crap, I would not have attacked him personally.  But such deceptive behavior deserves no respect whatsoever.  The memo is pure propaganda, and it’s not even shy about it.

LOOMING CONSTITUTIONAL DISASTERS

The timing of the memo’s appearance is alarming.  I have been saying for quite awhile now that Obama doesn’t really have to worry about the natural-born issue coming back to haunt him in court unless he attempts to suspend the Constitution.  I know that sounds paranoid.  And nothingwould please me more than to be wrong on that prophecy.  If my fears don’t come to pass, I will gladly wear the tin foil hat of shame.  But the appearance of the updated CRS memo at this particular moment portends a Constitutional disaster.

If Obama attempts to suspend the US Constitution and/or declare martial law and/or suspend the 2012 election… chances of the natural-born citizen issue finding its way to the Supreme Court on the merits increase exponentially.”

enc. 4

http://factcheck.org/2008/08/obamas-kenyan-citizenship/

Obama’s Kenyan Citizenship?

Posted on August 29, 2008 , Corrected on September 3, 2008

Q: Does Barack Obama have Kenyan citizenship?

A: No. He held both U.S. and Kenyan citizenship as a child, but lost his Kenyan citizenship automatically on his 23rd birthday.

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children:

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”

Corroborated on Obama’s Fight the Smears website here:

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

Obama’s reputed father was a British citizen at the time of Obama’s birth.

Note also that FactCheck is a project of The Annenberg Foundation and that the Annenberg Foundation receives funding from the Tides Foundation which in turn is a George Soros financed group.  George Soros was an early supporter of Obama’s political ascension.  This piece, then, could be biased as are many FactCheck “facts” but towards, or in favor of Obama.  Obama co-chaired the Chicago division of the Annenberg Foundation with Bill Ayers in the early 1990’s.

For FactCheck to make this admission in the face of SCOTUS and U. S. Senate decisions on “natural born” citizens is blatantly arrogant as was the attempt by Congress to “modify” the Constitution.

enc. 4a

Election Law In Georgia: What City And County

Attorneys Need To Know

Karen C. Handel

Georgia Secretary of State

Atlanta, Georgia

Wesley B. Tailor, Esq.

Elections Division Director

Office of Secretary of State

Atlanta, Georgia

September 2008

II. Elections

5. Secretary of State

The General Assembly has empowered the Secretary of State to carry out a wide range of responsibilities in the area of overseeing Georgia’s election processes,   O.C.G.A. § 21-2-50(a)(1)-(15). These responsibilities include setting the forms for nomination petitions and ballots, receiving nomination petitions from persons running for state offices, determining whether such candidates are properly qualified*, building or programming ballots for local governments using DRE’s, and generally facilitating the operation of the State’s election system by helping to train and coordinate with the various local elections officials.

*O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 (c)  “The Secretary of State shall determine if the candidate is qualified to seek and hold the public office for which such candidate is offering.  If the Secretary of State determines that the candidate is not qualified, the Secretary of State shall withhold the name of the candidate from the ballot . . .”

It is clear in the OCGA’s and it was clear to our previous SOS what the duties of the SOS elections division entailed, i.e. the SOS had the ultimate responsibility to the Georgia electorate to assure qualified candidates were placed on our ballot.

enc. 5

                                                                                                                                                                                                 November 28, 2011

Secretary Kemp by certified mail:

Pursuant to the Georgia Open Records Law (O.C.G.A § 50-18-70 et seq.) (the “Law&rdquoGui?o, you are hereby requested to provide copies of all files, records and other documents in your possession that refer, reflect or relate to placing Barack Obama on the Georgia primary election ballot for year 2012.

This request includes, but is not limited to, all documents, notes, correspondence and memoranda evidencing the certification of Barack Obama according to U. S. Constitution Art II, Sec. 1 eligibility requirements for president of the united States, and all communication and correspondence in whatever tangible medium between and among the applicable office of or division of the office of the Georgia Secretary of State and any entity of the Democratic Party to include but not be limited to the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives or her designee, the Chair of the Democratic Party or her designee, and or any entity of the Democratic Party who holds themselves out to be responsible for the certification of the Democratic Party candidate for President of the united States for the election year 2012.

If this request is denied in whole or in part, we ask that you cite in writing the specific statutory exemption upon which you have relied, as required by law.  We also ask that you release all separate portions of otherwise exempt material.  Please waive any costs associated with this request, or first inform us about such costs as required by Georgia law.

As you know, the Law requires a response by you within three business days of your receipt of this letter and provides sanctions for non-compliance.  I look forward to hearing from you.

For the Republic,

M. J. Blanchard

cc:

Attorney General Olens

enc. 5a

© 2011, 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 @ 8:13
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 04 de diciembre de 2011

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/42942

Occupy Wall Street is Just More Obama Revolutionary Rabble-Rousing

Obama Support of “Arab Spring”—Clear Marxist Values Leading to Sharia Law Revolution


Sadly, Obama’s only “achievement,” the “Obama Doctrine” of indirect-intervention in other state’s affairs by funding indigenous rebellions is not just failed but threatens increased risk of regional conflict. Proof already exists in Egypt’s recent election where the Muslim Brotherhood have taken a large share of the recent election and now can demand shariah law. Further Arab Spring revolutions are bound to deliver a similar result since we are expecting the Muslim world to spontaneously conform to Western ideas of just government. ¬†But this will never happen of itself but instead will take painstaking nurture instead of simply lighting bombs then walking away.


I. The Obama Doctrine: Foreign Proxy Wars via the Silent TreatmentCuriously, it is Marxism, not Islam, that stands to gain the most from such destructive chaos since Marx claimed that revolution was a precursor to the communist state. So no wonder Barrack delivers munitions and advisers to topple random governments as he believes the net result will always help his beloved socialism. This essay examines this frightening development and asks if we really must go down this road of making the Middle East more Muslim law oriented and less Western sympathetic?

The Obama Doctrine has been used to describe his apparent theory of backing proxies to fight wars against regimes America wishes to run out of power, as seen in Libya withMuammar Gaddafi. It is said to be a silent doctrine, ie it does not announce it is in effect. According to Reason, Obama favors indirect interventions and preemptive proxy wars, but not “dumb wars.”

A. Obama Doctrine = Foreign War by Proxy

Various writers have opined on the meaning of the Obama Doctrine. These elements seem obvious—
  
  1. “Leading From Behind”, ie letting others initiate military action;

  2. Supporting troops from others countries to fight;

  3. Seeking regime change in countries who may, or may not, be US allies.;

  4. Refusing to announce military action, including not seeking sanction in Congress (see below);

  5. Using America’s high-tech advantage, including stealth weapons and drones to take out the bad guys;

6. Back local resistance without knowing who or what ideals these groups represent;

7. Going after tyrants regardless of our historic relationship with them.

B. Silent Treatment

According to Roger Cohen in the New York Times, America has a new theory of war—one which is punctuated by silence…

The Obama administration has a doctrine. It’s called the doctrine of silence. A radical shift from President Bush’s war on terror, it has never been set out to the American people. There has seldom been so big a change in approach to U.S. strategic policy with so little explanation. The U.S. government says precious little about these new ways of fighting enemies. But the strategic volte-face is clear: America has decided that conventional wars of uncertain outcome in Iraq and Afghanistan that may, according to a Brown University study, end up costing at least $3.7 trillion are a bad way to fight terrorists and that far cheaper, more precise tools for eliminating enemies are preferable—even if the legality of those killings is debatable.

C. Logical Outcome of Obama Doctrine

Several positive things may have initially resulted from applying the Obama Doctrine. First, casualties to American soldiers are nonexistent, for example. But at what cost?

To engage in war-related activities without asking Congress’s permission goes against America’s value of democracy. Further, entering into the support of conflict where there is no skin in the game will lead to rash and superficial judgments. But to blindly foment for revolution, simply to change a sitting tyrant for some unknown person or group is taking an absurd risk. Because who knows what entity will achieve the throne? To repeat an old adage—The Devil you know is better then the Devil you don’t know. Further, when groups in the Middle East agitate, it is not uncommon for these to be religious militants. This is what we see happening now in Egypt, after being told there was no chance Islamic law favoring radicals would take charge.

II. Realities of Politics in Muslim Nations—The Reason for so Many Islamic Tyrannies

While Obama and other hopeful Liberals believe his Obama Doctrine will automatically result in a fairer world with new default democracies springing to life after each revolution, this is highly unlikely. Why? Simply because the democracy model has no part in Muslim history because it has no inherent part in the belief system.

So what does this mean? Frankly, that it is much more likely, if not downright inevitable, that native revolutions will turn after-revolution countries into a shariah-friendly states. Because the democratic model for Islam has yet to be established, and won’t be by Shari’ah-minded rebels. Instead this will take much work and pressure by outside forces. This might seem like a highly prejudicial viewpoint. But it’s a simple recounting of Middle Eastern history and practice, according to Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na‚Äòim’sIslam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari`a and Graham E. Fuller’sThe Future Of Political Islam.

Top Islamic expert Daniel Pipes writes,

There’s an impression that Muslims suffer disproportionately from the rule of dictators, tyrants, unelected presidents, kings, emirs, and various other strongmen—and it’s accurate. A careful analysis by Frederic L. Pryor of Swarthmore College in the Middle East Quarterly (”Are Muslim Countries Less Democratic?&rdquoGui?o concludes that “In all but the poorest countries, Islam is associated with fewer political rights.”

So what will it take for Islam to finally adopt constitutional republican democracies?Pipes goes on in his theme:

The fact that majority-Muslim countries are less democratic makes it tempting to conclude that the religion of Islam, their common factor, is itself incompatible with democracy. I disagree with that conclusion. Today’s Muslim predicament, rather, reflects historical circumstances more than innate features of Islam. Put differently, Islam, like all pre-modern religions is undemocratic in spirit. No less than the others, however, it has the potential to evolve in a democratic direction.

Such evolution is not easy for any religion. In the Christian case, the battle to limit the Catholic Church’s political role lasted painfully long. If the transition began when Marsiglio of Padua published Defensor pacis in the year 1324, it took another six centuries for the Church fully to reconcile itself to democracy. Why should Islam’s transition be smoother or easier?

To render Islam consistent with democratic ways will require profound changes in its interpretation. For example, the anti-democratic law of Islam, the Shari‚Äòa, lies at the core of the problem. Developed over a millennium ago, it presumes autocratic rulers and submissive subjects, emphasizes God’s will over popular sovereignty, and encourages violent jihad to expand Islam’s borders. Further, it anti-democratically privileges Muslims over non-Muslims, males over females, and free persons over slaves.

For Muslims to build fully functioning democracies, they basically must reject the Shari‚Äòah’s public aspects. Atat√ºrk frontally did just that in Turkey, but others have offered more subtle approaches. Mahmud Muhammad Taha, a Sudanese thinker, dispatched the public Islamic laws by fundamentally reinterpreting the Koran.

The fact is that the only Middle Eastern Muslim democracies ever to exist are those imposed by will—by use of western models. For example, after the great Turkish statesman Ataturk spent a year trying to get Turkish religious leaders to adopt reforms, he gave up. He then banned their participation in the constitutional process, because they could not compromise. He then simply adopted a modified Swiss constitution. And Iraq’s democracy was built upon American blood and sacrifice.

III. Marx’s Doctrine of Revolution

When Obama pretends that all revolution is good, he secretly invokes the spirit of communist revolution. Karl Marx taught in the Communist Manifesto that world revolution was inevitable, and that it would inevitably lead to higher human consciousness and towards and ideal economy and government. So any random Middle Eastern revolution, just like the Occupy Wall Street Marxists raging like adolescents, will still help add to the sum total of global chaos. One writer describes Marx’s theory,

Marx described three necessary phases toward achieving his idea of utopia.

  • Phase 1: A revolution must take place in order to overthrow the existing government. Marx emphasized the nee¬≠d for total destruction of the existing system in order to move on to Phase 2.
  • Phase 2: A dictator or elite leader (or leaders) must gain absolute control over the proletariat. During this phase, the new government exerts absolute control over the common citizen’s personal choices—including his or her education, religion, employment and evenmarriage. Collectivization of property and wealth must also take place.
  • Phase 3: Achievement of utopia. This phase has never been attained because it requires that all non-communists be destroyed in order for the Communist Party to achieve supreme equality. In a Marxist utopia, everyone would happily share property and wealth, free from the restrictions that class-based systems require. The government would control all means of production so that the one-class system would remain constant, with no possibility of any middle class citizens rising back to the top.

IV. Why Obama’s Marxist Agnosticism Will Lead to Middle East Anarchy & War

Unfortunately, as Obama gives direction to the funding and supply of vague uprisings across the Middle East, he makes the world less safe with each bomb sent abroad. He makes a regional or world conflict more likely, as well. After all,where is it stated in the rules of logic that all revolutions must have a democratic finale’?

The rank insanity of simply pushing out a longstanding ally like Mubarak for an inchoate revolution in the name of an “Arab Spring” or some such battle for Human Rights will long haunt the West. The fatuous and simplistic attitude behind such a purge beggars belief in the ignorance it reveals as to the source of real democracy in the world.

Says Israel National News,

Judges overseeing the vote count in Egypt’s parliamentary elections say Islamist parties have won a majority of the contested seats in the first round. The Muslim Brotherhood could take 45% of the seats up for grabs. The liberal Egyptian bloc coalition and the ultra-fundamentalist Nour party are competing for second place. Together, Islamist parties are expected to control a majority of parliamentary seats by March. This week’s vote was the first of six stages of parliamentary elections that will last until then. Continued success by Islamists will allow them to give Cairo’s government and constitution a decidedly Islamist character. It could also lead Cairo to shift away from the West towards the Iranian axis.

The Obama administration’s naïve and thoughtless leftism is also reminiscent of Jimmy Carter’s spectacular failure in auguring the Iranian Revolution and all the curses it birthed upon the world. Journalist Mike Evans describes this in Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos: A Carter/Obama Plan That Will Not Work, which was detailed here: Great Highlights in Marxist “Leadership”: Or, When Change Turns Malignant.

Conclusion:

It is time to return to a more humble and predicable foreign policy which may mean eschewing all left-wing politicos and foreign wars, in general. If not, and we can’t stanch the hemorrhaging—America’s goose might finally be cooked.


Kelly O'Connell 
Most recent columns


Kelly O’Connell hosts American Anthem on CFP Radio Sundays at 4 pm (EST).

Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico.

Kelly can be reached at:[email protected]



Publicado por Corazon7 @ 18:05
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Iron Curtain Begins Descending onto the United States of America

As Barack Hussein Obama’s real (internal) poll numbers continue to plummet into oblivion, Obama and his increasingly complicit Congress secretly pass laws that will enslave, incarcerate and even murder their fellow Americans–for the explicit purpose of those who are currently in power remaining in power.  It is now becoming clearer and clearer that both the Marxist-Democrats and their RINO brothers and sisters may not allow the 2012 elections to occur.

The latest anti-liberty and unconstitutional atrocities include but, are not limited to, some of the following items:

1.  DHS still lists Christians, anti-abortionists, homeschoolers, libertarians, conservatives, and military rank and file as terrorists.  Note:  Islamists are still not included on the list

2.  Christian preachers are now being arrested, and often beaten up, by police.   A few preachers who have been arrested include two Houston pastors who were arrested for (legally) preaching against homosexuality on the same corner for the past two years.  One of the police officers told them that they were ‘doing nothing wrong’.  That was just before the cops grabbed their video camera, forced them to the ground, placed them in handcuffs and took them to the station.

The charges against them are unclear but, appear to include preaching a message the Houston cops didn‘t like.  However, WND reports:    “Their hearing will be in Houston Municipal Court, which is run by [lesbian] Barbara E. Hartle, who, according to the Dallas Voice, is listed by the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund as “one of only a few out members of the Texas judiciary.”

WND also reports that Pastor Michael Marcavage, founder of the evangelistic Repent America ministry, was placed on the FBI’s terrorist watch list for “nonviolent religious speech which government officials perceive as [merely] controversial.”  Controversial?  Being controversial is now a crime?  In another incident, Pastor Rives Grogan and his 11 year old son were illegally arrested for preaching against abortion in a public (and allowed) free-speech zone.

3.  The most recent and titanic infringement on the rights of all US citizens is a bill (National Defense Authorization Act-NDAA).  Although Section 1032 subsection (b) (1) and (2) of S 1867 (passed in secret and behind closed doors) states that US Citizens and legal resident aliens are not subject to military incarceration, US Senators (including now self-outed Marxist Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham) are gleefully interpreting Section 1031 to include all US citizens being subject to “Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”

In other words, we may now experience what those recently nationwide refurbished FEMA camps look like.  This is no longer conspiracy theory, folks.  Senators Carl Levin (D-MI), John McCain (R-AX) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) amongst many others have now not only threatened all of us with arrest but, are threatening the very foundations of what used to be our country.  The masks have come off of our elected officials and most of them now resemble either Josef Stalin or Adolph Hitler.

Every totalitarian government starts out in almost the identical way.  First, it begins with some sort of political correctness indoctrination, then it begins taking away liberties a little at a time, then it explains that it can make decisions (including your money) for you better than you can.  It decides that it can not only indoctrinate you children better but, can raise them better that you.  Vladimir Ilyich Lenin said:  “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”

The next to final step of all of these brutal and repressive governments is to make scapegoats of law-abiding citizens and raise up the lawbreakers as “acceptable.”  Note:  The TEA Party vs. OWS comparison comes readily to mind.

The final step is the incarceration and, ultimate, genocide of those who oppose their own enslavement.  We now stand in the beginning of the final phase-solution of the existence of the United States of America.  The Executive and Legislative branches of our government are now consistently operating outside of US law and have firmly become the enemy of We-the-People.  You may not want to hear this.  The truth often cuts deeply.  The government has moved beyond rogue and has now entered the complete and final Dictatorial Tyranny stage.  Will you stand and fight or will you lie down and die?  The choice is still yours…but, not for much longer.

The Iron Curtain has now almost fully descended onto the borders of the United States of America.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.”

–The unanimous Declaration [of Independence] of the thirteen united States of America


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:48
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar